Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[LadyForCamus]

No, we're not on the same page. You had to be corrected on your usage of the word "theory" in a scientific context.

And good to know you Google at the last minute, at least, lol.

So, are you saying theories are hypothesis that graduated to theories because of positive results? If we run the pixie experiment and the results support the hypothesis, it should be promoted to theory? Because if you're not saying that, then I don't see where I was corrected.

It’s weird; you’d think a cog sci student with a special interest in biology, who is here to discuss the nuances of the evolution of the human eye, would have this foundational terminology already under his belt. 🤨

[John 6IX Breezy]

So, are you saying theories are hypothesis that graduated to theories because of positive results? If we run the pixie experiment and the results support the hypothesis, it should be promoted to theory? Because if you're not saying that, then I don't see where I was corrected.

Stop with the games, dude, lol. You didn't know what a theory means, LFC had to correct you on that, and now you're trying to save face by acting like you were trying to make some clever rhetorical point.

There's no rhetorical point. If you think hypothesis become theories when there is evidence for them, you are mistaken. If that were the case every scientific paper that gets published would be the birth a new theory, since the reason they're published is (sadly) because they got positive results for their hypotheses.

Moreover, what do you do with theories that begin having evidence against them, demote them to hypotheses?

[GrandizerII]

Stop with the games, dude, lol. You didn't know what a theory means, LFC had to correct you on that, and now you're trying to save face by acting like you were trying to make some clever rhetorical point.

There's no rhetorical point. If you think hypothesis become theories when there is evidence for them, you are mistaken. If that were the case every scientific paper that gets published would be the birth a new theory, since the reason they're is (sadly) because they got positive results for their hypotheses.

Moreover, what do you do with theories that begin having evidence against them, demote them to hypotheses?

Where did I say any of what you think I said?

You showed that you were ignorant of what a theory means scientifically. Which is why you thought it was legit to talk about some space pixies theory being just as much a valid theory as a truly legit scientific one ...

A reminder of what you said:

A theory of space pixies wouldn't be as accurate as another theory of gravity (depending on the theory), but yes, they would both still be just theories. So their validity would differ, but not their composition as theories.

In what way is a space pixies a scientific theory? If it's not scientifically-based, it can't be a scientific theory. It would just be speculations of an uneducated madman ...

No, you don't demote theories that turn out t be wrong to hypotheses ... because theories are not a matter of improved hypotheses. Hypotheses are in their own categories from theories. Theories are well-established explanations (scientifically speaking) that explain the phenomenon observed in nature, they are often based on (or strengthened by) the results of hypotheses that have passed but it's not as simple as being just an accumulation of hypotheses that passed. It does have to explain adequately the overall picture of the phenomenon under observation, and it has to be well-established scientifically. And a theory still has to have predictive power and be testable and good at passing the tests.

Space pixies theory isn't anything like that. It's only a "theory" in the colloquial sense.

[LadyForCamus]

Stop with the games, dude, lol. You didn't know what a theory means, LFC had to correct you on that, and now you're trying to save face by acting like you were trying to make some clever rhetorical point.

There's no rhetorical point. If you think hypothesis become theories when there is evidence for them, you are mistaken. If that were the case every scientific paper that gets published would be the birth a new theory, since the reason they're  published is (sadly) because they got positive results for their hypotheses.

Moreover, what do you do with theories that begin having evidence against them, demote them to hypotheses?

scientific theory:

A coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world, and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation: the scientific theory of evolution.

[John 6IX Breezy]

A theory of space pixies wouldn't be as accurate as another theory of gravity (depending on the theory), but yes, they would both still be just theories. So their validity would differ, but not their composition as theories.

In what way is a space pixies a scientific theory? If it's not scientifically-based, it can't be a scientific theory. It would just be speculations of an uneducated madman ...

Its a scientific theory in the way it was presented by Abaddon_ire. Its a theory that explains gravity as the result of these space pixies pressing us down to the surface. There's nothing unscientific about that. There's nothing in that statement to suggest its an unfalsifiable, and untestable theory.

[Anomalocaris]

You know what I say?  Lol...I say that you came to this board completely unprepared and under equipped.

Nonsense.   He was as well prepared as any to be smug, to be intellectually dishonest, to appeal to ignorance, to affect erudition while committing to as little as possible so as to be as slippery as possible.    These are all the things most Christians ever had to, or ever felt to be needed to be qualified to, argue science.

[GrandizerII]

In what way is a space pixies a scientific theory? If it's not scientifically-based, it can't be a scientific theory. It would just be speculations of an uneducated madman ...

Its a scientific theory in the way it was presented by Abaddon_ire. Its a theory that explains gravity as the result of these space pixies pressing us down to the surface. There's nothing unscientific about that. There's nothing in that statement to suggest its an unfalsifiable, and untestable theory.

Read my addendum. Explaining is not enough to make it a theory. Otherwise, any proposed explanation could be a theory, lol.

You have no clue what a theory is, and you're just making it clearer and clearer with each post.

[John 6IX Breezy]

No, you don't demote theories that turn out t be wrong to hypotheses ... because theories are not a matter of improved hypotheses. Hypotheses are in their own categories from theories. Theories are well-established explanations (scientifically speaking) that explain the phenomenon observed in nature, they are often based on (or strengthened by) the results of hypotheses that have passed but it's not as simple as being just an accumulation of hypotheses that passed. It does have to explain adequately the overall picture of the phenomenon under observation, and it has to be well-established scientifically. And a theory still has to have predictive power and be testable and good at passing the tests.

Space pixies theory isn't anything like that. It's only a "theory" in the colloquial sense.

I read the addendum:

Right, so we agree on the distinction between theory and hypotheses. The only thing I would disagree with you on, is that theories don't need to be well-established, in the sense that there is lots of evidence for them. That's demonstrated by your acknowledgement that you don't demote theories if they turn out to be wrong. A theory can be completely an utterly false, and it remains a scientific theory. Science is built on the tombstones of dead theories.

Not to mention that theories are already self-substantiated by whatever phenomenon they seek to explain lol. That's why they can run into issues of falsifiability if they happen to be true under every condition.

[GrandizerII]

No, you don't demote theories that turn out t be wrong to hypotheses ... because theories are not a matter of improved hypotheses. Hypotheses are in their own categories from theories. Theories are well-established explanations (scientifically speaking) that explain the phenomenon observed in nature, they are often based on (or strengthened by) the results of hypotheses that have passed but it's not as simple as being just an accumulation of hypotheses that passed. It does have to explain adequately the overall picture of the phenomenon under observation, and it has to be well-established scientifically. And a theory still has to have predictive power and be testable and good at passing the tests.

Space pixies theory isn't anything like that. It's only a "theory" in the colloquial sense.

Right, so we agree on the distinction between theory and hypotheses. The only thing I would disagree with you on, is that theories don't need to be well-established, in the sense that there is evidence for them. That's demonstrated by your acknowledgement that you don't demote theories if they turn out to be wrong. A theory can be completely an utterly false, and it remains a scientific theory.

You still think a theory is no different from a hypothesis ...

You have the wrong idea of what a theory is. You really do.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Right, so we agree on the distinction between theory and hypotheses. The only thing I would disagree with you on, is that theories don't need to be well-established, in the sense that there is evidence for them. That's demonstrated by your acknowledgement that you don't demote theories if they turn out to be wrong. A theory can be completely an utterly false, and it remains a scientific theory.

You still think a theory is no different from a hypothesis ...

You have the wrong idea of what a theory is. You really do.

If we're both saying that theories and hypotheses are their own separate category, how am I wrong? We're agreeing lol. Either we're both right, or we're both wrong.

Read post #448 - https://atheistforums.org/thread-59486-p...pid1924981

You're echoing what I've said, while saying I'm wrong.