Posts: 67318
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 5:03 pm
Here I thought you had some comment on evolutionary theory. Turns out you just don’t like words and whatnot.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 19789
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 5:13 pm
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 6:32 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(August 7, 2019 at 5:03 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Here I thought you had some comment on evolutionary theory. Turns out you just don’t like words and whatnot.
Every affectation, every obfuscation, every irrelevant quibble, every disingenuous pedanticism, every appeal to ignorance serves to keep jesus in the field a little longer, so count as a small win for Jesus. And John knows Jesus needs any little make belief win even the ones so little that John can give.
Posts: 6610
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 5:18 pm
(August 7, 2019 at 5:00 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: (August 7, 2019 at 4:44 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Did you not read the Essential Criteria section? You really need the word "well-established" to be there for you to get it?
And there may be philosophical debates about what really makes a theory a theory, but doesn't change the fact that no reasonable learned person would argue that the space pixies explanation is a theory ...
Read, dammit. Don't just skim. Especially since you need the education badly.
Words are important. Well-established means one thing and well-supported another (I read the Essential Criteria now). I do prefer the term well-supported, however, because we already saw that a theory that isn't well supported remains a theory. I asked you if theories get demoted when wrong, you said no. Other's have brought up examples of theories that are partially or completely wrong, and are still theories.
"Well-established" is beyond subjective. But at least "well-supported," though still in need of a threshold, is measurable.
Theories (when shown to be wrong) don't get demoted to hypotheses, they're made obsolete or continue to be of some use in a narrower scope (so they would still be theories in a sense, just not one that correctly applies to the whole of reality).
And now you're trying way too hard to not be wrong. Well-established is a problematic and subjective word but well-supported is fine?
Did you get the "essential" bit?
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 5:22 pm
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 5:24 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(August 7, 2019 at 5:00 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: (August 7, 2019 at 4:44 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Did you not read the Essential Criteria section? You really need the word "well-established" to be there for you to get it?
And there may be philosophical debates about what really makes a theory a theory, but doesn't change the fact that no reasonable learned person would argue that the space pixies explanation is a theory ...
Read, dammit. Don't just skim. Especially since you need the education badly.
Words are important. Well-established means one thing and well-supported another (I read the Essential Criteria now). I do prefer the term well-supported, however, because we already saw that a theory that isn't well supported remains a theory. I asked you if theories get demoted when wrong, you said no. Other's have brought up examples of theories that are partially or completely wrong, and are still theories.
"Well-established" is beyond subjective. But at least "well-supported," though still in need of a threshold, is measurable.
A Theory is often true, but also, maybe not true. When a theory is also a hypothesis, it becomes elevated to the status of law. But, when the unsupported law is only partly well-established, it may or not be demoted to a minimally-evidenced observation, yet to be demonstrated. When hypotheses are only minimally-evidenced observations, there is the potential for increased data testing to accumulate, and it could be elevated to a theory, but it wouldn’t be a theoretical hypothesis unless each constituent of the test results can be independently verified. I think it’s important we’re clear on these distinctions before moving forward in the conversation. Words are important.
😏
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 1713
Threads: 16
Joined: August 2, 2019
Reputation:
6
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 5:32 pm
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 5:35 pm by John 6IX Breezy.)
(August 7, 2019 at 5:18 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Theories (when shown to be wrong) don't get demoted to hypotheses, they're made obsolete or continue to be of some use in a narrower scope (so they would still be theories in a sense, just not one that correctly applies to the whole of reality).
And now you're trying way too hard to not be wrong. Well-established is a problematic and subjective word but well-supported is fine?
Did you get the "essential" bit?
"Well-supported" isn't fine, but we can at least count the number of papers in support of a theory to categorize it as such. We can't do that with "well-established."
I saw the essential bit; and its questionable. For example, what do you call pre-theories awaiting to be "well-supported" full-fledged theories? In my personal experience, I've only been taught how to deduce hypotheses from theories, never these pre-theories, does it work the same way? And again, how many supporting papers need to be published for a pre-theory to become a scientific theory?
These question are important, so we know what qualifies as a theory given the "essential bit"
Posts: 6610
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 5:34 pm
(August 7, 2019 at 5:32 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: (August 7, 2019 at 5:18 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Theories (when shown to be wrong) don't get demoted to hypotheses, they're made obsolete or continue to be of some use in a narrower scope (so they would still be theories in a sense, just not one that correctly applies to the whole of reality).
And now you're trying way too hard to not be wrong. Well-established is a problematic and subjective word but well-supported is fine?
Did you get the "essential" bit?
"Well-supported" isn't fine, but we can at least count the number of papers in support of a theory to categorize it as such. We can't do that with "well-established."
I saw the essential bit; and its questionable. For example, what do you call pre-theories awaiting to be "well-supported" to become full fledged theories? In my personal experience, I've only been taught how to deduce hypotheses from theories, never these pre-theories, does it work the same way? And again, how many supporting papers need to be published for a pre-theory to become a scientific theory?
All of this just to continue to defend your argument that "space pixies" is a valid theory?
That,s desperate, man.
Posts: 67318
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 5:35 pm
Eleventy-two.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 1713
Threads: 16
Joined: August 2, 2019
Reputation:
6
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 5:38 pm
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 5:45 pm by John 6IX Breezy.)
(August 7, 2019 at 5:22 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: (August 7, 2019 at 5:00 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Words are important. Well-established means one thing and well-supported another (I read the Essential Criteria now). I do prefer the term well-supported, however, because we already saw that a theory that isn't well supported remains a theory. I asked you if theories get demoted when wrong, you said no. Other's have brought up examples of theories that are partially or completely wrong, and are still theories.
"Well-established" is beyond subjective. But at least "well-supported," though still in need of a threshold, is measurable.
A Theory is often true, but also, maybe not true. When a theory is also a hypothesis, it becomes elevated to the status of law. But, when the unsupported law is only partly well-established, it may or not be demoted to a minimally-evidenced observation, yet to be demonstrated. When hypotheses are only minimally-evidenced observations, there is the potential for increased data testing to accumulate, and it could be elevated to a theory, but it wouldn’t be a theoretical hypothesis unless each constituent of the test results can be independently verified. I think it’s important we’re clear on these distinctions before moving forward in the conversation. Words are important.
😏
Hypothesis are predictions about the result of an experiment. Laws are summaries or descriptions for natural phenomenon. Theories are explanations or models for bodies of observations or laws. Yes, let's be clear.
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 5:39 pm
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 5:41 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(August 7, 2019 at 5:32 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: (August 7, 2019 at 5:18 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Theories (when shown to be wrong) don't get demoted to hypotheses, they're made obsolete or continue to be of some use in a narrower scope (so they would still be theories in a sense, just not one that correctly applies to the whole of reality).
And now you're trying way too hard to not be wrong. Well-established is a problematic and subjective word but well-supported is fine?
Did you get the "essential" bit?
"Well-supported" isn't fine, but we can at least count the number of papers in support of a theory to categorize it as such. We can't do that with "well-established."
I saw the essential bit; and its questionable. For example, what do you call pre-theories awaiting to be "well-supported" full-fledged theories? In my personal experience, I've only been taught how to deduce hypotheses from theories, never these pre-theories, does it work the same way? And again, how many supporting papers need to be published for a pre-theory to become a scientific theory?
These question are important, so we know what qualifies as a theory given the "essential bit"
Well, a pre-theory is one step after a post-hypothesis, and one half-step before a full fledged theory. In between those two are semi-laws which require no less than three scientific papers, but may not exceed ten, lest it cross into theory territory which would require well-established, but perhaps wholly unsupported, yet still “essential” data.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 6610
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 5:42 pm
(August 7, 2019 at 5:38 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: (August 7, 2019 at 5:22 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: A Theory is often true, but also, maybe not true. When a theory is also a hypothesis, it becomes elevated to the status of law. But, when the unsupported law is only partly well-established, it may or not be demoted to a minimally-evidenced observation, yet to be demonstrated. When hypotheses are only minimally-evidenced observations, there is the potential for increased data testing to accumulate, and it could be elevated to a theory, but it wouldn’t be a theoretical hypothesis unless each constituent of the test results can be independently verified. I think it’s important we’re clear on these distinctions before moving forward in the conversation. Words are important.
😏
Hypothesis are predictions about the result of an experiment. Laws are summaries or descriptions for natural phenomenon. Theories are explanations or models for bodies of observations, or laws. Yes, let's be clear.
Nope, theories are neither models nor laws. And for a theory to be a theory it has to be more than just an explanatory statement (or sets of statements, rather). Otherwise, it would just be a magnified version of a hypothesis, nothing more.
|
