Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: June 16, 2024, 2:24 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
(August 7, 2019 at 5:42 pm)Grandizer Wrote:
(August 7, 2019 at 5:38 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: 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.

Theories explain; hypotheses predict. That's it. If a magnified version of a prediction turns into an explanation somehow, then its a theory.

P.S. I took out the comma before "or law" cause it gave the wrong meaning. Its meant to be read as theories explain laws, not that they are laws.

As to theories not being models, there's different perspectives on that so lets agree to disagree. In cognitive psychology there's lots of models that function as theories; but models for other things can also just be descriptive not explanatory. So lets just ignore models for simplicity.
Reply
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
(August 7, 2019 at 5:48 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:
(August 7, 2019 at 5:42 pm)Grandizer Wrote: 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.

Theories explain; hypotheses predict. That's it. If a magnified version of a prediction turns into an explanation somehow, then its a theory.

P.S. I took out the comma before "or law" cause it gave the wrong meaning. Its meant to be read as theories explain laws, not that they are laws.

Theories predict as well.
Reply
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
(August 7, 2019 at 5:49 pm)Grandizer Wrote:
(August 7, 2019 at 5:48 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Theories explain; hypotheses predict. That's it. If a magnified version of a prediction turns into an explanation somehow, then its a theory.

P.S. I took out the comma before "or law" cause it gave the wrong meaning. Its meant to be read as theories explain laws, not that they are laws.

Theories predict as well.

Yes, through the hypothesis they produce. Hypothesis are the predictive pawns of theories.
Reply
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
(August 7, 2019 at 5:52 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:
(August 7, 2019 at 5:49 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Theories predict as well.

Yes, through the hypothesis they produce. Hypothesis are the predictive pawns of theories.

Ok ...

So back to space pixies, what is it about postulating space pixies that makes it a theory?
Reply
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
Okay... having caught up with reading from where I left off 'Yesterday' I've noticed a distinct weirdness to Mr Brezzy's dialogue.

I distinctly remember posting a simple, lay-man's terms definition between hypothesis and theory.

Yet, here we are something like ten pages on and Mr Breezy is swapping, flipping and changing sentences around for all their worth.





 Well... it's been fun but I've seen this type of word-play before.

It invariably goes no where and does nothing.

Is there some place in schools or university where they teach this kind of word-play? I'm some what intrigued by how many people manage to employ it.

Cheers.

Not at work
Reply
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
(August 7, 2019 at 5:53 pm)Grandizer Wrote:
(August 7, 2019 at 5:52 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Yes, through the hypothesis they produce. Hypothesis are the predictive pawns of theories.

Ok ...

So back to space pixies, what is it about postulating space pixies that makes it a theory?

Simply that their purpose is to explain the phenomenon of gravity. Its similar to how the atomic theory was proposed as an explanation for things like the law of conservation of mass. We might not know anything about atoms back then, the way we don't know anything about space pixies now, but they play a similar explanatory roll.

If the theory of space pixies was any clearer, testable hypotheses could be drawn from it. Scientists propose hypothetical particles, structures, and processses all the time that are no different from space pixies. That's all we need to able to begin the testing process. Theories are tools for uncovering reality, it doesn't matter if they themselves are real.
Reply
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
Has my predictive hypothesis that you would turn flat troll before 50 pages now been shown to be true? Is this, then, part of making my theory of your being a worthless shitposter well established?
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!
Reply
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
(August 7, 2019 at 6:10 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:
(August 7, 2019 at 5:53 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Ok ...

So back to space pixies, what is it about postulating space pixies that makes it a theory?

Simply that their purpose is to explain the phenomenon of gravity. Its similar to how the atomic theory was proposed as an explanation for things like the law of conservation of mass. We might not know anything about atoms back then, the way we don't know anything about space pixies now, but they play a similar explanatory roll.

More studying for you to do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory

Note at what point it became a theory.

Quote:If the theory of space pixies was any clearer, testable hypotheses could be drawn from it. Scientists propose hypothetical particles, structures, and processses all the time that are no different from space pixies. That's all we need to able to begin the testing process. Theories are tools for uncovering reality, it doesn't matter if they themselves are real.

That's a big if there, bud. If X had all the characteristic of being a theory, it would be a theory. No shit.
Reply
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
(August 7, 2019 at 6:16 pm)Grandizer Wrote:
(August 7, 2019 at 6:10 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

That's a big if there, bud. If X had all the characteristic of being a theory, it would be a theory. No shit.

Obviously, and we have to assume that it does. That's why we called it the theory of space pixies. Your disagreement is based solely on the name.
Reply
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
Low energy. You’re gonna lose these guys with material like that.
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!
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Chemical evolution of amino acids and proteins ? Impossible !! Otangelo 56 9431 January 10, 2020 at 2:59 pm
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  Richard Dawkins claims we should eat lab-grown human meat Alexmahone 83 11394 March 18, 2018 at 6:47 pm
Last Post: vorlon13
  Theory of Evolution, Atheism, and Homophobia. RayOfLight 31 5170 October 25, 2017 at 9:24 am
Last Post: Brian37
  Evolution and the Texas Sharp Shooter Fallacy Clueless Morgan 12 2352 July 9, 2015 at 10:17 am
Last Post: Clueless Morgan
  生物学101:Genetics and Evolution. Duke Guilmon 2 2162 March 14, 2015 at 12:32 pm
Last Post: Dystopia
  Death and Evolution Exian 4 1897 November 2, 2014 at 11:45 am
Last Post: abaris
  Myths and misconceptions about evolution - Alex Gendler Gooders1002 2 2057 July 8, 2013 at 11:59 am
Last Post: Tonus
  Intelligent design type evolution vs naturalism type evolution. Mystic 59 31036 April 6, 2013 at 5:12 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Evolution, the Bible, and the 3.5 Million Dollar Violin - my article Jeffonthenet 99 56766 September 4, 2012 at 11:50 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  difference between Micro and macro evolution Gooders1002 21 9120 May 19, 2012 at 12:27 am
Last Post: Polaris



Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)