RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 12:05 pm
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 12:07 pm by John 6IX Breezy.)
(August 7, 2019 at 12:00 pm)Grandizer Wrote:(August 7, 2019 at 11:50 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: 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?
