RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 12:08 pm
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 12:26 pm by GrandizerII.)
(August 7, 2019 at 12:05 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:(August 7, 2019 at 12:00 pm)Grandizer Wrote: 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:
Quote: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.
