RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 12:53 pm
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 12:56 pm by John 6IX Breezy.)
(August 7, 2019 at 12:48 pm)Grandizer Wrote:(August 7, 2019 at 12:37 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: 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.
Not at all. You erroneously think theories don't need to be well-established. We don't agree!
Well right, I already said that's the part we don't agree on lol. To me, it doesn't make sense how you think a theory can be wrong and well-established at the same time. If theories remain theories despite evidence against them, (they're not demoted), then they're clearly theories that are not well-established. Perhaps take outdated Freudian theories as an example.
Theories are theories whether they are right, or wrong, well-established, or falsified.
