Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[LadyForCamus]

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.


😏