RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 5:48 pm
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 5:50 pm by John 6IX Breezy.)
(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.
