RE: Literal and Not Literal
September 9, 2019 at 3:49 pm
(This post was last modified: September 9, 2019 at 4:34 pm by John 6IX Breezy.)
(September 9, 2019 at 3:36 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: We were discussing whether evolutionary biology was unscientific. Or different, even, from what parts of biology you do accept.
Is a hypothesis, both consistent with theory and consistent with observations....but unverifiable due to lack of a time machine....
......unscientific....?
In what way, specifically? Additionally, how does that tie in with literal and non literal interpretations in your beliefs?
You're discussing whether evolutionary biology is unscientific. I'm discussing Acrobat's question of how to choose between competing explanations for things such as sacrifice, and whether choosing anything at all is cherry picking; my answer is that you can't choose between such explanations and often "cherry picking" is what's done.
Verifiability is the soul of a hypothesis, not consistency. If a hypothesis requires a time machine to test it, and instead you lean on how consistant it is with theory, that's unscientific.
