Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

Correct. It would take quite the paradigm shift to completely overturn a scientific theory, though many older ones are disassembled to the point where their components still function to a limited approximation. For higher accuracy, one turns to more recent, more accurate studies.

Hmm. While I would debate that more recent studies are always of greater accuracy (that would be argument ad novitatem). It would follow that a more accurate study seeks to add greater detail to the results of an existing older study. Thus, the older study is not necessarily invalid and a more accurate study would be predicated on the results of the first.

However, I think we can agree that neither arguments to newness (argumentum ad novitatem) or arguments to oldness (argumentum ad antiquitatem) are a valid rebuttal to an argument and move on.

That's not what I said at all. I asked how you can be certain that older 'theories' carry more wisdom than later writings by virtue of them being older, as you appear to be suggesting?

My response was to chas statement about holding onto old theories. I am not saying they carry more wisdom by virtue of them being old. I am saying he is not justified in saying a theory carries more wisdom by virtue of it being newer any more than I would be justified in saying by virtue of it being old.

Every authority you have cited, from Aristotle to Aquinas.

Unfortunately there is not an encyclopedic page for everything I have stated (nor have I looked for one). One is always welcome to get the information directly from the horses mouth as opposed from a third party such as myself or webpage seeking to summarize such works of complexity and detail.

---

So by "a theory which has reached the stage of such implicit circumstantial empirical support as to be considered devoid any violating set", you really mean "theory". Laws are entirely differnt animals. Here's how it works:

"Priests are thoroughly decent, law-abiding pillars of the community. By which I mean child-predating rapists. I don't see where the confusion in the language lies."

Given that I was talking about Hypothesis, Theories, and Laws I took the context to be sufficient to lead to the scientific definition of a law rather than a humanities or legalistic definition. I shall endeavor to be more specific in the future.