RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 12:31 pm
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 12:34 pm by John 6IX Breezy.)
(August 7, 2019 at 12:08 pm)Grandizer Wrote: No, you don't demote theories that turn out t be wrong to hypotheses ... because theories are not a matter of improved hypotheses. Hypotheses are in their own categories from theories. Theories are well-established explanations (scientifically speaking) that explain the phenomenon observed in nature, they are often based on (or strengthened by) the results of hypotheses that have passed but it's not as simple as being just an accumulation of hypotheses that passed. It does have to explain adequately the overall picture of the phenomenon under observation, and it has to be well-established scientifically. And a theory still has to have predictive power and be testable and good at passing the tests.
Space pixies theory isn't anything like that. It's only a "theory" in the colloquial sense.
I read the addendum:
Right, so we agree on the distinction between theory and hypotheses. The only thing I would disagree with you on, is that theories don't need to be well-established, in the sense that there is lots of evidence for them. That's demonstrated by your acknowledgement that you don't demote theories if they turn out to be wrong. A theory can be completely an utterly false, and it remains a scientific theory. Science is built on the tombstones of dead theories.
Not to mention that theories are already self-substantiated by whatever phenomenon they seek to explain lol. That's why they can run into issues of falsifiability if they happen to be true under every condition.
