Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[John 6IX Breezy]

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.

[GrandizerII]

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.

Theories predict as well.

[John 6IX Breezy]

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.

Theories predict as well.

Yes, through the hypothesis they produce. Hypothesis are the predictive pawns of theories.

[GrandizerII]

Theories predict as well.

Yes, through the hypothesis they produce. Hypothesis are the predictive pawns of theories.

Ok ...

So back to space pixies, what is it about postulating space pixies that makes it a theory?

[Peebothuhlu]

Okay... having caught up with reading from where I left off 'Yesterday' I've noticed a distinct weirdness to Mr Brezzy's dialogue.

I distinctly remember posting a simple, lay-man's terms definition between hypothesis and theory.

Yet, here we are something like ten pages on and Mr Breezy is swapping, flipping and changing sentences around for all their worth.





 Well... it's been fun but I've seen this type of word-play before.

It invariably goes no where and does nothing.

Is there some place in schools or university where they teach this kind of word-play? I'm some what intrigued by how many people manage to employ it.

Cheers.

Not at work

[John 6IX Breezy]

Yes, through the hypothesis they produce. Hypothesis are the predictive pawns of theories.

Ok ...

So back to space pixies, what is it about postulating space pixies that makes it a theory?

Simply that their purpose is to explain the phenomenon of gravity. Its similar to how the atomic theory was proposed as an explanation for things like the law of conservation of mass. We might not know anything about atoms back then, the way we don't know anything about space pixies now, but they play a similar explanatory roll.

If the theory of space pixies was any clearer, testable hypotheses could be drawn from it. Scientists propose hypothetical particles, structures, and processses all the time that are no different from space pixies. That's all we need to able to begin the testing process. Theories are tools for uncovering reality, it doesn't matter if they themselves are real.

[The Grand Nudger]

Has my predictive hypothesis that you would turn flat troll before 50 pages now been shown to be true? Is this, then, part of making my theory of your being a worthless shitposter well established?

[GrandizerII]

Ok ...

So back to space pixies, what is it about postulating space pixies that makes it a theory?

Simply that their purpose is to explain the phenomenon of gravity. Its similar to how the atomic theory was proposed as an explanation for things like the law of conservation of mass. We might not know anything about atoms back then, the way we don't know anything about space pixies now, but they play a similar explanatory roll.

More studying for you to do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory

Note at what point it became a theory.

If the theory of space pixies was any clearer, testable hypotheses could be drawn from it. Scientists propose hypothetical particles, structures, and processses all the time that are no different from space pixies. That's all we need to able to begin the testing process. Theories are tools for uncovering reality, it doesn't matter if they themselves are real.

That's a big if there, bud. If X had all the characteristic of being a theory, it would be a theory. No shit.

[John 6IX Breezy]

That's a big if there, bud. If X had all the characteristic of being a theory, it would be a theory. No shit.

Obviously, and we have to assume that it does. That's why we called it the theory of space pixies. Your disagreement is based solely on the name.

[The Grand Nudger]

Low energy. You’re gonna lose these guys with material like that.