Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[GrandizerII]

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.

Again, in what way is the pixies "theory" anything like the atomic theory or the theory(ies) of evolution? What solidly substantiates the pixies "theory" from the evidence we have and the observations we can make? What are the "pawn hypotheses" corresponding to the "theory" (just going by how you wrongly view hypotheses and theories)? What predictions can it make that we can test? How exactly does a "theory" that incorporates fantasy entities be on par with legit scientific theories?

[Abaddon_ire]

Right. So the Theory of Gravity is merely a theory. It would be as valid to propose a theory of space pixies pressing all of us down to the surface, right? After all, it's just a theory, right?

And if, as you claim, gravity is not a theory, why is there a theory of gravity? Are you claiming that the Theory of Gravity simply does not exist?

A theory of space pixies wouldn't be as accurate as another theory of gravity (depending on the theory), but yes, they would both still be just theories. So their validity would differ, but not their composition as theories.

What do you mean by if "gravity is not a theory why would there be a theory of gravity?" I don't understand.

Can you prove their are no space pixies? Go ahead. You have the floor.

Prove there are no space pixies.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Again, in what way is the pixies "theory" anything like the atomic theory or the theory(ies) of evolution? What solidly substantiates the pixies "theory" from the evidence we have and the observations we can make? What are the "pawn hypotheses" corresponding to the "theory" (just going by how you wrongly view hypotheses and theories)? What predictions can it make that we can test? How exactly does a "theory" that incorporates fantasy entities be on par with legit scientific theories?

I don't know what predictions it makes, only that there's no reason to assume that it doesn't.

But your question is valid, the predictions are something we want to know. Note that this is different from LFC saying it's not a theory because of evidence. That's an incorrect criteria, even if we assume that it doesn't have evidence. But if it turns out it doesn't make any predictions, that's problematic for falsifiability.

The theory doesn't have to be on par with other theories. I already said it could differ on things like accuracy, and still be a theory.

---

Can you prove their are no space pixies? Go ahead. You have the floor.

Prove there are no space pixies.

We don't prove things in science, sorry. Can you rephrase your request another way?

[LadyForCamus]

I@Grandizer

Just for clarification, my last two responses to him were incoherent on purpose. It was supposed to be a joke poking fun at how needlessly complicated he is making this, but I don’t think it landed, lol.

[The Grand Nudger]

Depends on your vantage point.

[GrandizerII]

Again, in what way is the pixies "theory" anything like the atomic theory or the theory(ies) of evolution? What solidly substantiates the pixies "theory" from the evidence we have and the observations we can make? What are the "pawn hypotheses" corresponding to the "theory" (just going by how you wrongly view hypotheses and theories)? What predictions can it make that we can test? How exactly does a "theory" that incorporates fantasy entities be on par with legit scientific theories?

I don't know what predictions it makes, only that there's no reason to assume that it doesn't.

But your question is valid, the predictions are something we want to know. Note that this is different from LFC saying it's not a theory because of evidence. That's an incorrect criteria, even if we assume that it doesn't have evidence. But if it turns out it doesn't make any predictions, that's problematic for falsifiability.

The theory doesn't have to be on par with other theories. I already said it could differ on things like accuracy, and still be a theory.

---

Can you prove their are no space pixies? Go ahead. You have the floor.

Prove there are no space pixies.

We don't prove things in science, sorry. Can you rephrase your request another way?

So it has no scientific credibility whatsoever, but you're still willing to entertain the fantasy that it is a [scientific] theory.

And Abaddon's point is that your "theory" isn't falsifiable, which is an important criterion for a theory.

[Abaddon_ire]

Again, in what way is the pixies "theory" anything like the atomic theory or the theory(ies) of evolution? What solidly substantiates the pixies "theory" from the evidence we have and the observations we can make? What are the "pawn hypotheses" corresponding to the "theory" (just going by how you wrongly view hypotheses and theories)? What predictions can it make that we can test? How exactly does a "theory" that incorporates fantasy entities be on par with legit scientific theories?

I don't know what predictions it makes, only that there's no reason to assume that it doesn't.

But your question is valid, the predictions are something we want to know. Note that this is different from LFC saying it's not a theory because of evidence. That's an incorrect criteria, even if we assume that it doesn't have evidence. But if it turns out it doesn't make any predictions, that's problematic for falsifiability.

The theory doesn't have to be on par with other theories. I already said it could differ on things like accuracy, and still be a theory.

---

Can you prove their are no space pixies? Go ahead. You have the floor.

Prove there are no space pixies.

We don't prove things in science, sorry. Can you rephrase your request another way?

No. You apparently don't do science or even basic English. I can't help you at that point. You are on your own.

[John 6IX Breezy]

And Abaddon's point is that your "theory" isn't falsifiable, which is an important criterion for a theory.

I agree falsifiability is important, as previously mentioned.

[GrandizerII]

And Abaddon's point is that your "theory" isn't falsifiable, which is an important criterion for a theory.

I agree falsifiability is important, as previously mentioned.

I rest my case.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I agree falsifiability is important, as previously mentioned.

I rest my case.

Ok, if your case is that the theory of space pixies is not a theory, due to some a priori assumption that it is unfalsifiable. Then I have no issues either.