Falsifiability? Let's not be Naive. (Page 3) kittybobo34: Somehow you have it in your head that we all work for you and are subject to your investigations. Not the case,  AchillesSinatra: "2)"What licences the inference from "This is the best explanation" to "This is the true explanation"? Simply the best explanation is the one works with all the evidence. The combined disciplines of Geology, Paleontology, nuclear physics, Anthropology, Biology all are on the same page, their combined knowledge fits the pieces together into an ever increasing puzzle picture that is looking very coherent. "What if all all the explanations are crap?" That might turn out to be true, but first we would need to find something that doesn't fit. or an alternative that also fits the facts." - Kitty First of all, we're back to the same old bs of "fitting all the facts". You haven't told us what The Theory is yet, and you haven't told us what it means for a theory to "fit all the facts". What you have made clear is that any case where The Theory does not fit all the facts, you'll pull unknown forces out yer hat. How can you go wrong? What if all explanations are crap? You think we should dive right in? I say we withhold judgement. kittybobo34: You mean those explanations that are based on science, physics, genetics, geology, could be crap, but not likely. AchillesSinatra: .  I don't care if it Truths or Theories Long as I've got my plastic Jesus Sitting on the dashboard of my car AchillesSinatra: "You mean those explanations that are based on science, physics, genetics, geology, could be crap, but not likely." - Kitty Your naivete never ceases to amaze me, Kitty. You don't strike me as unintelligent, just woefully clueless about the philosophy and history of science. Would you like a list of theories that were once highly admired for their predictive power and explanatory success.... and which are now on the trash heap? It's a long list. Ask for a link and I'll provide it. Now, your own nebulous "Theory" is in even more dire straits. Given that natural selection is the sine qua non of evolutionary theory, and given that random mutation is the sine qua non of natural selection, then the predictive power of "The Theory" amounts to precisely zero. Almost by definition, that which is random is not predictable. If it is predictable then it is not truly random. What do you reckon will happen to ring-tailed lemurs? Ans: Your theory hasn't the faintest idea. And neither do you (except for the breathtaking prediction that those most able to survive will survive). Just for the record, though, I'm sure I've asked this before, but I'd like it on the record.... 1. What do you think the chances of your theory (whatever it is) being true are? 2. Is this an objective probability that compels the assent of any rational person? If so, can I see your working/work?  3. Or a gut feeling on your part? Something not unlike faith? AchillesSinatra: Hang on.... you said ""You mean those explanations that are based on science, physics, genetics, geology, could be crap, but not likely." Are not physics, genetics and geology subsumed under the rubric of "science"? Are we exaggerating again?  AchillesSinatra: And again we get this "But not likely" bs Asserted but not argued for. What do you base this on? If you say "shitloads of evidence" I'll shoot you. It's a bit like talking to a religious loonie who asserts "it's all in Scripture" as if no further warrant is needed. I'd like to know the exact relationship that your "shitloads of evidence" bears on theory. Does it make your theory true? Probably true? Possibly true? Who the hell knows? Won't you ever admit this, Kitty? You haven't the foggiest idea what the chances are of your theory being true? AchillesSinatra: I'm not sure if the point is clear yet (probably not), but I'll try my best. If your theory has truly latched onto the mechanism(s) of evolution, then it should be able, in virtue of this mechanism, to predict the future course of evolution. Do you understand? Just like Newtonian mechanics, say. Yet, natural selection predicts absolutely nothing that is is not utterly vacuous. How can randomness predict anything? I feel I'm wasting my time. You just don't get it. No offence. I was young once, too. (Edited by AchillesSinatra) AchillesSinatra: And if you say "It's not completely random. It's combined with non-random selection" I'll shoot you again AchillesSinatra: Just think of these lemurs and what will happen to them according to your theory. Stay focussed  AchillesSinatra: Here's another question to ponder: Is it possible the reason that your theory has nothing to say about the future of lemurs is because it's utterly vacuous? Substantive theories usually make predictions, don't they? (Edited by AchillesSinatra) AchillesSinatra: My own cutting edge theory predicts "Those who answer questions answer questions" Just don't ask me to be specific. kittybobo34: You asked about the predictability of evolution, much harder than predicting the weather, because of all the variables. Even the sexual process throws curve balls, example, Deer and the huge rack that they grow every year. It costs them dearly to loose all that energy growing them,only to drop those antlers in the late winter, but the sexual drive is enough to keep them doing it. The biggest rack wins. | Science Chat Room Similar Conversations |
