Falsifiability? Let's not be Naive. (Page 4)

Angry Beaver
Angry Beaver: I like a chick with a big rack tbh
24 days ago Report
0
theHating 
theHating: There's the spirit!
24 days ago Report
1
Achilles942
Achilles942: "You asked about the predictability of evolution, much harder than predicting the weather, because of all the variables" - Kitty

Yes, you might as well consult an astrologer.

Or flip a coin.

So much for the predictive power of The Theory.

Looks like we're left with explanatory power then. In other words, wait till you see what happens, then jump out of the woodwork and spin a yarn to explain it.

It enjoys all the advantages of theft over honest toil.

Why, any fool could do it. And many do.
24 days ago Report
0
Achilles942
Achilles942: And I asked about ring-tailed lemurs, not deer with racks.

All good for ratings, though. Bless you.
24 days ago Report
0
Achilles942
Achilles942: Yes, yes, we know all about the Irish elk.

Another example of "Wait till it goes extinct then I'll tell you how that was exactly what The Theory predicts"

Of course, if it hadn't gone extinct, The Theory would still fit all the facts.

Do you have any before-the-fact predictions?
24 days ago Report
0
Achilles942
Achilles942: Sorry to be a killjoy, especially when the topic is racks, but you appear to have missed my questions, Kitty. Here they are again:


QUOTE

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?

UNQUOTE


Never mind, I'll answer for you, on the grounds you seem to have lost your voice.

1. 100% -- in the true spirit of healthy skepticism

2 & 3. No, it's a subjective probability. A reflection of personal faith. I don't have any working to show because I'm full of hot air.

24 days ago Report
0
Achilles942
Achilles942: My own powerful theory predicts something will happen today.

But if it doesn't, nothing happening is still perfectly in accordance with my theory.


Compare: "Ring-tailed lemurs might go extinct within 500 years. Then again they might not"

Can't you fools see the breathtaking power of Darwinian theory?

Repent!!!!!
24 days ago Report
0
Angry Beaver
24 days ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: You know I like it when Achilles answers his own questions, saves me a ton of time.

24 days ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: Achilles: simply put: Darwinian theory is: descent with modification. He believed that some organisms within a species have trait variants that make them fitter and more likely to reproduce., and guided by natural selection those random mutations guide the species into new paths, and eventually new species.
24 days ago Report
1
theHating 
theHating: Achilles argument rests on the FRAMEWORK of the scientific method, not the science, kitty.

He just has a hard time explaining that in ways that dont put us to sleep.
23 days ago Report
1
Achilles942
Achilles942: "Achilles: simply put: Darwinian theory is: descent with modification. He believed that some organisms within a species have trait variants that make them fitter and more likely to reproduce., and guided by natural selection those random mutations guide the species into new paths, and eventually new species." - Kitty


Yes, that's my understanding of natural selection, too. Those organisms most able to survive and reproduce will tend to... er, survive and reproduce.

Breathtaking, innit?
23 days ago Report
0
Angry Beaver
Angry Beaver: Seems to have worked out well thus far
23 days ago Report
1
Achilles942
Achilles942: How can you go wrong with a theory like "Those Wireclub members with traits conducive to muting will tend to ....er, get muted"?
23 days ago Report
0
Angry Beaver
Angry Beaver: I must be boring... never been muted lol
23 days ago Report
0
Achilles942
Achilles942: Can't you see? FFS!!!

Let's flesh out Kitty's words then....

"He believed that some organisms within a species have trait variants that make them fitter and more likely to reproduce"


And who are the fitter again? Those more likely to reproduce?

So by substitution we get (roughly)...

"Those organisms with traits that make them more likely to survive and reproduce will tend to survive and reproduce"

Cf. "Those people with traits advantageous to getting laid will tend to get laid more often than those without"


Hard to go wrong with a theory like that.


To break the circularity "fitness" would have to be defined without any reference to survival and reproduction.

This has never been done, despite some valiant attempts (try reading up on the "propensity" interpretation of fitness)

For now we're stuck with "those who survive survive"

Que sera sera.
23 days ago Report
0
Angry Beaver
Angry Beaver: Yeah but sometimes the nerd gets laid Always variables
23 days ago Report
0
Achilles942
Achilles942: In which case the nerd is the "fitter".

You just can't lose with a tautology.
23 days ago Report
0
Angry Beaver
Angry Beaver: Depends on how you use the word really don't it?
23 days ago Report
0
Angry Beaver
Angry Beaver: IE: "The nerd is fitter for the job of IT specialist, but the quarterback is way fitter than the nerd
23 days ago Report
0
Achilles942
Achilles942: Well, Beaver, I'm not sure if you get the point -- it is a little subtle -- but as an exercise, define "fitness" without any reference to survival and reproduction.

If not, we're caught in a tautological loop.
23 days ago Report
0
Angry Beaver
Angry Beaver: I just did
23 days ago Report
0
Achilles942
Achilles942: The nerd? LOL
23 days ago Report
0
Angry Beaver
Angry Beaver: Yes, he is fitter to do IT or... more suited..... footy player is fitter or, more buff
23 days ago Report
0
Angry Beaver
Angry Beaver: Semantics is fun lol
23 days ago Report
0