Falsifiability? Let's not be Naive. (Page 5)
Achilles942: Ok, let me try to explain.....
Take a theory such as
"Those lemurs with relatively long tails will survive and reproduce more successfully than those with relatively short tails"
This is an empirical hypothesis. It may be true or it may be false. Its truth or falsity cannot be ascertained by closing your eyes and thinking. You'd have to scoot to Madagascar (as I will soon) and conduct research.
The problem with natural selection "theory" (puke) is that it GENERALIZES. And when you generalize you get utter vacuity.
You end up with "Those organisms with stuff that is advantageous to getting laid will tend to get laid"
This is no longer an empirical hypothesis. To ascertain its truth you don't need to buy a flight ticket to Antananarivo. All you have to do is close your eyes.
Achilles942: "Semantics is fun lol"
It sure is. Saves getting dirty in the jungle.
Science was never so easy.
Achilles942: To be clear, what I'm critiquing now is the vacuity of natural selection.
There's more to Darwin/Wallace than natural selection.
As Kitty said, descent with modification is a perfectly respectable scientific hypothesis.
Natural selection is a circular merry-go-round.
Angry Beaver: It is these days with humans considering our easy as shit lifestyle, no more hunter gatherers or alpha male type societies. The unfit can also thrive/survive
Achilles942: "The unfit can also thrive/survive"
No, they can't. By definition, the "unfit" are those who do NOT thrive and survive.
Unless you can define fitness without reference to surviving and reproducing.
Be my guest
theHating: I am here for the afterparty/aftermath of Colin's imploded logic/to discuss colin's logic/ eat some lemur meat
Achilles942: The problem with fitness is that it's -- as we say in the business -- "multiply realizable".
Angry Beaver: well the housing commission people around here seem to have a handle on the whole thrive/survive scenario with their 7 kids to 7 fathers....and most aren't fit for society
Achilles942: Beaver, you raise a good point.
Darwin's concept of "fitness" was our intuitive concept, i.e., think of big muscles, sharp claws, etc.
As I said, it doesn't work. Sharp claws aren't gonna help you much if you're a.... er axolotl.
Angry Beaver: I'm sure he meant it to apply among similar animals in the same species, not between sabretooth tigers and chickens lol
Achilles942: These days, fitness is defined in terms of survival and reproduction.
Hence the vacuity.
If fitness COULD be defined in terms of sharp claws or whatever, the natural selection hypothesis would not be vacuous.
It would be false.
theHating: Whats next, you're gunna tell me bees didnt develop tits cause the bears and flowers didnt think that was very sexy?