Why is Evolution really science! (Page 4) (Post deleted by BelgianStrider ) (Post deleted by BelgianStrider ) (Post deleted by BelgianStrider )  axocanth: "Of course we know that any finding that contradict a theory it will fall ." - Belgian I repeat: evidence does not contradict a theory. We might say that certain evidence "sits awkwardly" with a theory. There are, however, no flat-out contradictions. You are assuming (erroneously) that scientific theories/statements are tested in isolation. For example: Premise 1 : Theory X predicts Y will be observed Premise 2 : ~Y is observed Conclusion : Theory X is false If this was how science proceeds, what a wonderful world it would be! We would indeed have a contradiction and Theory X would have been proven false. But that's not how science works! A more realistic schema is this: Premise 1 : Theory X in conjunction with innumerable and often implicit assumptions (often referred to as "auxiliary hypotheses" ) predicts Y will be observed Premise 2 : ~Y is observed Conclusion : ? What can we conclude (assuming that the evidence -- Y -- is not in any doubt)? Only that there is a problem somewhere in the "holistic" package of the theory combined with the auxiliary hypotheses. Is it possible that the theory is false? Yes. Is it possible that the theory is true and the problem lies instead with the auxiliary hypotheses? Yes. The example of the discovery of Neptune has been mentioned many times in these forums. In the mid 19th century it was known that the planet Uranus was not behaving in the manner prescribed by Newtonian theory, Does that mean that we have a contradiction and that Newtonian theory has been shown to be false? Ans: No. It was assumed that Newtonian theory was perfectly healthy and that the problem lay with the auxiliary hypotheses. And in this particular case, the critical auxiliary hypothesis was the assumption that the solar system contains only seven planets. The schema was not . . . 1. Newtonian theory predicts Uranus should follow a particular orbit 2. Uranus does not follow this orbit 3. Therefore . . . contradiction!! Newtonian theory is false. . . . but rather 1. Newtonian theory in conjunction with innumerable auxiliary hypotheses (including the assumption that the solar system contains seven planets) predicts that Uranus behave a certain way. 2. Uranus does not behave this way 3. Therefore the assumption that the solar system contains seven planets is false (and Newtonian theory can rest easy for the time being). (Edited by axocanth) (Post deleted by BelgianStrider )  BelgianStrider: Premise 1 : Theory X in conjunction with innumerable and often implicit assumptions (often referred to as "auxiliary hypotheses" ) predicts Y will be observed Makes not a premise: it is a combination of premises. But yeah, we can say that if theory X makes a prediction Y and the prediction Y does happen we have a quite conclusive evidence that Theory X might be valid, way beyond reasonable doubt. Did it happen with ToE? Yes it did: "Tikaalik" is the evidence! On the contrary if Y has not yet been confirmed: you can not conclude "de facto" the theory as invalid! Some wrong logic used by you! Concerning the Newtonian anomaly of Uranus, the pattern of Uranus did not dissafirm the mathematical model of Newton. On the contrary it had a "predictive status" that there had to be another planet. The Newtonian mathematical model have serious troubles with the planets close to the sun: Mercury and Venus and could only be solved and "explained" with GRT. Does that make the Newtonian model obsolete? - Yes: in some specific domains and disciplines. - No: as it is still quite valid when v in comparison to c is near 0! Thus the technical environment we are working! (Edited by BelgianStrider) (Post deleted by BelgianStrider ) axocanth: "Makes not a premise it is a combination of premises." - Belgian Be my guest. Feel free to divide a single conjunctive premise into two non-conjunctive premises. It matters not. "But yeah, we can say that if theory X makes a prediction Y and the prediction Y does happen we have a quite conclusive evidence that Theory X might be valid, way beyond reasonable doubt." - Belgian You must be kidding! Would you conclude upon the observation that a particular man is 200 cms tall that the theory "All men are 200 cms tall" might be "valid, way beyond reasonable doubt"? (Edited by axocanth) (Post deleted by BelgianStrider )  TheismIsUntenable: Berlinski is a nobody to the field of science. I don't know why a certain individual continues to bring him up as a relevant figure. When actual biologists start doubting the current model of how we achieved this great diversity of life on this planet then we'll have something to discuss. Until then we're working off a model that has tremendous explanatory power. Whether that model is "true" is entirely irrelevant. axocanth: "Until then we're working off a model that has tremendous explanatory power. Whether that model is "true" is entirely irrelevant." - TIU Um, 'scuse me? So you'd be comfortable with a theory/model of tremendous explanatory power . . . except that the theory/model is false, and thus the explanations thereby yielded are false? I wouldn't. axocanth: Phlogiston theory, just to name one, was once hailed for its explanatory power. It is now believed that phlogiston theory is false; phlogiston does not exist. Are you comfortable with the explanatory power of phlogiston theory? BelgianStrider: Would you conclude upon the observation that a particular man is 200 cms tall that the theory "All men are 200 cms tall" might be "valid, way beyond reasonable doubt"? You are comparing apples with bananas! You are doing a berlinski philosofycal unsustained argument. GRT predicted the bending of light. Had it been confirmed? yes it has. Must you conclude that GRT is quite valid? Well yeah, you better do and most have no problems with that. Why?  Mr Higgs in QM predicted a "boson". More than several decades later is is discovered (factually by accident). It is even named the Higgs Boson. Should we accept that as confirmation of QM? Yes, you better do that. Most of the people even not understanding any iota about that extreme weird scientific discpline have no problems with that. Why? ToE, Paleontology, Biology, Genetics, Geology predicted whith the greatest probability where to find a transient fossil! Tiktaalik is found. Do we have to consider that as a serious evidence of the soundness of ToE? Yes, we better do that. Though some guys having no idea about what is evolution seems to have great problems with that! Why? And predictions has nothing to do with only observations! Predictions is using a theory and MAKING a prediction: If I made a prediction from a "theory" that has already several times been confirmed by evidence making it beyond reasonable doubt, valid: "because men drink more milk actually that will make people grow taller than 2 m, confirming the theory consumption of milk makes human become taller" and I find some men taller than 2 m and do consume milk: then yes, it confirms the "theory" that "milk makes people grow taller". (Edited by BelgianStrider) BelgianStrider: It had a tremendous explanatory power, till something else explained it better and had a more powerfull explanatory influence. As simple as that! Not really hard to understand and your example, sorry for saying it, is quite rubbish. ToE is quite valid and posses a tremendeous high explanatory power, till something better is found. That is the reason why TIU can say if it is (absolute) true it is irrelevant! TIU also rightly claim that berlinski is not an authority in evolutionary biological science either. (Edited by BelgianStrider) axocanth: "Would you conclude upon the observation that a particular man is 200 cms tall that the theory "All men are 200 cms tall" might be "valid, way beyond reasonable doubt"? You are comparing apples with bananas! You are doing a berlinski filosofycal unsustained argument." - Belgian I'm afraid not. Let me quote you again: "But yeah, we can say that if theory X makes a prediction Y and the prediction Y does happen we have a quite conclusive evidence that Theory X might be valid, way beyond reasonable doubt." - Belgian Consider the theory X "All men are 200 cms tall". From this theory we can derive the prediction Y "The next man to be be observed will be 200 cms tall". Now, suppose that the next man to be observed is indeed 200 cms tall. Both your criteria above are satisfied, viz., (i) "theory X makes a prediction Y", and (ii) "Y does happen". On your account we now have "quite conclusive evidence that Theory X might be valid, way beyond reasonable doubt." I'd say it's a rather shaky inference myself. (Edited by axocanth) BelgianStrider: Mate do you know the semantical difference between "prediction" and "observation" ?????? axocanth: "It had a tremendous explanatory power, till something else explained it better and had a more powerfull explanatory influence. As simple as that! Not really hard to understand and your example sorry for saying it is quite rubbish." - Belgian In saying that something else came along which "explained it BETTER" you imply that phlogiston theory had at least some explanatory power, if not as much power as its successor. Is it your position that phlogiston theory has explanatory power? I'd be inclined to say--on the assumption that the scientists are right and phlogiston does not exist--that phlogiston theory explains precisely nothing. How can something that doesn't exist explain anything? Do you feel the God theory or the Tooth Fairy theory can boast explanatory power? I suppose an alternative stance one might adopt is to say that phlogiston theory has explanatory power . . . but all the explanations thereby yielded are false. TIU tells us above that the truth of the model/theory is irrelevant. Do you feel comfortable with a theory that has either (i) no explanatory power whatsoever, or (ii) a theory that has explanatory power but all its explanations are false? Is this something science ought to strive for?  (Edited by axocanth) axocanth: "Mate do you know the semantical difference between "prediction" and "observation" ??????" - Belgian I'd sure like to think so. BelgianStrider: "All men are 200 cm tall" is a claim: you need confirmation by evidence that all men are 200cm tall 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 you ever can claim your claim to be a "𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲". You already will fail as "all men are not 200 cm" That's why you compare apples with bananas Before telling something you better know what a "𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲" 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞! If I had a claim "consumption of milk makes men grow taller" and evidence give me more and more validity of that claim "consumption of milk makes men grow taller" it can become a "scientific theory". Someone can now predict "as consumption of milk makes men taller, we should be able to find men of 200cm and more consuming milk" Whenever you find a man or woman consuming milk taller than 200 cm that confims the theory that consuming milk makes men taller! Capiche? (Edited by BelgianStrider) axocanth: "All men are 200 cm tall" is a claim: you need confirmation by evidence that all men are 200cm tall 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 you ever can claim your claim to be a "𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲". You already will fail as "all men are not 200 cm" That's why you compare apples with bananas" - Belgian Not what you said, sir. I quote you again: "But yeah, we can say that if theory X makes a prediction Y and the prediction Y does happen we have a quite conclusive evidence that Theory X might be valid, way beyond reasonable doubt." You'll have to explain to me how "The next man observed will be 200 cms tall" is NOT a prediction of the theory "All men are 200 cms tall". Will you do that now, please? axocanth: Or in deductive form . . . Premise 1 : All men are 200 cms tall. Premise 2 : The next man to be observed is a man Conclusion : The next man to be observed is (will be) 200 cms tall. You're telling us we now have strong evidence to support our theory. I'd suggest rethinking your position. | Science Chat Room Similar Conversations |