Testing Theories of Origins

I suggest that you add significant more details (in your own words) before this is released.You should realize that it is unlikely that anyone has any new arguments that haven't been dealt with before.If you want people to put some effort into what you propose you'll have to show you are willing to put some effort in too.

Do you think there will be any argument about picking what has the best explanatory power?Can you give a hint of what you might expect someone to bring up?Maybe it is just me but it is so obvious that I don't imagine there will be any debate.If that is all you wish to discuss it seems hardly necessary to even mention Hugh Ross's book.However you also mention:
five additional tests of censorship, stultification, integration, research passion, and destiny implications.Again maybe it is just me but perhaps you should explain those terms and why you mention them. Myself, I don't have a clue as to what they mean. Or you could just remove them and see if there could actually be argument about picking a theory based on explanatory power and predictions.

I understand better now.You are proposing to simplely fish for any other objections to testing any theory (other than explanatory power and predictions). We can limit this thread to that topic then.As a kick off you could define those other terms and reject them as not being as important as explanatory power and predictions then and give your reasons. Then I think we have a clear topic that can be promoted.I'm not at all sure how to fix your id problem. Others will clean it up.Edited by AdminNosy, : correct grammer

Thanks for trying again. I think that a discussion of just what it takes to give a theory some acceptance (of varying degrees) is a good idea.You said you wanted to establish these rules before going on to the RTB model. However, you're so anxious to get to it (and I'm sure others here are as well) that you're jumping ahead a little. Including in the title I note. But after reading through the extra verbiage what you are asking is there. However, you still haven't defined what you mean with the other 5 terms and, as I said, I don't know what they mean so I think it is safe to assume many others won't either.Can you edit message 1; change the title to something like "Separating good theories from bad" or "Criteria for judging Scientific Theories"'; and add the definitions of the extra terms.Thanks

Thread copied here from the Testing Theories of Origins thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Please note:
The topic here is what criteria you would use for accepting or rejecting a scientific theory. We are not going to jump into any particular theory yet. That will be in another thread when some agreement is reached here.There's lots to discuss here if the additional five are included so keep focused.

The topic is, for now, what criteria you'd use to give greater or lessor credence to a theory.The OP author says he wants to establish that before going at any particular theory.Patience please.

There is no need to assert your opinion of the 5 criteria. You may instead examine them one at a time and allow opinions to be developed from what you have to say about them.

We are getting close to wrapping this so that a separate thread discussing Ross's work can start I think.However, it might be a good idea of contributors to summarize their understanding of all different understandings of what "predictive power" means.For example:
It seems some take this as meaning "predicting the future". An example given was Einstein's calculation of the precession of the orbit of Mercury which he calculated a few years before it was measured.However, others point out that this isn't the scientific concept of "predictive power". It is instead that the theory produces logical consequences which actually describe what is seen. General relativity is also an example of this as the orbital behavior of Mercury is a consequence of the theory.One could then discuss whether a "prediction" in the second sense counts as a "prediction". I think some argue that it is in the context of a scientific theory.Which ever side one comes down on I think we can agree that emotionally it is somehow more impressive if the logical consequence is derived before the observation. E.g., the cosmic background radiation.Can we finish this with summations around this apparent split? I'm curious to see what the Ross book has to say .

quote:

---

If a prediction is not related to the future, then it is not a prediction.

---

I think this is an important point which is not generally agreed upon in this context.For those who disagree it would perhaps be a good idea for them to practice their explanatory talents in making their point clear.

As has been noted you have demonstrably not responded to various issues presented. That would involve using your own words to show you understand the issue and then giving a direct response.If this is the quality of discussion you think is fine then you're going to find it harder to get me to promote your proposed topics in the future. Others may have a different opinion.