Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Testing Theories of Origins
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 46 of 143 (694437)
03-24-2013 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by NoNukes
03-24-2013 6:49 PM


Re: The Major Tests
Perhaps I should have worded my original statement slightly differently so that it stated no new large mammals have appeared since man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2013 6:49 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2013 7:20 PM designtheorist has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 47 of 143 (694438)
03-24-2013 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 6:31 PM


Re: Censorship? What Censorship?
Well, if you're going to ignore what I'm saying, I see no point in continuing.
Creationism isn't being censored. It's making no headway in scientific publications because it's not science.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 6:31 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 48 of 143 (694439)
03-24-2013 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 6:31 PM


Re: Censorship? What Censorship?
Whenever you see someone trying to gain an unfair advantage in a competition among ideas, then you have to realize the one seeking the unfair advantage is aware of the weakness of his position. If he was confident in his position, he would not seek to censor the other idea or prevent its publication.
Except that this debate is long over, and the exclusion of creationism from the school curriculum currently nothing to do with the merits of creationism. Exclusion of creationism from science class is the law. The reason has to do with the rights of non-believers and not with the truth of Genesis.
Do you find the exclusion of the teaching of the theory of evolution from Sunday school class some kind of unfair process?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 6:31 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 143 (694440)
03-24-2013 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 7:13 PM


Re: The Major Tests
Perhaps I should have worded my original statement slightly differently so that it stated no new large mammals have appeared since man.
For some definition of large and new. But can you even provide evidence that such a thing is the case? Did no new species of whale, rhino, or elephant appear in the last one million years?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 7:13 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 8:08 PM NoNukes has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 50 of 143 (694443)
03-24-2013 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by NoNukes
03-24-2013 7:20 PM


Re: The Major Tests
This is why we need to wait for that debate. I do not want to get into the evidence yet. The tests needs to be judged on their own prior to examining the evidence. If we are judging the tests based on whether we think our evidence will win out or not, then we are not getting an honest assessment of the tests.
So far this is what I'm hearing (in quotes) along with my short response:
1. "Censorship is not a good test because we have the right to censor out bad science or anything that sniffs of religion or god."
I disagree. Forget about teaching creationism in the public schools. That is not what this test is about. The test is about publishing the evidence so it can be examined and debated. There is lots of science published that turns out to be bad science and is ultimately rejected. Science is supposed to be self-correcting but it cannot be if one viewpoint is precluded from participating. The attempt to censor all science papers that lead to a discussion of the supernatural is wrong. If the evidence points to the supernatural, then follow the evidence.
I think this test has confirmatory power.
2. "Stultification is not a good test because it only applies to religious dogma placing certain conclusions beyond question. It cannot possibly apply to our model."
No, Darwinian orthodoxy is stultifying. People refuse to look at the evidence because they know that any change of mind would be bad for their career.
This test has confirmatory power.
3. "Integration is a good test for young-earth creationism but there is no evidence it is a good general test."
Actually, integration is my favorite among these minor tests. The early conditions of the universe were very special and could not have come about by random chance. The one-time only, low entropy Big Bang has implications for any model of origins. So also, do the hundreds of examples of the fine-tuned universe.
This test has confirmatory power.
4. "Research passion is not a good test because it results only from removing religious stultification."
Again, this is an attempt to judge the test based on the evidence. The test needs to be judged on its own prior to examining the evidence. An increase in research passion is a plus in my view.
I view this test as having confirmatory power.
5. "How is Destiny Implications a valid test?"
Actually, I'm not certain it is. This appears to be a new test. It also appears to favor the RTB Creation Model right off the bat. However, it also has some aspects that are similar to some of the other tests. Naturalism has a difficult time with purpose, meaning, and even consciousness. The RTB Creation Model may be able to explain these much better than the evolutionary model but that seems to fall within the realm of Explanatory Power.
I'm not sure this test is needed and I'm not sure it can be equally applied to all models as the others can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2013 7:20 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2013 8:59 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 03-24-2013 10:06 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 57 by Blue Jay, posted 03-24-2013 10:33 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2013 1:30 AM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 03-25-2013 2:43 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 51 of 143 (694444)
03-24-2013 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 8:08 PM


Re: The Major Tests
This is why we need to wait for that debate.
Okay. Then don't posts non facts and then claim that some theories must explain them. In particular, when you annoint creationist assumptions as facts it undercuts your claims of objectivity.
The attempt to censor all science papers that lead to a discussion of the supernatural is wrong.
I don't believe there are any science papers that lead to such conclusions. But in any event the idea that non-scientific propositions are given such short shrift in a science journal should be no surprise to anyone. In particular if such papers avoid "naturalism", they don't belong in "Science".
If the evidence points to the supernatural, then follow the evidence.
You won't get any traction with this unless you cite some examples. I want to be clear about what you are objecting to.
And of course, pointing to the supernatural is not the only alternative to the theory of evolution.
I think this test has confirmatory power.
Of course you do. But you are wrong. More to the point though, you provide nothing more than assertion that creationism is not rejected because it fails scientifically. Show us the science that those scientists have ignored.
No, Darwinian orthodoxy is stultifying. People refuse to look at the evidence because they know that any change of mind would be bad for their career.
You repeat this without providing any evidence as if simply saying it over and over would convince anyone. It would be helpful if you provided some reason for us to believe this. I think anyone successfully overturning the theory of evolution using the scientific method would be rewarded with a Nobel prize, particularly if he did so by demonstrating an alternative.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 8:08 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 7:52 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 52 of 143 (694446)
03-24-2013 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 6:31 PM


Re: Censorship? What Censorship?
designtheorist1 writes:
Let me try again. The old and often used criticism of creationism is that creationists are afraid of data, facts and science. They point to the law passed in Tennessee and the prosecution of the teacher in the Scopes Trial as evidence of censorship. Obviously, if creationism wasn't afraid of data and science, they would not try to censor science in this manner. Science is supposed to be self-correcting. But it is only self-correcting when all sides get a thorough hearing of the evidence.
Reading the other responses I got that sense that it went unnoticed that you're pointing out that creationism tried to censor science, not the other way around, and that this tallies against creationism.
But whether your example is Scopes or Sternberg (former undercover intelligent design advocate as editor of the BSOC), censorship has nothing to do with any theory's explanatory or predictive power, which are the only criteria that matter.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 6:31 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2013 9:52 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 64 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 8:00 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 143 (694447)
03-24-2013 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
03-24-2013 9:40 PM


Re: Censorship? What Censorship?
Reading the other responses I got that sense that it went unnoticed that you're pointing out that creationism tried to censor science, not the other way around, and that this tallies against creationism.
It went unnoticed because it is not the case. I can point to several posts where he discusses the supernatural or creatonism not getting a fair shake in scientific journals, and at least one quote where the Church's past persecution of scientists should be ignored because the Church invented the scientific method.
Well the church didn't invent the scientific method, now did they? Some Christians pursued the scientific method and suffered consequences at the hands of Church officials in cases where they did not wait to publish their propositions while on their death beds.
In the quoted passage designtheorist1 does try to make the case that scientists have used the test to advance their own proposition. But what he points to is only a claim of censorship and not a claim by scientists that censorship is evidence of validity.
And is designtheorist1 the same poster as designtheorist?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 03-24-2013 9:40 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 8:12 AM NoNukes has replied
 Message 67 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 8:20 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 54 of 143 (694448)
03-24-2013 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 4:15 PM


Re: The Major Tests
Explanatory power - means the ability to explain data we have.
Predictive success - means the ability to make predictions about what we are going to learn in the near future.
No. No, that's not what it means. Not in the context of a discussion of the scientific method. Nor would that be a particularly useful concept.
Ross claims the RTB Creation Model has had more predictive success ...
Well that can't be true in your sense of "predictive success", since the near future hasn't arrived yet. You can't have had "predictive success" in your sense, you can only believe without evidence that you're going to. That wouldn't be a test at all.
1.Are there any other major tests you think are as valuable as explanatory power and predictive success?
As I have pointed out, in the proper sense of the term (i.e. not yours) only predictive power counts.
2. Are there any minor tests you think add value as confirmatory tests of a model?
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 4:15 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2013 10:07 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 68 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 8:24 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 55 of 143 (694449)
03-24-2013 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 8:08 PM


Re: The Major Tests
designtheorist1 writes:
1. "Censorship is not a good test because we have the right to censor out bad science or anything that sniffs of religion or god."
I disagree. Forget about teaching creationism in the public schools. That is not what this test is about.
But earlier you used the example of Scopes teaching evolution in public schools. If censoring evolution in public schools is an example, then so is censoring creationism in public schools. I agree that the test isn't about public education, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency.
The attempt to censor all science papers that lead to a discussion of the supernatural is wrong. If the evidence points to the supernatural, then follow the evidence.
I think you'll get nearly universal agreement that science should follow the evidence wherever it leads. It's not that there's censorship of the supernatural, it's that there's no good evidence. Since science is the study of the natural it can't really study the supernatural anyway.
No, Darwinian orthodoxy is stultifying. People refuse to look at the evidence because they know that any change of mind would be bad for their career.
Careers, nay, even fame and fortune, are built from forging new pathways of discovery. What's bad for careers is doing bad science.
Actually, integration is my favorite among these minor tests.
And it should be, because it isn't a minor test. It's part of explanatory power. The more consistent and interwoven any theory is with the rest of science the greater its explanatory power.
I view this test (research passion) as having confirmatory power.
Actually, what is required in science is objectivity and dispassion. As Feynman told us, the easiest person to fool is oneself, and there's nothing like overenthusiasm to fuel the engines of self-deception.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 8:08 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 143 (694450)
03-24-2013 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Dr Adequate
03-24-2013 9:56 PM


Re: The Major Tests
Well that can't be true in your sense of "predictive success", since the near future hasn't arrived yet. You can't have had "predictive success" in your sense, you can only believe without evidence that you're going to. That wouldn't be a test at all.
Ross purports to do this by looking at outcomes he predicted some time ago using various, er pradigms?. For the most part these predictions are based on predictions of exactly the sort we'd all understand, wiith those predictions being unconfirmable at the time they were made. Hugh simply proposes that the predictions will be confirmed in the future.
Kinda like making the prediction that gravity waves will be discovered being associated with General Relativity and not with Newton's law of universal gravitation.
It is probably off topic to say much about the prediction "data" Hugh has collected. That seems to be reserved for a future thread.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 9:56 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2013 1:04 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(2)
Message 57 of 143 (694452)
03-24-2013 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 8:08 PM


Re: The Major Tests
Hi, Designtheorist (May I call you DT?).
I think you should try the word "heuristic" on for size. Heuristics are sort of like mental shortcuts or "rules of thumb": techniques you use to make quick evaluations or decisions when you don't have the ability to perform an actual test.
I think all of Ross's "minor tests" are better described as heuristics. As such, they only serve as rough indicators of the success of a model, but not as actual tests, and shouldn't be regarded as such.
designtheorist1 writes:
1. "Censorship is not a good test because we have the right to censor out bad science or anything that sniffs of religion or god."
I disagree. Forget about teaching creationism in the public schools. That is not what this test is about. The test is about publishing the evidence so it can be examined and debated. There is lots of science published that turns out to be bad science and is ultimately rejected. Science is supposed to be self-correcting but it cannot be if one viewpoint is precluded from participating. The attempt to censor all science papers that lead to a discussion of the supernatural is wrong. If the evidence points to the supernatural, then follow the evidence.
I think this test has confirmatory power.
This is based on the mistaken belief that empirical evidence is the only currency by which ideas are valued, and that a lack of evidence is the only possible weakness a theory might have. But, in fact, there are other weaknesses to consider.
For example, Christianity is designed specifically so that anybody can understand it and ostensibly be saved by its principles, while science is significantly more difficult to understand, and it takes time, effort and training to get good at it. A push for censorship of ideas derived from Christianity might therefore reflect fear of that sort of weakness, rather than a fear of any empirical weaknesses in scientific models.
Thus, this "test" might be used as a heuristic, but it isn't much of an actual test.
designtheorist1 writes:
2. "Stultification is not a good test because it only applies to religious dogma placing certain conclusions beyond question. It cannot possibly apply to our model."
No, Darwinian orthodoxy is stultifying. People refuse to look at the evidence because they know that any change of mind would be bad for their career.
This test has confirmatory power.
I think you've provided an inaccurate caricature of your opponents with that summary. In truth, I can't deny that career considerations are strong motivators in science, and that, when free-market competition gives way to a monopoly, the effect can be stultifying. But, I think you and I might disagree that the sciences are currently in a state of stultification.
Also, take care that you're not confusing the specific rejection of your preferred model with a general, stultifying orthodoxy. For example, Darwinian orthodoxy has relatively recently surrendered ground to non-Darwinian hypotheses, like endosymbiosis and lateral gene transfer, and coexists quite well with them. So, the refusal of the scientific community to consider a given idea is not evidence that the community is generally unwilling to alter its canon.
Also, stultification may occur because of a law of diminishing returns. The whole point of science is to get better and better at explaining reality. If our theories don't become more and more rigid over time, isn't that an indication that we're not getting any better at explaining reality?
designtheorist1 writes:
3. "Integration is a good test for young-earth creationism but there is no evidence it is a good general test."
Actually, integration is my favorite among these minor tests. The early conditions of the universe were very special and could not have come about by random chance. The one-time only, low entropy Big Bang has implications for any model of origins. So also, do the hundreds of examples of the fine-tuned universe.
This test has confirmatory power.
Integration is very dicey. In some cases, a "grand universal theory" is desirable. But, in other cases, it becomes problematic, because it incentivizes simplification at the expense of explanatory power.
For example, take the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. It attempts to integrate all the different features of human anatomy into a single explanatory framework. When you look across all the evidence in a superficial manner, the idea that humans had a semi-aquatic ancestor kind of looks compelling. But, when you examine specific pieces of evidence in finer detail, you realize that there are better explanations for each of them, and that the overall model is only compelling because of its scope and simplicity.
So, while successful theories should have a good history of integration, there's no reason why a bad theory would necessarily have a bad history of integration. That makes it an unreliable test.
designtheorist1 writes:
4. "Research passion is not a good test because it results only from removing religious stultification."
Again, this is an attempt to judge the test based on the evidence. The test needs to be judged on its own prior to examining the evidence. An increase in research passion is a plus in my view.
I view this test as having confirmatory power.
Too many things meet the criteria of "engendering zeal" and "igniting enthusiasm" for this to really be compelling to me. For example, the fear of cancer "engenders zeal" and "ignites enthusiasm" for biomedical research. But, I would hardly argue that cancer-phobia is a good scientific model of biomedical science.
Because of things like this, it's too difficult to tell what's actually engendering the zeal or igniting the enthusiasm. People may like creationism because of the perceived positive "destiny implications," rather than because of its empirical validity.
So, zeal and enthusiasm are bad criteria for assessing empirical validity.
designtheorist1 writes:
5. "How is Destiny Implications a valid test?"
Actually, I'm not certain it is.
I'm certain that it isn't, for the same reason that bribery is not a valid means of finding a reliable eyewitness testimony.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 8:08 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 8:50 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 58 of 143 (694458)
03-25-2013 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by NoNukes
03-24-2013 10:07 PM


Re: The Major Tests
Hugh simply proposes that the predictions will be confirmed in the future.
But if he "proposes that these predictions will be confirmed in the future", then that can't be used as a test of the theory, since the future hasn't arrived yet and we don't know if they will in fact be confirmed.
To test a theory we compare its predictions (in the sense of "logical consequences") with the data available to us now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2013 10:07 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by NoNukes, posted 03-25-2013 1:35 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 03-25-2013 8:14 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 59 of 143 (694459)
03-25-2013 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 8:08 PM


Re: The Major Tests
Science is supposed to be self-correcting but it cannot be if one viewpoint is precluded from participating.
Yes, how can science be self-correcting if they won't publish my paper on how magical winged pigs are stealing my thoughts?
Oh, wait.
Actually, that is science self-correcting at a very early stage. Instead of someone having to correct my stupid idea after I've published it in Nature, the correctness of the scientific enterprise is corrected by not publishing it at all, limiting the incorrectness to the crazy thoughts in my head.
The editors of a journal have not only a right, but a duty to their readers, to be selective about what they publish. There's already a place where people can publish anything they like. It's called "the internet". The whole purpose of a journal is that it's selective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 8:08 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 60 of 143 (694460)
03-25-2013 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dr Adequate
03-25-2013 1:04 AM


Talking about the future...
But if he "proposes that these predictions will be confirmed in the future", then that can't be used as a test of the theory, since the future hasn't arrived yet and we don't know if they will in fact be confirmed.
Hugh made some alleged predictions in 2006. He can now look to see if he was right about any of them.
To test a theory we compare its predictions (in the sense of "logical consequences") with the data available to us now.
I think you are complaining about a perfectly legal use of English tenses.
Einstein made a prediction of the amount which gravity could bend light in 1915-1916, but the expedition that provided confirmation of Einstein's prediction happened in 1919. In fact it can be argued that Eddington's expedition was inconclusive, and that actual confirmation happened even later in time.
Up until the time of confirmation, Einstein's calculation was a prediction of something we might find in the future. Of course after the time of confirmation, we cannot use the word future anymore.
Hugh would credit General Relativity for being able to correctly predict something that could not be verified until years after Einstein's calculation was made. But you are correct that he would not be able to assign that credit in 1916.
Added by edit:
Designtherist1's tests are not direct tests. I agree with Blue Jay that they are instead heuristics. The intent is that the best theories are likely to be associate with these funky measures.
In practice though the proposed heuristics are self serving nonsense for many of the reasons you've already given. Assigning silly ideas points for being dismissed by professional, is, well, silly.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2013 1:04 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024