Hi, Slevesque.
slevesque writes:
If all of scientific knowledge is based on affirming the consequent, then we're in deep shizzles.
And yet, strangely, millions of scientists have been able to apply this method to real-world applications, with great success. If you call that "shizzles," then I suppose you're right.
Look, the only point you've got is that CS might not have treated his conclusion as tentatively as he should have. But, we all know that empirical knowledge is tentative: we've been reasoning that way for decades, ever since Karl Popper's work in the 1960's.
Empirical methodologies cannot prove hypotheses conclusively. Successful predictions based on hypotheses can be described as coincidences or ascribed to some underlying mechanism that still is not known.
But, until such a mechanism is proposed, the current best model remains unchallenged. CS has shown that there is good reason to suspect that birds are descended from theropods, and no reason as yet to suspect that they are not. Until somebody comes up with a better explanation, CS and his model are king of the hill.
That's how it works.
Edited by Bluejay, : CS and his model are two nouns: thus, they require a plural verb.
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2