Science: A Method not a Source

No. I asked one in the context of the other and both you and jar decided to answer the latter in a way that had no bearing on the primary question. They make absolute sense in the context of jar's example. I thought I agreed that seeking causal relationships was a perfectly rational thing to do?But how does that pertain to the world ending if a sacrifice isn't made? How does one causally conclude that without a rather large dose of imagination of the more creative variety?That was my question to jar and frankly he seems unable to answer it without contradicting himself. So having tidied that up I will ask whether or not you still think dancing angels should be considered no more or less likley to be the cause of gravitational effects than space-time curvature? As you have previously claimed.Are you still wedded to your ridiculous notion that it is the unfalsified status of a proposal alone that matters?Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotes

Yes you did - I quote - "I would go so far as to say that as an example, the Aztec belief that without sacrifice the world would end was both reasonable and logical,...." Because you have made "such a claim". Here it is: So there in blue and white are the claims you now say you haven't made.

If (for example) General Relativity is not a more accurate model of reality than Newtonian gravity how do you explain the fact that GR is able to make predictions and derive results that the Newtonian theory cannot? Of course we can. You yourself have already conceded that a theory which can make successful predictions is a superior theory to one that cannot. Regardless of whether either of them are falsified.Telekinetic aliens are responsible for gravitational effects. GR is wrong despite all it's successful predictions. The telekinetic alien theory is unfalsified. But is falsifiable because if we find these pesky aliens and cut off their heads gravity will cease to operate.Do you consider the telekinetic alien theory to be on par with General realtivity as an explanation for gravitational effects?If not why not?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Fix quote

If you are pointing out that humans can be logical and imaginative simultaneously again then I will simply agree with you. Again. I am talking about the scientific method. As per the topic. What was jar talking about? In this thread I have been talking about the role of prediction in the scientific method. Jar decided to chip in with his human sacrifice example.Scientific predictions are derived from the logical consequences of theories which are themselves based on observation. Right?Do you think the conclusion that the world will end if a human sacrifice is not made can be derived scientifically?You can, as Jar has already pointed out, observe that bad things happen. Based on this you can then make the giant leap of imagination to conclude that A) Gods make bad things happen and B) If you sacrifice someone to them they won't do the ultimate bad thing of ending the world.But I would suggest that the balance between logic-reason and human creativity in making this leap is weighted on the side of the latter. And that as such this doesn't qualify as the sort of scientific prediction under discussion.Hopefully this clears things up for you. So, according to you, we cannot rationally or scientifically conclude that gravitational effects are more likely to be caused by space-time curvature than dancing angels. Is that correct? Sure. Prediction. Gravity as space-time curvature allows us to make all sorts of incredibly detailed and accurate predictions. Dancing angels (even aside from being an entirely baseless proposition) doesn't. Thus I would argue that gravity as caused by space-time curvature is a more accurate model, and more likely to be representative of reality, than dancing angels being responsible for gravitational effects.I am intrigued to know which part of this you disagree with?
I am also intrigued to know why you think the dancing angels might not just stop dancing and thus gravity cease to operate sometime next week?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Not everything qualifies as evidence - I am thrilled to see that you consider this realisation to be progress on your part. I had no idea you were starting from such a low base.FYI there are also many things that don't qualify as predictions Jon. "Predictions" that don't predict anything. Like the ones you are advocating in Message 76 and beyond. Yes and this is where you are going badly wrong.All scientific predictions are the logically derived consequences of a theory. But not all the logically derived consequences of a theory are predictions.If Newton had said that apples would fall towards Earth rather than away from it this would hardly have been a vindicating prediction of his theory now would it? Where we have competing unfalsified explanations the theory that results in the most accurate predictions can be considered the most accurate model of reality.That in a nutshell is my position. Your objections to this remain as muddled as ever. If the above is simply too difficult for you to comprehend then I guess there is little more to be said.

Where an explanatory model more accurately describes reality it should lead to conclusions about as yet unobserved aspects of reality in a way that an inaccurate model will not. I have talked about gravity already. So as another example consider Tiktaalik. Example
The paleontologists in question made the prediction that a fish-amphibian transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians (obviously). More impressively they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.

​

So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a fishopod, beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.
End ExampleUnless our model of evolution and geology is accurate to some degree how could that prediction have made and verified? Luck?Nonsense like creationism or omphalism will twist and turn and wriggle and contort in order to explain things like the Tiktaalik. But will never be able to predict. For this reason they can be considered as relatively unlikely to be accurate models of reality.I am intrigued to know which part of this you disagree with?
I am also intrigued to know why you think that those dancing gravity angels might not just stop dancing and thus gravity cease to operate sometime next week? Such as?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.