Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8961 total)
39 online now:
caffeine, Coragyps, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, ringo, vimesey (8 members, 31 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,367 Year: 1,115/23,288 Month: 1,115/1,851 Week: 239/320 Day: 11/87 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Testing Theories of Origins
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 143 (694424)
03-24-2013 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 3:20 PM


Re: The Major Tests
We need a theory that will explain...the cessation of new life forms evolving after mankind came on the scene

Who believes the above to be the case? I think we should stick to requiring theories to explain established facts.

Predictive success is the ability to predict new discoveries and observations. It is purely about data we do not yet have but based on the model we would expect to find in the future. If it does not happen in the future, it is not a prediction.

censorship

All of the explanations I've seen for why this is a meaningful test so far seem like loser's whining about not gaining traction. Why isn't acceptance by scientists a valued measure? Further who has a stronger claim to censorship than Giordano Bruno?

"Predictive Power"

Possibly some merit to this, but as used by Hugh, the measure is total crap.

As far as predictive power goes, I've looked at the table of predictions Hugh is using (link below). The predictions made for "Naturalism" contain a number of predictions that show a very naive and simplistic view of science, and other predictions that are total crap. For example, there is no single 'naturalistic' view of 'fine tuning'.

http://www.reasons.org/files/Predictions_ver1.pdf


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 25 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 3:20 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 6:13 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 44 of 143 (694433)
03-24-2013 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 6:13 PM


Re: The Major Tests
I really do not want to debate the evidence yet but I thought it was well understood that we have fewer mammals on the planet now than in the past. If it was not well known, I would not have used it as an example.

Whether or not that your mammal statement true, has little or nothing at to do with the ceasing of evolution of new life forms since man appeared. Depending on your definition of man, man has existed over the past few hundred thousand to one million years. Who says that no evolution of life forms has occurred during that time?

Well maybe creationists who believe that no new creatures were formed after Day 7.


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 41 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 6:13 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 7:13 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 45 of 143 (694436)
03-24-2013 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 6:13 PM


Re: The Major Tests
What we are discussing is the tests scientists should use in choosing the best model. By including "acceptance of scientists" as a method, the reasoning would be circular and new theories would rarely get a hearing.

I thought the question was about tests indicating validity and not tests for who gets a hearing. The fact that a theory is favored should not count against validity. Similarly the idea that propositions gaining the most disdain from scientists are most likely correct is total nonsense. And from the silly stuff put forth to deflect the Church's past actions against scientists, it would appear that somebody knows that to be true.

You are reinforcing my "whining loser" opinion regarding this test.

It is possible to have more than one prediction when this is the case. How many different predictions have come out of the different naturalistic views of fine-tuning? If the view is not able to make any predictions, is it really science?

Where did I suggest taking on a view that makes no predictions?

One possible naturalistic view is that the forming of intelligent life only occurs in universes with particular constants. Another is that only such universes are even possible. Each view likely leads to different predictions about how much fine tuning will show up in the universe, yet Hugh provides a single prediction and calls that the naturalistic prediction.

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 41 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 6:13 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
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 yet responded

  
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 responded

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

  
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 responded

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

  
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 acknowledged this reply

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

  
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 responded

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

  
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 yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 143 (694497)
03-25-2013 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by designtheorist
03-25-2013 8:12 AM


Re: Censorship? What Censorship?
it is because of certain statements in the Bible show God put order in the universe that caused men to seek to understand that order.

Which does not come close to stating the method of finding that order. And if the story were true, then the scientific method wouldn't be attributable to Christianity, what with the universe being formed and the scientific method being under development well before Christ walked the earth. If this is Ross's argument, Ross's claim is even more bogus than I suggested.


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 65 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 8:12 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 143 (694505)
03-25-2013 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by AdminNosy
03-25-2013 8:44 AM


Re: Clarification
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.

If this is the example given, the example is wrong. The precession of Mercury's orbit was well known before Einstein was born (1879), and had been measured fairly accurately by 1860.

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.

Emotionally yes, but designtheorist claims far more than that.


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 70 by AdminNosy, posted 03-25-2013 8:44 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 143 (694523)
03-25-2013 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by designtheorist
03-25-2013 9:26 AM


Re: The Major Tests
I'm saying that Darwin does not accept the recent rejection of Darwin's LUCA

Darwin is long since dead and buried. Exactly what do you mean by this statement?


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 87 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 9:26 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 93 of 143 (694525)
03-25-2013 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by designtheorist
03-25-2013 9:05 AM


Re: Clarification
Einstein's theory was successful because it made predictions that were later confirmed by observation. If a prediction is not related to the future, then it is not a prediction.

While I disagree with Dr. Adequate a bit about terminology, I submit that there is no difference at all between prediction and explanation in a properly formulated theory, and that this distinction of factors is total crap.

Let's consider general relativity's ability to predict the entire amount of the precession of the orbit of mercury.

In simple terms, the general theory of relativity is a consequence of equivalence principle, but it is a consequence that was extremely difficult to work out because of the mathematics involved. However Einstein managed to master and use the mathematics to logically derive the theory of general relativity essentially from the geometric considerations surrounding the equivalence principle.

The only calibration of the theory involved was that the general theory of relativity had to reduce to Newton's law of universal gravitation in the domain of slow velocities and weak gravitation fields. Note though that Newton's theory was incapable of accounting for the orbit of mercury. This calibration could not have introduced the advancing phenomena into the general theory.

In other words, the fact of that Mercury's orbit precessed about 43 seconds of arc per century more than predicted by Newton's theory of gravitation was not used to construct Einstein's theory. Thus, the fact that 43 arc second per second value fell out of Einstein's equation was no less impressive than if the value had been measured later. It is of historical interest only that the extra 43 seconds of arc was already known.

Yes it is true that the Eddington confirmation of the amount of bending of star light by the sun coming after the fact of Einstein's calculation made Einstein publically famous in non- scientific circles, but that timing is irrelevant to a determination of whether general relativity is actually valid.

The order of confirmation provides some evidence that the theory has not been manipulated to provide a confirming result of existing data, but we could also have determined that Einstein had done no such manipulation by reviewing his work. Despite the claims made on Conservapedia, it is beyond question that Einstein did not perform such manipulations.

So this "future prediction" stuff is a possible heuristic test, but it clearly is not correct in all cases, so it is not a main test. The real test would concern the independence of the prediction from the observations and not whether the prediction followed or preceded the observations in time. Also important is having a solid enough formulation such that calculations of reality can actually be made at all.

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 80 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 9:05 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Percy, posted 03-25-2013 11:09 AM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 143 (694531)
03-25-2013 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Percy
03-25-2013 11:09 AM


Re: Clarification
I have to disagree with your interpretation of prediction. By your definition string theory is making successful predictions every time it comes up with answers consistent with the standard model.

I don't think I've advanced such a definition.

If I have suggested anything other than that predictions must match reality then I was wrong. But I don't believe I've said anything about matching one theory to another theory rather than to reality as being a test.

I did speak of Newton's law of gravitation. Perhaps that is a point of confusion. First, Newton's law of gravitation is indistinguishable from reality where low speeds and weak gravitational fields are involved. But I did not cite Newton as a prediction. Instead I spoke of the technique of assuring that general relativity matched Newtonian gravity in the domain in which Newton was correct in the process of developing Einstein's theory and not in verifying it.

And I spoke of Newton only to point out the danger of incorporating a phenomenon into a theory and then claiming that the theory predicted the phenomenon. That would not be a true prediction. It's also not an error that Einstein made.

I'll also note that at in Einstein's day it was impossible to measure the anomalous advance of the perhileon of Venus and Earth because the orbits involved have very low eccentricities, and because the anomaly is much smaller. But I reject the idea that there is any qualitative difference in verifying general relativity against those values and that of Mercury which was known prior to Einstein's work.

If that does not address your point, then I don't see what your point is. I agree that falsifiability is a proper requirement for a theory, but that is not one of designtheorist's tests. I did not discuss it but I certainly don't reject it. We should add falsifiability to the list of real tests.

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 94 by Percy, posted 03-25-2013 11:09 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Percy, posted 03-25-2013 11:52 AM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 143 (694539)
03-25-2013 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Percy
03-25-2013 11:52 AM


Re: Clarification
Einstein's theory of general relativity had explanatory power because it was consistent with what we already knew, for example, about the precession of Mercury. And it had predictive power because it predicted things we didn't know, such as how much gravity would bend light, and how much rotating mass would bend space-time.

I don't see how the precession and gravity bending predictions prove your point. I don't see a distinction between knowing the values before and after theory formulation. Being wrong about either would falsify the theory. In fact, Einstein actually made a bad prediction regarding light bending that might have gotten exposed if Eddington's pre-war expedition had gotten off the ground.

However, 'how much rotating mass would bend space-time'... Yes I can see that Einstein predicted an entire phenomena that was unexpected in that case.

Okay. I yield.

From the link designtheorist provided.

quote:
Explanatory power is the ability of a theory to effectively explain the subject matter it pertains to. One theory is sometimes said to have more explanatory power than another theory about the same subject matter if it offers greater predictive power. That is, if it offers more details about what we should expect to see, and what we should not.

This definition seems to show a rather tight relationship between explanatory power and predictive power. Perhaps predictive power can be distinguished from explanatory power, but I simply don't see how differences in timing between phenomenon and observation make a theory more or less viable.


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 98 by Percy, posted 03-25-2013 11:52 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Percy, posted 03-25-2013 12:52 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020