slevesque responds to ZenMonkey:
quote:
Afterall, correct predictions are one of the criterions we use to intuitively judge which theory is more successful, not just the shortcomings of competing theories.
Indeed: Proving one hypothesis false does not make another necessarily true. This is a common fallacy among creationists who seem to think that if they can prove evolution to be false, that means their pet description of god and creation are true.
However, two hypotheses (both alike in dignity) who can predict the same result through all experimental protocols cause us to try and find some way to distinguish them: What do they predict that does or does not happen. This allows us to discard one in favor of the other. While we definitely the positive aspect showing that A -> B, but we also need the dispositive aspect that A -> B, C, and D which we have seen while Z -> B and C, but not D which takes it out.
As we often say, theories need to remain consistent with all previous observations. The theory can (and does) change. Apples did not stop falling from trees simply because we had to study how gravity works to come up with a more accurate model, waiting for us to make up our minds. As we progressed from Aristotelian to Newtonian to Einsteinian mechanics, things still moved as they always had. Our theories changed, but the facts did not. Instead, we just got more of them that had to be incorporated into the whole.
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
™ Version 4.2
