614
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 21:
Line 21: + + +
Talk:Falsifiability of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 19:27, June 23, 2007
, 19:27, June 23, 2007no edit summary
::::::::''falsifying that prediction would only alter, not discredit, evolution.'' Exactly my point: To discredit evolution would require refuting millions of data points. There is no single theorem which, if disproved, will invalidate the encompassing theory of evolution.[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::''falsifying that prediction would only alter, not discredit, evolution.'' Exactly my point: To discredit evolution would require refuting millions of data points. There is no single theorem which, if disproved, will invalidate the encompassing theory of evolution.[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::But even refuting millions of data points would only alter evolution. Find human bones in precambrian rock -- "Oh! Must not be precambrian rock, because there's a human in it!" No matter what findings are made, they can all be "fit into" evolution, because it's such a malleable concept that it cannot be held to account. "I cannot see your dragon!" "That's because it's invisible!" That's why I'm arguing that universal common ancestry is not a falsifiable proposition -- because it's too malleable to test. However, the experimental datapoints you mention ARE falsifiable science. Those datapoints can be interpretted any number of ways with respect to the origins of life, but the datapoints ''themselves'' require no interpretation. Science has nothing to say (yet) about how life originated. But it has a lot to say about how it works today. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::''Falsifiable science leaves no room for alternative explanations.'' I disagree. No science is absolute, including the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution. Nor do they claim to be. Any competing theory must explain all the observations and data points, at least as well as the original theory, and in a manner which is consistent at every level. The objective of science it to reduce the margins of error as much as possible.[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::''Falsifiable science leaves no room for alternative explanations.'' I disagree. No science is absolute, including the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution. Nor do they claim to be. Any competing theory must explain all the observations and data points, at least as well as the original theory, and in a manner which is consistent at every level. The objective of science it to reduce the margins of error as much as possible.[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::I think that your point of view is exactly what Popper (and earlier creationist proponents of falsifiability, like G.K. Chesteron) was arguing against. It's always possible to come up with alternative explanations that completely explain the data points as well as the original theory in a manner which is consistent at every level. "Gravity is caused by little invisible strings on every object, and a little gopher named George is pulling them down at exactly the same rate." It explains the facts. But it's not testable. So it's no better than any other nonsense we can concoct. Just because you can hypothesize an explanation doesn't mean we can TEST it. And until you can TEST an alternate explanation, it's no better than any other crazy explanation I can come up with. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)