The Stage Theory of Theories

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Cenderawasih, Jan 27, 2022.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,345
    What made you think I imagine I have the answer to everything? Seems like a complete non sequitur to me.

    Are you trying to pick some kind of fight with me?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,345
    If only somebody could tell us what they are....
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Cenderawasih Registered Member

    Messages:
    114
    Not at all, sir, I never pick a fight with anyone over 50 cms tall.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,345
    You seem to want me to jump through hoops for you. What's the relevance of this?
     
  8. Cenderawasih Registered Member

    Messages:
    114

    They are the argument from underdetermination and the pessimistic induction.

    Ever read Larry Laudan? Haha. He'll ruin your scientific quixotism.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,345
    Have you read Darwin?

    He explained it all at some length and gave lots of examples, you know.

    It's not tautologous.

    How much biology have you formally studied? I'm curious.
     
  10. Cenderawasih Registered Member

    Messages:
    114
    Ok. Would you mind giving me a non-tautologous characterization of the principle of natural selection?

    I'm still asking nicely, pal.
     
  11. Cenderawasih Registered Member

    Messages:
    114
    Yes, I've read Darwin and he he isn't much fun LOL
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,345
    It sounds like you want to have a discussion on a different topic to the one you started this thread with.

    Please google "why darwin's theory is not a tautology" and do a little reading. Then we can continue this discussion in a separate thread, perhaps.
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,345
    Why do you ask?
     
  14. Cenderawasih Registered Member

    Messages:
    114

    Oh c'mon, dude. I don't mind if we're off topic.

    You're the peacock bragging about the prodigious explanatory power of natural selection. I did ask you (three times now) for a non-vacuous characterization thereof.

    When can I expect your response?
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,345
    I like to evaluate ideas on their merits, not on the reputation of the person proposing them. Argument from authority is a logical fallacy, you know.
    It's easy for you, with the benefit of 400 years of hindsight, to rubbish Newton. What original and useful contributions have you made to human progress? You seem a little judgemental.
     
  16. Cenderawasih Registered Member

    Messages:
    114
    because opium has a dormitive virtue. Same as natural selection.

    = it explains nothing
     
  17. Cenderawasih Registered Member

    Messages:
    114
    Ok. sorry for bringing up Albert Einstein. The problem is, when I'm alone, people like you think I'm talking crap LOL

    I came prepared
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,345
    How do they go?
    No, I haven't read him. Maybe you're right. What does he have to say?
     
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,370
    Quite. Theories in science are models. The Newtonian model is fine for most purposes but there are occasions when you need the better (but far more unwieldy) model of GR.

    As a chemist, I am very used to the idea of selecting different models for the case at hand. That's because chemical systems are complex and untidy, necessitating the use of approximations in order to reduce the variables to a manageable number. It is generally the case that models are simplified and idealised representations and, as such, trying to determine whether they can be said to be true or false is a bit naïve.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    P.S. I have often found that pointing this out to creationists annoys them a lot. Many of their arguments seem to need to assume that theories are true or false in an absolute sense, because it is only then that they are able to ridicule evolution. They also seem to think that the way theories change (in fact, er, evolve) is a sign of weakness, probably because in their world of biblical scripture, there is no change or development. But that's another subject.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2022
  20. Cenderawasih Registered Member

    Messages:
    114
    Who gives a shit about Isaac Newton and Larry Laudan. Can't we be friends? You're very clever
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,345
    I already did.

    You say you're not a Creationist. But it sounds like you don't accept evolution - or at least evolution by natural selection. What, then, is your position on evolution?
     
  22. Cenderawasih Registered Member

    Messages:
    114
    Ok, Laudan is noted for his "pessimistic induction". = every scientific theory of the past is now considered crap, so by a process of induction, all our current theories are probably crap too

    Yes, I know it's a little depressing.

    Got any gin?
     
  23. Cenderawasih Registered Member

    Messages:
    114
    My position is Boris Johnson is proof enough
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page