The Stage Theory of Theories

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ya know what you're doing wrong right now? Imagining that you have the answer to everything.

But I don't mind. You're kinda clever :p
 
James R said:
I would argue that we can build better stuff because we're getting closer to understanding how nature works. If you want to dispute that, then you might need to come up with a better hypothesis to explain why we're able to build better stuff now than in the past. The argument that technological advance happens purely by accident is pretty weak, in my opinion. Can you do better?
.
Click to expand...


I'd say it's a respectable position. But there are a couple of strong arguments against it.
 
I'd like to think you're right, friend, but the history of science suggests otherwise.

Can you name a scientific theory that wasn't abandoned within 200 years or so?
 
James R said:
Again, you exaggerate, and I'm not sure why. Clearly, evolutionary biologists tend to agree on a great many things. The basic process of evolution by natural selection, for instance, has been part of biology since Darwin. Only a very foolish evolutionary biologist - or one with another agenda - would claim to disagree with that.
.
Click to expand...


Ahem, ever read those evo-devo folks?

I hereby challenge you again to articulate the principle of natural selection in a way that it not utterly vacuous.

For the sake of science and sensible conversation. Ok?

I will apologize if I'm wrong.
 
Let me get the ball rolling . . . those organisms with traits beneficial to survivial and reproduction will tend to . . . um, survive and reproduce more successfully than those without.

Does that sound about right?
 
Please don't get me wrong. Darwin did his best. But gimme 100 years and people will be laughing at this natural selection tautologous crap
 
Cenderawasih said:
If you can give me a paraphrase of the principle of natural selection that is not tautologous and thus not emirically vacuous I will buy you a stuffed bear.

Do you accept the challenge?
Click to expand...
Sure.

Evolution by natural selection is the idea that species change over time in response to changes in the environment and as a result of competition between individuals within the species and with other species. The key ideas are that variation in individuals is produced at random (via various processes), and that individuals that are better adapted to the overall environment in which they find themselves preferentially survive to pass on inherited characteristics to the next generation.

I can expand on what "better adapted" means, if you like.
 
Ok, here's your trivia question, my friend.

What explains dark peppered moths becoming more prevalent in sooty Victorian England?

1. Their black skin, or

2. Those more likely to survive will tend to survive (= natural selection)

Get me?
 
James R said:
Sure.

Evolution by natural selection is the idea that species change over time in response to changes in the environment and as a result of competition between individuals within the species and with other species. The key ideas are that variation in individuals is produced at random (via various processes), and that individuals that are better adapted to the overall environment in which they find themselves preferentially survive to pass on inherited characteristics to the next generation.

I can expand on what "better adapted" means, if you like.
Click to expand...


Ok, but you can you define "better adapted" without reference to survival and reproduction?

See the prob yet?


All you're saying is "those more suited to survive (those better adapted) will do it better than than the less fit (= those less able to survive and reproduce)

And you don't need to get off your armchair to establish that
 
Cenderawasih said:
What you're doing is rehashing Hilary Putnam's "no-miracle argument", namely it would be a miracle if the success of science was a fluke and didn't hook up to reality.

The standard rejoinder is: It is already well established that false theories can yield accurate predictions. Newtonian mechanics got us to the Moon and all that.
Click to expand...
Newtonian mechanics isn't a "false theory", for reasons I explained above. It is perfectly adequate for getting us to the Moon, not so good for explaining the bending of light by the Sun, and so on.
But I know of no contemporary physicist who still believes in an action-at-a-distance attractive force which acts instantaneously over any distance. Do you?
Click to expand...
No, but I know plenty of contemporary physicists who still use Newtonian gravity theory to calculate things, such as how to get a rocket to the moon.
 
Cenderawasih said:
Oh but that was besides the point. Have the read the evo-devo folks? They tend to think natural selection is a load of bollocks.
Click to expand...
That's news to me. Got a quote/link?

And so do I. But I have no quotes.
Click to expand...
Oh. How disappointing. :frown:
We may have to do this the old fashioned way, pal. Tell me about the predictive and explanatory power of natural selection. As far as I can discern, it has none.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you want to have a discussion on a different topic than the one you started with. That would be better had in a different thread, I think.

I'm surprised to learn that you believe the theory of natural selection has no explanatory power. For a moment there, you sounded as if you knew something about evolution. Maybe try a google search, for starters?
 
James R said:
Newtonian mechanics isn't a "false theory", for reasons I explained above. It is perfectly adequate for getting us to the Moon, not so good for explaining the bending of light by the Sun, and so on.
Click to expand...

If you don't trust me, will you trust Albert Einstein?



"We can indeed see from Newton's formulation of it that the concept of absolute space, which comprised that of absolute rest, made him feel uncomfortable; he realized that there seemed to be nothing in experience corresponding to this last concept. He was also not quite comfortable about the introduction of forces operating at a distance. But the tremendous practical success of his doctrines may well have prevented him and the physicists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries from recognizing the fictitious character of the foundations of his system." - "On the Methods of Theoretical Physics", Einstein,


How do you interpret "fictitious character"? LOL

What Albert is saying is, as you are, Newtonian mechanics is instrumentally useful but a conceptual mess.
 
Cenderawasih said:
Now for a statement to even stand a chance of being true its subject term must refer. Get me? It must correspond to something in reality.
Click to expand...
Okay...
Do you believe anything true can be said about unicorns?
Click to expand...
Sure. It's true that some kids love unicorns. For example.
If not, why not? Because there exist no horse-like creatures with a single horn?
Click to expand...
How do you know there exist no horse-like creatures with a single horn?
Do you believe anything true can be said about Newtonian gravity? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
??

I said some true things about Newtonian gravity above. Am I missing something?
How do you determine whether Newton's "gravity" referred to anything in reality or not?
Click to expand...
Compare what Newton's gravity says with what you see "in reality", I suppose.

How do you determine whether anything refers to anything in reality, or not?
 
Cenderawasih said:
May I see your demonstration?
Click to expand...
A specific discussion of the successes and failures of the phlogiston theory seems to me to be peripheral to the topic of this thread. Perhaps a topic for a different thread?

For myself, I'm not really that interested in digging into the details of phlogiston theory to show where it is false. But perhaps somebody else will be interested to take you up on your offer.
Seems you read a lil phil of science, pal. Surely you know about the Duhem-Quine thesis?
Click to expand...
Please remind me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top