The Stage Theory of Theories

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cenderawasih said:
Ya know what you're doing wrong right now? Imagining that you have the answer to everything.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Cenderawasih said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Cenderawasih said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
James R said:
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.
Click to expand...


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?
 
Cenderawasih said:
If you don't trust me, will you trust Albert Einstein?
Click to expand...
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.
What Albert is saying is, as you are, Newtonian mechanics is instrumentally useful but a conceptual mess.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...
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.;)

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.:D
 
Last edited:
Cenderawasih said:
Ok. Would you mind giving me a non-tautologous characterization of the principle of natural selection?
Click to expand...
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?
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top