Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cybvax0.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: margaritas ante procos -- on the rocks, please Message-ID: <155@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: Fri, 28-Sep-84 12:06:32 EDT Article-I.D.: cybvax0.155 Posted: Fri Sep 28 12:06:32 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Oct-84 20:28:31 EDT References: <186@uf-csg.UUCP> <338@uwmacc.UUCP> Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 53 Paul Dubois, you're a very shifty arguer. > [Mark Fishman] > The fundamental problem with trying to debunk it is that those > who advance this world view (it isn't, by proper definition, a > "theory") have, in so doing, already rejected the principles of > reasoned discourse on the basis of which any such argument would > have to be erected. To embrace a non-falsifiable theory of > "magicness" is really to reject theory, to reject the derivation > of theory from observation, to reject science (and thereby to > reject reason) in the first place. To invoke superstition is NOT > to explain, but to seek to *evade* explanation's dominion. > [Paul DuBois] > Some very good points. However, I am moved to ask: > > What is your proper definition of "theory"? I would assume from > your comments that it should include a falsifiability criterion. > Very well. What is the falsifiability test for (any brand of) > evolution? With a condescending "good point", you evade agreeing with any specific thing. But the phrase "falsifiable" rings a Pavlovian creationist bell, and you lurch into a side track. Very well. What makes evolution falsifiable is that it cannot be used to explain just any evidence that we might happen to encounter in the future. For example, if we find new organisms or their fossils that contradict our ideas of a tree- structured path of descent of life (remember medieval ideas of chimeras?), then evolution would be falsified. Or if some being gave a demonstration of the creation of a "kind", say a new mammal, and presented evidence that he was able to produce the other evidence that supports evolution, then evolution would be falsified. The reason creationism cannot be falsified, is because the theory itself is along the lines of "Whatever way it is, Gawd made it that way, so there!" When we find that cells of all eukaryotes are alike, someone remarks "Gawd made a good tool: why shouldn't he use it all over?" When we find an anomally such as the panda's thumb, someone remarks "Gawsh, that Gawd sure is imaginative!" As a side comment on the falsifiability argument, Karl Popper, the major major developer of the idea, argues strongly against creationist misapplication of that argument. So, Paul, which of Mark's points do you feel are "very good"? Mike Huybensz ...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh (Quotes from Bertrand Russell, etc. to start appearing here soon....)