3 ms·
We're going to need to think carefully about what is covered by "this sort of thing". If your ancient aliens theory didn't actually predict "Stonehenge", but p
by zazen 8y ago
We're going to need to think carefully about what is covered by "this sort of thing".
If your ancient aliens theory didn't actually predict "Stonehenge", but predicted that the aliens would have left "all sorts of cool weird stuff", and then you point at Stonehenge and say "see, that's the sort of cool stuff I mean", then I'm no longer impressed by the predictive power of your ancient aliens theory.
Predictions have to be precise for a theory to be supported by them: they can't be vague generalities. cf. astrologers, who "predict" the future by predicting nothing.
- jpttsn 8y agoI predict “aliens would leave all sorts of cool weird stuff” and you predict “nope just more rolling hills”. My theory is wrong, but it assigns higher likelihood to Stonehenge than yours. That’s why I don’t like the license plate example.
- zazen 8y agoWell, "my" theory is also pretty wrong if it doesn't allow for the human civilisation that built Stonehenge. A theory that is wrong will sometimes predict correct things by accident. That's unavoidable, but we a) have statistical methods for modelling how often things go right by chance, and b) have a philosophy of science in which theories are forever tentatively held: your aliens theory might beat any theory which says Stonehenge is impossible, but will soon be replaced by a theory which explains Stonehenge more economically.