5 ms·

So your solution to difficulty is simply that we should give up trying? No Thanks. Theories are a prerequisite to scientific experiment.

foldr 7y ago
That's a bizarre reading of EGreg's comment. If the best theories that we have at present in some domain are weak, then we should acknowledge that. Doing so obviously doesn't prevent people from trying to develop better theories. On the contrary, it should spur them on.
- EGreg 7y ago
  foldr is exactly right. Admitting the truth is major thing in science. The upshot of admitting the truth is that you shouldn't rely on theories that haven't been proven or even tested. You can certainly search for ways to make them falsifiable and try to disprove them. But don't for example make public policy based on them, or publish definite statements about how this theory finally "disproves" competing theories. But again, this applies in any area of science. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
  - philbarr 7y ago
    > or publish definite statements about how this theory finally "disproves" competing theories. But again, this applies in any area of science. Which competing theory does evolution disprove?
    - foldr 7y ago
      Lamarckism would be one example.
      - philbarr 7y ago
        Oh I must have missed that press release. And I'm sure he was talking about lamarckism. Give it a rest.
        foldr 7y ago
        I think EGreg was talking about specific theories of how particular traits developed, not The Theory of Evolution as a whole. I was just answering your question.
        philbarr 7y ago
        I think EGreg doubts evolution itself: "I think the evolution of flight is one of the clearest examples that the standard theories of evolution purely by mutation and natural selection are still lacking explanatory power."
        foldr 7y ago
        That's doubting the currently accepted explanation for how evolution occurred, not the fact of evolution itself. The standard response to this sort of doubt inevitably seems to involve a lot of huffing and foot stomping and irrelevant accusations of creationism, as it isn't currently possible to respond with an actually persuasive and non-speculative account of, say, the evolution of feathers via random mutation and natural selection.
        philbarr 7y ago
        He's a creationist. Accept it. Read all his posts in this thread.
        EGreg 7y ago
        Do you realize how religious you sound? Same as an ancap saying “he’s a statist, just accept it, because he says market failures exist”

foldr 7y ago

That's a bizarre reading of EGreg's comment. If the best theories that we have at present in some domain are weak, then we should acknowledge that. Doing so obviously doesn't prevent people from trying to develop better theories. On the contrary, it should spur them on.

EGreg 7y ago
foldr is exactly right. Admitting the truth is major thing in science. The upshot of admitting the truth is that you shouldn't rely on theories that haven't been proven or even tested. You can certainly search for ways to make them falsifiable and try to disprove them. But don't for example make public policy based on them, or publish definite statements about how this theory finally "disproves" competing theories. But again, this applies in any area of science. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
- philbarr 7y ago
  > or publish definite statements about how this theory finally "disproves" competing theories. But again, this applies in any area of science. Which competing theory does evolution disprove?
  - foldr 7y ago
    Lamarckism would be one example.
    - philbarr 7y ago
      Oh I must have missed that press release. And I'm sure he was talking about lamarckism. Give it a rest.
      - foldr 7y ago
        I think EGreg was talking about specific theories of how particular traits developed, not The Theory of Evolution as a whole. I was just answering your question.
        philbarr 7y ago
        I think EGreg doubts evolution itself: "I think the evolution of flight is one of the clearest examples that the standard theories of evolution purely by mutation and natural selection are still lacking explanatory power."
        foldr 7y ago
        That's doubting the currently accepted explanation for how evolution occurred, not the fact of evolution itself. The standard response to this sort of doubt inevitably seems to involve a lot of huffing and foot stomping and irrelevant accusations of creationism, as it isn't currently possible to respond with an actually persuasive and non-speculative account of, say, the evolution of feathers via random mutation and natural selection.
        philbarr 7y ago
        He's a creationist. Accept it. Read all his posts in this thread.
        EGreg 7y ago
        Do you realize how religious you sound? Same as an ancap saying “he’s a statist, just accept it, because he says market failures exist”