Faid
Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006
|
Just my 2 drachmas:
Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,00<!--emo& ) | | Quote | Imagine if Newton had said:
-I observe that things fall down
-I propose that it's God's Omnipresent Hand that pushes them down
-I predict that, if God's Omnipresent Hand exists, it will push things down everywhere in the world
-I examine the world
-I see that things fall down
-I conclude that my testable predictions have been confirmed, and God's Omnipresent Hand exists. Do you really think that, in that case, anyone would think of him today as anything more than a crackpot? |
Yes, I do think we would consider him a crackpot if he had reasoned this way. I am not reasoning this way. See discussion above. |
The above discussion says nothing about testable predictions, and your flawed perception of them that I was explaining in that quote -and anyway, I think the term "abductive reasoning" is used here (inventing a hypothesis (B) that explains (A) = good reason to believe (B) is true = proof that (B) is true) is way over the line of logic and into the realm of logical fallacy.
| Quote (afdave @ May 01 2006,00<!--emo&) | | Quote | | then how on earth does this "prediction" derive from your hypothesis? (other that trying to explain what you already see, of course... |
"Trying to explain what I already see" IS THE ONLY THING I am trying to do ... I think I confused you by not being clear on the structure of my argument. See above. |
Then, can you admit that all your examples were part of your hypothesis, NOT "testable predictions", so we can move along? You still have to cover 2), though.
--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:
"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"
"...mutations can add information to a genome. And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."
|
