Evidence is irrelevant because of the problem of contrastive underdetermination.
Ok. You are on the list of the dogmatists who refuse to address evidence.
Anyone else want to address the topic.
Upvote
0
Evidence is irrelevant because of the problem of contrastive underdetermination.
You misrepresent my position. I have no problem with discussing the evidence.Ok. You are on the list of the dogmatists who refuse to address evidence.
Anyone else want to address the topic.
You misrepresent my position. I have no problem with discussing the evidence.
By way of example, let's take this evidence. John spent $100 on fruit. Apples cost $2 each. Oranges cost $3 each. Bananas cost $5 each. What can we conclude about the amount of money spent by John?
Answer: Nothing! We can, of course, theorize that we bought 50 apples or 20 bananas. We could equally theorize that he bought 35 apples and 10 oranges. It's equally possible that he didn't buy any of the three fruit and spent all the money on mangoes.
The information is not sufficient to determine that one and only one theory is correct. Now I realize that you are dogmatically determined to insist your pet theory regardless all these problems. I get it. So does everyone else -- you have an ax to grind. Just don't expect us to go along with it.
Nay, but it be thee who refuseth to address the topic.
How doest thou account for the problem of contrastive underdetermination? Except, of course, by stout refusal to acknowledge the existence of the problem.
Contrastive underdetermination is, for example, when multiple theories can explain the same data set.Please present arguments in your own words, and stay on topic.
That would be more of a problem if someone would actually come up with a theory that fits the data as well. Do you have one in mind?Your claim seems to be "Since my theory fits the data, it is the best one." What about all the alternative theories that someone could come up with that fits the data set just as well as yours does?
Creationism.That would be more of a problem if someone would actually come up with a theory that fits the data as well. Do you have one in mind?
(In reality, there are an indefinite number of theories that can explain biological and genetic data equally well. They all seem to involve common descent, however.)
Creationism.
Intelligent design.
The main arguments against the above are, as far as I know, that neither one is really scientific. Therefore, no true Scotsman... er... I mean scientist... would believe in such a thing.
In the case of ID, they also forgot the "theory" part. There is no theory of intelligent design: no hypothesis about what happened, when or how, and no predictive power.You're forgetting the "fits the data" part.
Whereas natural selection predicts that the fittest will survive. We will know which organisms were "fittest" once they have survived and bred. What a remarkable predictive power we find in this tautology...In the case of ID, they also forgot the "theory" part. There is no theory of intelligent design: no hypothesis about what happened, when or how, and no predictive power.
Contrastive underdetermination is, for example, when multiple theories can explain the same data set.
Here's an example: 3, 5, 7 ... what's the next number in the series?
Some people might say 9. Just add 2 to get the next element in the series.
However, isn't it equally possible that this is an enumeration of all odd prime numbers? In that case, the next number in the series would be 11.
Alternatively, couldn't this data set be described as |-x-2|?
There are an infinite number of theories that could explain the data. Thus, we say that the theory is underdetermined.
Your claim seems to be "Since my theory fits the data, it is the best one." What about all the alternative theories that someone could come up with that fits the data set just as well as yours does?
Whereas natural selection predicts that the fittest will survive. We will know which organisms were "fittest" once they have survived and bred. What a remarkable predictive power we find in this tautology...
By way of example, let's take this evidence. John spent $100 on fruit. Apples cost $2 each. Oranges cost $3 each. Bananas cost $5 each. What can we conclude about the amount of money spent by John?
You are the one making the positive claim that science is valid and leads to valuable discoveries. According to your own set of standards, shouldn't the burden be on you to demonstrate this?Which is a rejection of science in general, and really not on topic.
Please go and live in the tenth century if you don't think science is valid. After all, it makes no valuable discoveries, so nothing much has changed since that, has it?You are the one making the positive claim that science is valid and leads to valuable discoveries. According to your own set of standards, shouldn't the burden be on you to demonstrate this?