Theoretically speaking

[andrewducker]

[Poll #1320771]

Comments

[matgb]

Assuming that the word "clearly" can be read as "the balance of evidence points to" or "scientifically valid" as, y'know, science isn't sure of anything.

I'm a lot closer to accepting aquatic ape than I am to discounting it, but a) it's not my field (at all) and b) it's nowhere near clearly right, but it is a good hypothesis to explain a number of things I haven't seen better explained.

[meico.livejournal.com]

I feel the same about the poll. I clicked interesting theory to lots of things I think have a huge body of evidence and have had ample opprtunity to be falsified; that however, to me, does not mean that they are cleary right- simply that they are damn good theories.

Asummptions (say, of a certain theory being correct) should only ever be thought of and used as mere tools to allow enquery along certain paths...

[drjon.livejournal.com]

I am confused by your poll. What do you mean by "Macro-Evolution", for example... the body of evidence for mutation of species over time, or the theory for why it has occured? I suspect you're trying for some sort of subtlety, because you didn't just put "Evolution" or "NeoDarwinism", but the point's lost on me, I'm afraid.

(I didn't end up putting answers for things which I didn't think were Theories. For example, the Uncanny Valley is an observed phenomena. To the best of my knowledge, there's no good Theory been developed as yet, merely Speculations.)

[andrewducker]

ID proponents (and creationists) frequently contrast microevolution (whereby small changes occur within a species - this tends to be fully accepted) and macroevolution (one species becoming another - this tends to be disregarded as "cats don't become dogs").

"The uncanny valley is a hypothesis that when robots and other facsimiles of humans look and act almost like actual humans, it causes a response of revulsion among human observers."
Sounds like a theory to me :->

[drjon.livejournal.com]

That's not a Theory, it's an observed effect, regardless of their nomenclature.

I've yet to read of an ID proponent who wasn't a wanker. I say that in full knowledge of having ticked the "Interesting Theory" box for ID.

[kurosau.livejournal.com]

Actually, I think it still counts. It offers us a hypothesis, the means by which to falsify it, and a prediction that we can experiment with in order to verify it's truthiness.

[drjon.livejournal.com]

Hi. My point was that there were a number of Evidence Bodies in the list which were being classed as Theories.

If you're saying "it's a theory that there's this Body of Evidence", then yes. That's a Theory. It's supported by the Body of Evidence which it theorizes.

The same with Evolution. There's this big Body of Evidence.
The same with Gravity.

(NB: I'm not interested in an argument about the validity of the psychology of the Uncanny Valley phenomena, I was just pointing out that the "Uncanny Valley" seems to refer to the effect, not the proposed theory explaining the effect. Thanks.)

[kurosau.livejournal.com]

So...does that mean you're making the semantic argument that calling it the Uncanny Valley theory means it isn't a theory because it's named for the effect rather than what causes the effect? Because I find no practical value in such an argument.

To wit...

The theory is that objects approaching human appearance increase in attractiveness until they sharply become repulsive, resulting in the humans being repulsed by such things. Instead of being an aesthetic matter, the theory purports that this is a byproduct of physiology/psychology common to all humans.

And it's got the name Uncanny Valley. I see what you mean about effect, I'm just not sure that's a useful thing.

[drjon.livejournal.com]

*shrug* Sorry, I'm not interested in talking about this all day. Thanks.

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

I ticked 'Clearly Wrong' for ID but really I count it as an Omphalos-class 'not even wrong' argument.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

Which big bang? are you referring to the formation of the solar system, or the theory that the entire universe formed form a singularity?

[andrewducker]

There's a theory about the formation of the solar system called "the big bang theory"? Enlighten me!

[mouflonmatt.livejournal.com]

There really isn't.
Big bang was the event that started our universe. That's it.
Stongly evidenced by red shift.

[red-phil.livejournal.com]

Although according to some theories, not the actual beginning of the universe, merely an event which occurred in our universe at one point in its existence.

[meaningrequired.livejournal.com]

I may be unexciting, but I have a little flow chart in my head- "is this directly important to me (right now)?" and until the answer is yes, I will continue to be aware but lacking interest in such things.


Although, I do enjoy humanist meetings and I have been to several intelligent design and evolution talks...

[meaningrequired.livejournal.com]

I just find other types of things more interesting.

[endless-psych.livejournal.com]

I would have liked a possibly right or possibly wrong option like ;)

[chipuni.livejournal.com]

All that I can say about a scientific theory is whether its predictions are testable, and whether it passes those tests.

Neither intelligent design nor (the myriads of theories that make up) string theory can be tested. (The first is obvious, the second from the descriptions of string theory that I've read.) But in my current state of knowledge and ignorance, I view string theory more likely to create theories that can be tested.