Re: AAT Theory

H. M. Hubey (
4 Oct 1995 17:35:21 -0400 (Gerrit Hanenburg) writes:

>I don't admit that there are no testable theories in empirical science.

It depends on what you mean by "testable". do you mean falsifiable
or "provable"? If the latter, what does it mean?

>Evidence in empirical science will allways have an aspect of uncertainty
>but that doesn't mean these sciences are inferior are deficient.

No, it doesn't. Science is about generalization, precision, regularity,
pattern etc. In this quest, mathematics is a tool. That's why
it's the language of science and that's why all the mature
sciences make use of it.

For one thing, it makes useless arguments exactly what they should
be, useless (and pointless).

>You give me the impression that you think paleoanthropology *is* inferiour
>and that in order to be a genuine science it should match mathematics in
>its rigour.

It should be more rigorous, that's for sure. It could start by
being more precise. And it would certainly help if experiments
were performed with a plan in mind.

>One of your main concerns seems to be a lack of
>quantifcation.Quantification is important,but if you're dealing with
>hisrorical processes/events,it isn't allways possible to obtain that

Not yet. But you shouldn't be surpised to know that mathematicians
have constructed mathematical models of even warfare and biological
processes. I can already tell paleo's future. During the last
century while Marx and others were venting their spleen with
verbiage some others like Marshall were making mathematical
models. Around 1920's a new field "mathematical economics" was
cropping up. Now economics is mathematical and the adjective
"mathematical" is not necessary. marx and his cronies get the
cover "literary economists". Wait a while and it will be called
philosophy (of the bad kind).

All I said was that some of the arguments are about words and
there's a very easy way to avoid it.

>Well,is the AAT falsifiable? Is the "evidence" in favor of the AAT
>corroborating evidence or just the kind of confirmation which in the sense
>of Popper is so easily obtained?

Possibly. Is the savannah theory falsifiable?

>It's only verbal to somebody who's not familiar to the field,who gets most

You mean you use differential equations and not words?? Where?

Please give me a reference. I'll be happy to read it.


Regards, Mark