Re: Aquatic ape theory

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: J. Moore: "Tears - 1 of 2"
• Previous message: cc3265@CNSVAX.ALBANY.EDU: "Re: Thoughts on "Origins of human thought""

In article <468aoj$lcm@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> jamesb@hgu.mrc.ac.uk writes:
>r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu (David L Burkhead ) wrote:
>> Also, since fossils are found almost exclusively in aquatic
>>sediments this sounds to me like an entirely untestable supposition.
>>A "hypothesis" that fits all possible data is worthless
>>scientifically.
>So a hypothesis that fits all possible data must necessarily be wrong?

I said it was _worthless_, not that it was necessarily wrong. If
your hypothesis is so general that any set of obtainable data could
fit it, and you'd never know if it's wrong.

An example of this is the "theistic evolution" "theory" (and I use
the word theory here _extremely_ liberally), which basically says that
the-deity-of-your-choice created the world and everything in it, but
did so in such a way that it looks _exactly_ like it would if it had
arisen without being created. While it is conceivable that some
being/beings did that, there's no way to check since any checks _by
definition_ will produce the same results as if they didn't. (This,
BTW, is not unlike many "conspiracy theories" in the world.)

If your hypothesis is not falsifiable, it may be true (maybe, but
since the number of ways to be wrong are so much greater than the
number of ways to be right, the odds are much against it), but it _is_
worthless.

David L. Burkhead
r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu
d.l.burk@ix.netcom.com

-- 

          Spacecub  -  The Artemis Project  -  Artemis Magazine


                             Box 831

                      Akron,  OH  44309-0831

• Next message: J. Moore: "Tears - 1 of 2"
• Previous message: cc3265@CNSVAX.ALBANY.EDU: "Re: Thoughts on "Origins of human thought""