Re: AAT Theory
Gerrit Hanenburg (ghanenbu@inter.nl.net)
Thu, 5 Oct 1995 13:20:08 GMT
hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu (H. M. Hubey) wrote:
>>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"?
I mean falsifiable.
>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.
Wow! Tell me about it.
Can these models predict the outcome of a specific conflict?
That would be nice because then we don't have to fight a war ever again.
The outcome is simply calculated and victory becomes a formality. :-)
How do these models deal with contingency?
>>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?
I already gave you an example (Tattersall,The Fossil Trail,1995) in one of
my previous postings that shows that the theory which relates the origin of
bipedalism to the open savanna can be falsified by observations from the
fossil record.
>You mean you use differential equations and not words?? Where?
Everybody *here* uses words because of the limitations of the medium.
It's simply not possible to post complete scientific articles including
measurements,equations and graphs.What I meant is that in academic
(paleo)anthropology/primatology there *is* quantification but in order to
find that out you'll have to resort to the primary literature.
>Please give me a reference. I'll be happy to read it.
Go to the a university library and read some copies of the "American
Journal of Physical Anthropology" and the "Journal of Human Evolution".
Gerrit.
|