Philosophy 101

The point is that scientific theories are demonstrably able to successfully predict the behaviour of natural phenomena. If you are still in denial about that one wonders how you get by in the world.When you press that little button on your computer marked 'On' what do you expect to happen in terms of the natural phenomenon we call 'electricity'?Or do you think a little bell rings inside and the computer fairies get woken up to do your bidding?

Nature does behave in certain ways. Science would be impossible otherwise. OK. But you are quite blatantly conflating the idea that scientific theories describe nature with the (rather stupid) idea that scientific theories dictate nature. I have certainly never remotely suggested the latter. It may be blindingly obvious to you that the be-all-and-end-all of existence and measure of successfully understanding reality is the ability to put men on the moon or fly aeroplanes. But others may place greater emphasis on other less tangible areas. For example one may decide that spiritual well-being (whatever that may be) is the most important facet of ones life. And on this basis go on to conclude that knowledge of God’s existence is at least as valid as scientific knowledge pertaining to aerodynamics because that knowledge enhances ones reality in a more important way.Do I subscribe to this line of argument? No. I very much do not.But nor do I think the simplistic and over-repetitive citation of putting men on the moon and suchlike entirely counters the position of those who do make such arguments. For that you need a more philosophical understanding of why and how science does what it does. Understanding objectivity, the nature of evidence, the limitations of evidence, tentativity of conclusions etc. etc. etc. Things that science itself cannot directly derive about itself. Likewise. Huh? Where are you getting this shit from? It is certainly true that I have no idea what you are talking about or what exactly the little straw man you have constructed for yourself consists of........ You are certainly wrong about what I think is right.

They could both exist as human concepts regardless of whether they actually exist in reality or not.The difference is that dogs demonstrably do exist and thus the concept of a dog is directly derived from reality whilst all the evidence indicates that the concept of a god is probably something conjured up by humans to fulfill other psychological needs.What does any of this have to do with the topic here?

No, I don't agree.An hypothesis is a direct statement about the natural world, though possibly a false one. A theory plays a different and more basic role.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Very good! And the rest is just icing...

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Only if you assume that you are a brain in a jar or go down some other equally pointless solipsistic rabbit hole. Otherwise the icing here is really rather important.

Do hypotheses not develop into scientific theories in your view?

So, you agree that hypotheses say something about how nature behaves, but you disagree that theories (which contain one or more hypotheses) have something to say about how nature behaves. Is that correct?For example, the theory of evolution has nothing to say about how nature behaves in forming the species we see around us? And no theory in physics can have anything to say about the behaviour of electrons?Are you sure about this? Or would you like, perhaps, to adjust your fascinating position before I delve any further into it?

Hypotheses don't become theories. Whether they can be said to develop into theories depends a lot on what you mean by "develop into".This is way off topic for "Philosophy 101".

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Welcome back!! I was thinking something along the same lines myself but not sure how to express it. "Sometimes the questions are as important as the answers" is the sort of trite soundbite I have been railing against recently. If asked what exactly I mean by that I would be hard pressed to answer. But I think there is something in it none-the-less. Even If I am struggling to convey what I mean exactly. I know I could look it up but A) It is easier to ask and B) I am going to follow your train of thought here - Who are the founders of that philosophical movement? Who should I look up if I want to see the sensible foundations of this? And it is this sort of thing and it's prevalence amongst EvC topics that first inspired my recent interest in philosophy and it's role in such debates.

No, that's not correct. I don't agree with the "which contain one or more hypotheses" part. Strictly understood, that's correct. The theory does not mention particular species, so cannot say anything about them. The theory says what kind of data to collect and use. It's the data, not the theory, that says how nature behaves.People often talk very loosely, with statements such as "theory X predicts Y.". But what they really mean is that "theory X together with well accepted data predicts Y."

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Isn't this a rather radical departure from the common view of what a hypothesis is? Rather than talk in abstract terms can you give and example of something which you consider to be a hypothesis and something which you consider to be a scientific theory? Hardly. Philosophy of science of this sort is exactly what I had in mind when proposing the topic.

The theory of evolution has much to say about about the transitional species we should expect to have existed. For example the prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik

quote:

---

What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.

​

So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a fishopod, beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.

---

How does this fit into your "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves" stance?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So what? It does not need to. It is a theory explaining how nature behaves in forming species in general. Theories state, describe and explain. They certainly "say" things about the behaviour of nature. Rather, data has been collected and used to make the theory. Theories that explain something about data are explaining the behaviour of nature. And explaining is saying. A theory cannot be an explanatory or descriptive theory of something in nature without saying something about how nature behaves. What they really mean is what they say, because without data there are no theories, so they don't put in redundant phrases.They say things like:"A defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions".In the literature, you'll find many examples of phrases like "the theory says/states/predicts/describes/explains" followed by an example of the behaviour of something.What's your problem with this?

Yet your quote is about what can be predicted on the basis of theory + data. It is not a prediction that is solely from the theory.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie