Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gideongallery
you are completely misrepresenting Karl Popper said
"Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single genuine counter-instance is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false."
Basic scientific method, take your theory, establish a counter theory (the opposite in it's entirety not just in part) prove the counter theory to be false by proving the underlying assumption is wrong. That only way to make a theory into a law.
That was exactly what was done when we established the LAW of constant gravitational force (G).
|
Thanks, I needed that laugh. You are living proof that creationists are clueless indeed.
What Popper said was NOT that to prove a theory, you establish a counter theory and prove that to be false. That would be idiocy.
His claim was that it is impossible to prove a theory true by positive outcomes of tests (no amount of white geese I see is proof that all geese are white, since there could always be a brown or other non-white one). However, a single negative outcome proves the theory in question to be false.
Read that again. A single negative outcome proves the theory in question to be false. Just the theory in question.
For example, if my theory states "All geese are white", and I see a black goose, that proves my theory wrong.
What you are saying is absolutely nonsense. Let's say I have the theory that "All geese are white". According to you, I should now establish a counter-theory, e.g. "No geese are white", prove it false (which is easily done by taking a picture of a white goose), and voila, I have proven the clearly false "All geese are white" to be a law.
Read the following slowly, and at least five times (you need it)
What Popper proved (logically) is that proving theories (empirically) is impossible. "Proof" is impossible. One can only try to prove them false ("falsify" them), by subjecting them to the most risky and demanding experiments. A single instance of the theory not working will prove it false, and each positive result does not prove the theory but rather "corroborates" (makes stronger) the theory.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gideongallery
Creationism (again not biblism) does not specify who did the creating, for example aliens seeding the primordial ooze with a culture which would prosper and EVOLVE (like modern day scientist do with bacterial cultures in a lab) is a valid creationism theory which is 100% compatible with every single piece of empirical data that you use to prove that Darwinism is true.
|
Ockham's Razor: Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gideongallery
As for teaching creationism in schools you just proved my point. You don't understand the difference between a law and a theory. Your arguing that your theory should be promoted to the level of a law (because it a "really really strong theory"), without the necessary falsification of it opposite theorem is because the school blindly refuses to teach any alternative theory.
You don't understand the necessity of the counter theory in a scientific proof.
|
There is no "necessary falsification of the opposite theorem", you fool.
Would it hurt you to at least read an introductory book on the philosophy of science before you open your mouth and spout absolute nonsense?