Re: The Medea Hypothesis - review

"On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:35:41 -0400, in article
<ah0b45t0i153ldeuva8evs1uj204bdi8n5@xxxxxxx>, Matt Silberstein stated..."

On 26 Jun 2009 10:20:25 -0700, in talk.origins , TomS
<TomS_member@xxxxxxxxxxx> in
<256036824.0000b7fe.044.0001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

As far as I know, the scientific theory that Hesperus and Phosphorus
are the same object has never been superseded, even though it is one
of the oldest scientific theories, and I would be quite surprised if
anyone can imagine that it will ever be considered to have outlived
its limited lifespan. It is a counter-example to the statement that
all scientific theories have a limited life.

First off, the statement about theories having a limited life was not,
I suspect, meant as some great absolute, but as a rule of thumb.
Second, that "theory" has been superseded since we know recognize
Venus as a planet, not as stars. Third, that is really not much of a
theory, is it? A theory is a predictive explanatory model. This
"theory" explains the trivial statement about observations of a light
in the sky. It has been superceded by a rather larger explanatory
theory that explains those lights and the other moving lights. And
then by larger theories that explain far more. There is no existing
theory in science that does no more than explain that the Evening Star
and the Morning Star are the same object.

[snip]


I accept that the statement was not to be taken all that seriously.
My reaction is just one of possibly misplaced irritation.

As to your second point, I fail to see how additional knowledge
supersedes a theory. The measurement of the mass of the neutrino
does not supersede the theory that there is a neutrino accounting
for certain features of certain nuclear reactions.

Third, I think that it is a very important theory. Dismissing it
as just being about some lights in the sky sounds, if you will
excuse my hyperbole, like laughing at studies about fruit flies.

Remember that this theory explains the observations about the
evening star and the morning star by positing an unobservable
(something which could not be observed until some 2500 years
later) continuity between them. This theory was the necessary
prerequisite to much later astronomy.


--
---Tom S.
"...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Medea Hypothesis - review
    ... , Matt Silberstein stated..." ... theory that explains those lights and the other moving lights. ... theory in science that does no more than explain that the Evening Star ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Medea Hypothesis - review
    ... all scientific theories have a limited life. ... theory that explains those lights and the other moving lights. ... theory in science that does no more than explain that the Evening Star ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Article: Bush Remarks On Intelligent Design Theory Fuel Debate
    ... >> lamarck's theories on the mode of eveolution is pretty much not ... > And, they weren't scientific theories. ... intelligent design has been published in peer reviewed journals, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: This Newsgroup.
    ... Frame B ... above disagreement re the times of the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Naturalism as the Religious Basis of Evolutionism
    ... physical evidence. ... Can we make any predictions based on these proposed creators? ... evolution, like all scientific theories, fits what we do see and not ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading