Irony of the evolutionary belief

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure explained in plain English…

Once you make a hypothesis the next step is to make and test predictions.

For example if the hypothesis is that you have a dog, some predictions could be:

1 you buy dog food

2 barking sounds in your house

3 a dog leash in your house

Etc.

These are all predictions that if true………..will make the hypothesis more likely to be true (therefore these predictions are valid)

Any disagreement at this point?

..

The only point that I am making is that these are valid predictions, despite the fact that these predictions don’t *have*to be true in order for the hypothesis to be true.

It is at least logically possible that the predictions are true and the hypothesis false or that the hypothesis is true and the predictions are false. (but these doesn’t invalidate the validity of these predictions)

This is not supposed to be controversial; there are no hidden agendas, the only reason why I made that point is because Tag said the opposite (that predictions must follow)…………. I was not expectgn this mess, my expectation was that Tag would admit that he made a mistake (a typo or something)

Your problem is equivocation fallacies and / or oversimplification
Your silly example here is not comparable to scientific models of how phenomenon in the universe work (or don't work).
It doesn't have the required level of detail and the so-called "predictions" are hopelessly undetailed also, with no caveats and / or controls or alike present whatsoever.

Let's just cut this short:

prediction - Understanding Science

In science, a possible outcome of a scientific test based on logically reasoning about a particular scientific idea (i.e., what we would logically expect to observe if a particular idea were true or false). This website generally uses the term expectation in place of prediction. To learn more...

undsci.berkeley.edu

In science, a possible outcome of a scientific test based on logically reasoning about a particular scientific idea (i.e., what we would logically expect to observe if a particular idea were true or false).


In other words: the prediction / expectation follows logically from the idea / model / hypothesis.
If it does not follow logically, then it is not a scientific prediction / expectation of the model / hypothesis.


A more detailed deep dive into the jargon:

Hypothesis and Prediction: Definition & Example | StudySmarter

Hypothesis and Prediction: ✓ Definition ✓ Examples ✓ Difference ✓ Science ✓ Research ✓ StudySmarter Original

www.studysmarter.co.uk

Accepting or Rejecting the Hypothesis​

The conclusion shows the results of the experiment - have you found evidence to support your prediction?

• If your results match your prediction, you accept the hypothesis.
• If your results don’t match your prediction, you reject the hypothesis.

 

[SkepticThinker]

A perverse and wicked generation asks for signs, but no sign will be given save that of Jonah

Total cop out answer.
You should have just said you can't support your claims.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And I just saw a funny cartoon with fish emerging out of water turning into landlubber saying are we there yet?

Was it a mudskipper?

 

[gnostic]

What is locally necessary?

Between his cheeks?

I'd guess it depends on which cheeks are you talking about ?

 

[Pogo]

I'd guess it depends on which cheeks are you talking about ?

Collinearity?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Occaisionally, somebody will make some silly statement attacking string theory, and ready to throw it into the trashbin of history.

But it doesn’t matter. It’s had an impact on mathematics, so at worse string theory will be banished to the math department.

We take discards from other subjects on occasion when other folks get tired of them.

So you can think of math departments as the trashbin of history, I suppose.

We don’t care if it’s fantasy. That’s somebody else’s obsession, not ours.

Bohemian Gravity | A Capella Science​

At least it isn't the gravel pit.

 

[F1fan]

Well, I am not a theist.
But I am aware that science is based on axiomatic assupmtions without evidence themselves as for the concepts of evidence and naturalism.

Feel free to expose these axioms that lack evidence, and how it is a problem for science working.

And in effect I get that you do pjilosophy in part and are not aware of that.

What I notice is that science hasn't come to a complete stop due to some philosophical idea that you value.

In short you do a version of realism for which you give no evidence for it. Just as some theists give no evidence for god.

If realism is problematic, what word explains your cognitive experiences? You are responding to me and others, and if this isn't some sort of realism, what is it?

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, real has not objective external sensory experince. It is in your mind just like God.

So you having inner dialog, and being aware of experiences like a serious toothache, is no different than imagining literary characters that aren't known to exist?

If you are walking down a street and some stranger jumps in front of you and points a gun at you, you have no reaction whatsoever because you don't have objective external expriences?

Do you reject the electrochemical processes of nerves and the central nervous system and the brain? At what point do you acknowledge what is real, and what isn't?

That is how simple your belief system is.

If you deny objective external expriences perhaps you are imagining what my belief system is. Remember, it's you struggling with discerning reality.

Now how I cope in my life, is different than you do to our brains being different in effect. That even has a namr and that is neurodiversity.

There could be different traits due to evolution. But I find it hard to believe that those who are attracted to believe in certain ideas still can't learn to recognize their limitation and reasoning sabotage.