|
Author
|
Topic: criteria for theory assesment
|
Daniel S. Rose
Member
Member # 84
|
posted 09. October 2002 16:51
Critical to the brainstorming process of models to explain natural phenomenon is criteria to judge whether certain theories are tenable.
So i thought it would be helpful if we listed important criteria that can be used in rejecting naturalistic and non naturalistic theories. ill offer a couple.
naturalistic:
______________
theory has unreasonably low probability of possibility.
is a string of events and conditions too choreographed to be reasonable.
non naturalistic:
_________________
scenario isnt of low probability under known natural conditions
Is explainable by known natural law
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel S. Rose
Member
Member # 84
|
posted 09. October 2002 17:21
hopefully one isnt spelling :-P
IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Szlazak
Member
Member # 391
|
posted 09. October 2002 18:58
What specifically do you mean when you say something is natural?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel S. Rose
Member
Member # 84
|
posted 10. October 2002 12:39
Hey Mark,
those are probably too broad of categories. It'd might be more beneficial i think to try something else. maybe , if everyone , would give what they would consider to be something that would count as evidence against whatever theories they typically lean towards. example: if i were an neo-darwinist, i would say what i considered would count as evidence against the theory underlying that. or if was an ID'ist, i would something that would count against that.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Szlazak
Member
Member # 391
|
posted 10. October 2002 20:18
Hi Daniel.
I disagree. These are crucial issues since they can come back to haunt you in unexpected ways.
I've noticed posts that demand a certain type of methodological principle or standard be met before some new idea is even deemed worthy of consideration. However, the standard presupposes, as basic, concepts incompatible with the new view.
Problems like this are overcome when commensurable standards are used, and creating these often involves thinking about the basic concepts behind competing views so a fair test structure can be set up.
This not only applies to testing but to reasoning and arguments about these views.
[ 11. October 2002, 01:10: Message edited by: Mark Szlazak ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic