@failures art,
Quote:The behavior is a law--the theory is why the behavior exists.
Yes, I agree, which I stated the assumptions of this phenomena increase, meaning how, or "why the behaviour exists".
Quote:What you're doing here is acknowledging that something like gravity is acceptable, but you're trying to distance yourself from evolution.
That is incorrect, be it physical law, theory, or hypothesis, the concept of "acceptable" is fuzzy, it is not be operationalised by formal systems, it requires 'justification', and I do empirically accept such.
Here are the conditions for a physical law:
-True, at least within their regime of validity. By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.
-Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe. (Davies, 1992:82)
- Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. (Davies)
-Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies, 1992:82)
-Stable. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws—see "Laws as approximations" below),
-Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations). (Davies, 1992:83)
-Generally conservative of quantity. (Feynman, 1965:59)
-Often expressions of existing homogeneities (symmetries) of space and time. (Feynman)
-Typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible. (Feynman)
Quote:
Your method of doing this is to try and make gravity more than a theory, and make evolution "just a theory." The methodology for both is cut form the same cloth.
Yes, being that evolution does not appear to satisfy the required conditions of a physical.
Furthermore, I do not apply this "just a theory" interpretation, and I do support evolution, my personal nutritional practice is of the paleolithic concept, which has an evolutionary basis, however I distingish the spectrum of classification, these are natural scientific concept.
Quote:
You're assignment of the word "fact" is assigned to what you believe is law, and dismisses what is theoretical but demonstrable and predicable.
There may be a misconception, perhaps the 'darmarcation problem' of science.
My interpretation of fact is philosophical, I do not believe that there is a 'fact' in science, meaning 'scientific fact', therefore I apply
physical law
Formal truth =/= scientific knowledge
However, physical law is satisfied by occhams razor, that is if you favour simplification.
Thiesm knowledge is a posteriori, yet it cannot satisfy a physical law, furthermore attemptimg to falsify a God hypothsis, perhaps by contingent practices appears to be an ad hoc hypothesis.
Quote:I don't think you understand empiricism.
I argue that empiricalism is fallible epistemology, therefore it is informal.
Example:
x=/= if x
All the swans I have observed are white=/= if all the swans are white
Science is formal system, however the methodology requires empiricalism, such as the empirical cycle, hence it is induction.
Physical laws, such as gravity have not been formally proven to be consistent, backround independence is assumed, yet did the universe not inflate, are you
certain that the 'physical constant' concepts, being invariant quantities are consistent, what of chaotic inflation theories?
A priori knowledge is infallible, being a deductive system.
From my 'rational' interpretation, I have faith in evolution, and I do personally interpret such as a 'fact'.
Quote:What does "directly observable" mean to you? The time scale in which this takes place is on the order of thousands of generations. Since no one person can observe this, is it not directly observable? What about the fossil record? It clearly provides a wealth of biological data.
Fossil records are circumstantial evidence, the assumptions increase, meaning logical fallacies increase.
Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove. - Godel
Quote:Your use of "macro evolution" is a tell. Such terms are tailored for blushing creationists exposed to evidence.
This macro evolution concept is scientific, however I did already state that induction is circular.
Can you universally define the following by natural science:
Organism
Phylogenetics, such as the biological taxonomy of a species.
Evolution
Perhaps there is a scientific consensus, however there does not appear backround independence.
Social science further opens the circle, prescription being an example.
