Alex
Administrator
nice... I love this rigor.My concern resides in this: That the epistemology we (not the 'Royal We' - LOL!! and a great point by Bruce) are employing to establish the case for this particular proto-hypothesis inside Intervention theory (NOT intelligent design and NOT creation), consists of linear inductive inference. That is, it is an extrapolation from a line drawn through a loose series of Inductive Predicates. The lone Deductive Predicate does not exclusively support the line of inductive inference reason - and this is important. It compels us to move somewhere, but that does not necessarily imply here.
how do we think about talk about paradigm shift in this context? I mean, your point calls into question how we normally move from one crackpot theory to another... so how do we do better? my natural tendency would be to jump on bruce's train and ride it as hard and fast as I can until it runs off the rails.
This proto-hypothesis must now begin to make specific predictions at risk under the theory. It must step into the world of deductive inference and out of the world of inductive confirmation.
more great stuff :) but I still feel a need to contextualize/measure our analysis within the science-as-we-know-it game we find ourselves in.
to put it in evolutionary terms, we don't have to be the fastest gazelle we just shouldn't be the slowest :)
This is an informal critique however, and does not serve to make Bruce wrong as the sponsor of this alternative idea. A skeptic is an ally at this point in the Scientific Method. As a skeptic, I love this progression of thought, and am an ally in its hypothesis development.
Let’s make one thing perfectly clear. The time of science or scientists is not wasted through
competing nor even fringe sponsored theories or observations. The ‘time’ of science is wasted
through the dogma and intransigence of those who patrol its discourse, enforcing single answers
under a pretense of ‘science communication’.
Last edited: