Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Falsifiability
Message-ID: <435@spar.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Aug-85 09:25:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.435
Posted: Thu Aug  1 09:25:57 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 08:16:12 EDT
References: <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> <347@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 43
Keywords: Designer Genes

>>     Do you mean that ONLY the `best suited' ones will survive? By that do
>>     you also mean that the `inferior' ones will perish? And what the
>>     hell do you mean by `best suited'? [ELLIS]
>
>Best suited for survival. No, not ONLY the best ones will survive, best those
>best ones will most likely dominate the "gene pool" in the subsequent
>generations.  Right, it's a tautology!!!  [RICH]

    OK, Rich, I have a theory for you:

      The universe is really composed of one kind of particle -- ousions. They
      behave in such a way as to account for all known particles, forces, and
      other phenomena yet to be discovered. [proposed in net.physics]

    By Occam, this theory ought to be preferable to anything in physics, since
    I have reduced all entities to one. 

    Of course, the theory is not falsifiable -- it cannot predict other than
    what is or will be, it cannot lead to contradiction -- and consequently
    no scientist would bother with it.  Scientists have discarded many
    notions on the same grounds, like ether.

    When creationists say that God made everything ~6000 years ago in such a
    way that it appears to be as it is, with present day starlight installed
    in transit 6000 lightyears away (so we might see distant stars), sane
    scientists must likewise disregard such a theory as unfalsifiable.

    It is clearly possible for a totally logical person to believe the above
    kind of creationist theory and never be dissuaded. Such a creationist
    theory is close kin to being tautological -- it is unfalsifiable. 
       
    I would prefer to think of evolution as a non-theory, rather than
    tautological as you have suggested, Rich -- that evolution proposes
    nothing beyond the forces acting today creating all present diversity.

>Yeah, smash this...  :-)  I would think a lack of predictivity would be
>pleasing to someone out to smash causality.

    What makes you think I want to do that?

    SMASH CAUSALITY!!!

-michael