Warp wrote:
>   There's no law in science which says that you must have an alternative
> theory in order to reasonably doubt an existing theory.

No, but there *is* a "law" that says you have to have some contradictory 
evidence. :-)

Now, if you're saying "Evolution isn't complete because it doesn't 
explain X", then sure, that's a reasonable doubt.

>   "I don't know an explanation for this, and this presented explanation
> seems too implausible to me" is a perfectly valid way of thinking, even
> scientifically. You don't need an alternative theory to be able to do
> that in a completely rational and valid basis.

Sure. You can "doubt" it, but without another theory, all you're really 
saying is "I don't understand this well enough to know why everyone else 
is convinced."

"Implausible" implies some degree of probability calculation. "I have no 
explanation for these photographs of people standing on the moon, but 
the presented explanation seems too implausible to me."

>   Take any unsolved question in science, which science has yet not an
> answer to, and present the theory "it happens because invisible gnomes
> do it from inside the Earth". Even if the scientist doesn't have any
> alternative theory to that, it's still completely valid for him to doubt
> that presented theory.

Right. That's because there's no evidence in *favor* of gnomes, either. 
There are literally countless theories that could explain something 
unsolved, and until you show how that explains something else also, or 
how you could do an experiment to show it's wrong, then it doesn't make 
sense to work strenuously towards the theory. It seems like a perfectly 
reasonable question to ask "why gnomes, and not unicorns?"

>   Is this some kind of philosophical question now? Do you get an
> existentialist crisis if there's something you don't know how and
> why it works?

You were talking about evolution, to start with, tho. We know there are 
theories that aren't complete. We know there are unanswered questions in 
every scientific theory. But most stuff tends to be refinements of what 
we already know in realms we couldn't measure before. Even quantum and 
relativity didn't overthrow newtonian physics - we still use that to 
shoot space probes.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message