[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Disparaging Popper
<Consistancy of logic with prevailing paradigms. Of course, real tests come
when paradigms shift, and we see what survives the change.
However, the current dynamism of maniraptoran phylogeny allows for
predictions to be made as to what a robust phylogeny should look like, once
The data for discovered specimens can be found quickly (by myself or others)
and by using higher level taxa, I am spreading out the luck factor so that
most any Maniraptoran can be viewed as consistent or not with my theoretical
Given the 'dynamism' of the 'prevailing paradigms' and noting that paradigms
is plural, you are trying to hit a moving target. This test allows you to
determine that you have escaped disagreeing with currently accepted ideas
for now, though even if your ideas did prove incongruent with current
paradigms your hypothesis might be restored by a shift.
I do enjoy the idea of predicting the contents of university drawers, though
the contents might not provide decisive evidence.
What is the standard you would apply for accepting a hypothesis, as opposed
to considering it a possibility? Would the standard be different for
another science, or a specific part of another science?
I don't think I'm understanding you completely.