/lit/ - Literature

>>20667013
>Both scientists and so-called pseudo-scientists make arguments. If their arguments are wrong, refute them. If they’re right, accept them.

This is Feyerabends position I believe (that scientific methodology isnt unique). Regarding the term "psudoscience", most mainstream science today is pseudoscience if you follow the implications of what they believe is pseudoscience.

>>20667109
>"let's revive this old species and give it a few million years see if it evolves the same away again" (which it won't because random mutations)

it will, but only after 1 million years. Proved correct once again!

>>20643578
>It's tautological the creatures that reproduce are the ones that reproduce.

unfalsifiable circular bullshit, thanks for proving my point.

>You've just agreed that all of genetics is true what else is there to evolution?

you are an imbecile.

>>20643592
>bla bla

reproducibiltiy crisis. How is that for a criteria of a shitshow you midwit?

>>20617880
>Alan Sokal

his memery was something brilliant, but other than that had he proposed some ideas or criterias towards science?

>>20617902
>teleological metaphysics to histor

the term is historiosophy, you are right its basically mythology of creation, all of its concepts are related to past and it makes not testabel (!) prediciton about the future. The real lunacy of evolution is visible in discussion of vestigial human organs...

>>20617907
>evolution is just as bad as hegel and marx

there is not much difference between hegel and darwin

>>19604852
>For rational analytic science the why is very necessary but in order for a theory to turn into a fact it must answer why.
>>19604805
>Science is not about why. That´s the role of humanistics lol. Science is about how and mutation is one of those hows. hOW ILLITERATE-

both of you are amaterurs, science is about control and if you cant reciprocate, control and PREDICT you basically have nothing. What event or finding has evolution PREDICTED - that can offcourse be empirically falsified.

>>17696381
>>17696392
what Im also trying to say and what should be obvious, esch coli already had all those traits, nothing evolved, it was just selected for.

This should be obvious from the start but that entire experiment only confirmed POST HOC hypothesis, which is obvious pseudoscience.

>>17696430
>what is the difference between traits being selected for and traits evolving

evolutionary demon possession.

>>16841861
Popper then Kuhn then bossnigger Feyerabend

>Evolution is not a scientific theory but a metaphisical research programme (K. Popper)

>>15573934
>Well known creationist lie, next

here is the hardScientificTM proof you are talking about

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

gaps EVERYWHERE so turn a blind eye. We should be finding PILES OF FOSSILS with huge ammounts of vestigial mutations if anything close to evolution happened

>It literally took me about 5 seconds to google this

interesting. carbon dating or uranium emissions? do you know what they presume?

>>15498390
>Every branch of psychoanalysis (Jungian, Freudian, Lacanian) is completely unfalsifiable.

DUH! You know what else is unfalsifiable? Evolutionary "theory", utilitaritarianism, communism, hegelianism...basically every atheistic-left wing humanist creation is a catch 22.

"theory of natural selection is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program"

Popper.

how big of a self-satisfactionary meme of a scientific theory is evolution?

think about it
>one dark day before billions of billions of years smth happened what well never be able to test and then there was that which we dont knoe exactly from which we all came...
>entirely retroactive, no correct or falsifiable predictions
>circular
>constantly revisions itself, not by details but by literal BILLIONS of years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1sgVb3YBAI

how is this total meme accepted as paradigm of today? Bigot creationists ftw.

"Evolution is not a scientific theory but a metaphisical research programme."

K. Popper (before he cucked on this to keep it his academic position)

>>13163394
>something tells me you don't even understand what you just wrote

try me out bitch nigga

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QDoMaPOqi4

"Evolution is not scientific theory but a metaphisical research programme."

K. Popper

was he right?

>>12269675
>No, why would I expect that? The point of evolution by natural selection is that those features improve that lets you spread your genes further. Evolution does not mean "everything improves magically".

>earlobes can or cannot be vestigial
>IQ can rise or fall

stop with the bullshit. its what I claimed at first - doesnt predict anything but its a semantic exercise.

>>12085522
>bandana guy who killed himself

who dat?

If some human part turns out to be usefull in the end, you just claim:

1) "evolutionary adaptation" or if you cant find a certain fossil you claim "we havent found it yet but based on evolutionary theory it was there"

2) or if you dont have a certain body part "it died because of evolution", or find a certain fossil "I told you so I FCK LOOOOVE SCIENCE"

same with homosexuality and evolutonary psychology >>11193941
:
1) disgenics since it doesnt procreate and it diminished the chances of survival
2) EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTATION towards overpopulation of Earth

Im not even memeing, this shit is discussed
https://www.richarddawkins.net/2015/03/darwin-day-2015-questions-is-homosexuality-natures-population-control-4/

its almost a panteistic view of the world where nature has a spirit and controls iteself

>>11193963
>changing your opinion is getting cucked

if you dont have arguments to back up the solution to cogntive dissonance, yes.