If I understand correctly, predictions are said to be able to falsify an hypothesis, but not necessarily confirm its truth. So even when formatted deductively, i.e., it either is or it isn’t, if true it doesn’t necessarily follow that the hypothesis it is derived from is true.
Basically from what I can tell, even though the prediction itself may be objective in that it is true or false, it doesn’t necessarily make the hypothesis objective. For the most part, if confirmed it just increases the probability of the hypothesis of being true.
However, the hypothesis is an explanation and ultimately would only be objective if it were to somehow be deductively inferred.
As I understand it, with evolutionary biology there are admittedly problems generally acknowledge by scientists in regards to certain evidences. So at least to some degree or another I don’t think it would qualify as having all the evidence in its favor.
If what you mean by “agreed-upon” is how it’s generally defined in a dictionary, I don’t think I’m doing anything different than is common in discussions by narrowly defining my terms. If you are saying that I’m gerrymandering terms then I’d be interested to know the reasons why you think that’s the case.
And I don’t see how I’m rhetorically demolishing evolutionary biology or ignoring objective evidence in its favor. I think all I’m doing is looking to understand scientific certainty from a layperson’s perspective. I think clarity is something everyone can appreciate, especially when it helps to foster greater understanding of important issues.
I’m sorry. This is too vague to warrant a response.
Oh, I was under the impression it is recognized that even substantial numbers of secular biologists admit there are unresolved issues in evolutionary biology. Are you saying there aren’t any? Regardless, I’m not so inclined to pursue this as it doesn’t directly address the topic at hand.
Care to give your reasons for thinking so? Otherwise it’s not possible to give any kind of a response to this.
I’m not aware of this. Could you give a quick summary of the explanation you’re referring to, or point me to where it is? Otherwise I can only assume there is also nothing here that warrants a response.
I’m sorry you feel that way. I honestly don’t think that’s the case though. But as far as I can tell, there’s nothing in this comment that really addresses the topic under discussion. So I’m not exactly sure what purpose it serves.
No, you clearly aren’t sorry. I have provided specific examples:
You have, clearly intentionally, refused to engage with either one. Quoting a paragraph from Wikipedia on prions does not constitute engagement.
Every field of science has unresolved issues. We’re not the ones pretending to know everything.
Oh, and as a native English speaker I can tell that you are moving the goalposts several football fields away from what you wrote:
I already have.
No, I’m very confident that you’re not.
I’ll leave you with a couple of relevant quotes:
The juggle of sophistry consists, for the most part, in using a word in one sense in all the premises, and in another sense in the conclusion.
–Coleridge
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
The question is," said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
–Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
Already answered this. It’s the interpretation that has been log jammed for 100 years, not what the interpretation is about.
As I’ve already pointed out, hypothesis are explanations. What the explanation is about may or may not be objective, depending on if it’s been empirically verified or not. But the hypothesis can only be objective if it’s deductively inferred. So since you are the one bringing up the example, you should know whether or not such is the case. Either way, it doesn’t affect the validity of my position.
I don’t know of anyone who claims to know everything. And this has no relevance to the conversation that I can see.
This is another vague statement that doesn’t warrant a response.