KungKras said:
GameOver22 said:
KungKras said:
Follow the consensus among the peer-reviewed empiric evidence.
Also, the value of a model lies in its predictive capability. Look at what side made the most correct predictions.
So, to apply this to your evolution example: The scientific community is peer-reviewed and empiric, thus reliable. New ideas in science will have to stand on their evidence, and if they can be proven inconsistent with evidence, they are struck down. The absoluteness of the speed of light has been one of the most hated and fought-against facts in all of physics, yet it is in our textbooks, because the evidence did not care about how uncomfortable absolute light speed made the physicits. The local priest's interpretation of how stuff was created, might in the best case be peer-reviewed in that it's discussed among priests. but it is not empiric., which gives it little value.
Evolution predicted that we will find more missing links and how they might look. Your priest probably won't make any accurate predictions of the future based on the bible (the world still exists, after all
|
I don't want to get too in-depth here, but not all models are judged by their predictive capabilities. Just as a simple example, the fact that a model produces an accurate prediction does not mean that the model itself is supplying an accuarte identification of causal relationships and mechanisms (kind of the traditional problem between causation and correlation). I could create a model that produced accurate predictions based on correlations, but the explanatory power of this model would be incredibly limited.
|
You're right, but I just think it's a good general guideline.
|
Yes. I would agree with that, especially for the hard sciences. The social sciences are another story though. They like using models for all types of weird things. : )
