If it weren't backed up in such a manner, it wouldn't qualify as a theory. Then it'd merely by a hypothesis (literally, hypo+thesis, less than a theory, or a proposition, pro+ponere, a thing put forwards).



Again, if it weren't backed up by anything, it wouldn't qualify as a theory. These things you're saying are just underlining its rightful claim to "theory" status.



AIDS isn't a virus, it's a syndrome. That's what the "S" stands for.

You mean HIV, which is a virus. That's what the "V" stands for.

That HIV causes AIDS is at least assumed to be the case here. Whether or not it does is debatable, but I for one do not have an opinion on that, and as such am not going to debate it, especially as I don't see what difference it makes to anything (since the same actions are still to be avoided, just for other reasons).



Now that, I think, is a hypothesis

The HIV virus among other things evolves in real time, thank you for correcting the virus part, but no it is not a hypothesis or a theory but a fact what I said about AIDS.

Just like evolution is a fact, the only theory part is exactly how we evolved, not if we evolved. Just like you said, if it weren't for the fact of evolution there wouldn't be a theory of evolution.

Just because there is a theory of evolution doesn't make evolution a theory, no more then the theory of gravity makes gravity itself a theory.

Have we evolved? Yes in fact we have.
How exactly did we evolve? Now there we need a theory of evolution.

I haven't heard about any substantive "theory" regarding psilocybin and expanding brains, but I believe Terrence McKenna postulated the idea that primitive hunters who ingested psilocybic mushrooms experienced an increase in visual acuity that directly improved their hunting ability and the hunters, in turn, took the mushrooms with them, spreading their spores as they moved about. A symbiotic relationship of sorts. Is there any truth to this? Who knows... McKenna was a fucking loon.

As for drugs and mind expansion, I'm not buying it.

Just look at any pothead, crackhead, or alcoholic. Are they like evolving, dude?
The only time their brains expand is when they contract some form of staphylococcal meningitis.

The Yanomamo Amazonians spend most of their time smoking powerful hallucinogens and they've never even made it to the bronze age.

I'll take sobriety and a tangible weapon, thank you.
Let the druggies have their expanded perception and universal love.
We'll see who comes out alive when the chips are down.

Good grief, you call a lot of things facts with little or no actual epistemological basis.



I didn't say that at all. I said that if it weren't for there being some kind of empirical findings backing up the theory, it wouldn't qualify as a theory. That's quite different to saying if it weren't a fact it wouldn't qualify as a theory.

Hence why so many theories have been shelved once better ones come along.

Actually, often about a hundred years or so after the better ones come along, mainly because people like you are so stubborn and cling to old beliefs on the grounds of them being popular.



Isaac Newton is not God any more than Jehovah is

And he's been proved wrong at least as much as Christian teachings have.

Seriously, stop having so much faith!

There are as much epistemological basis as there can be for any fact of science.
If you go to philosophy you can't say much more then "thinking occurs".

See there you go again. Theory of X is not X itself.
X is a fact yet there is a Theory of X.
Your theory of gravity can have an error, yet gravity remains a fact regardless.

The theory of Evolution, or more accurately the many different theories of evolution, are all theories, but that does not make evolution itself a theory, rather it requires the fact of evolution to have these theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

You managed to err in the fields of grammar, semantics, and reason. All in the one sentence. I salute you.



Yes, I can. I see what you've done there is taken Descartes' Cogito and correctly removed the false assumptions from it. However, Descartes doesn't have a monopoly on the use of the concept of the axiom, and he neglected to shoot for the more useful one.

If you scrap Descartes completely, and start again, you might stumble upon a more useful axiom that you can actually take somewhere.



X being a fact is simply an assumption that you make.



It's not my theory of gravity. It's Newton's theory of gravity.

Newtonian physics died in the seventies, by the way, hence my reluctance to have it associated with me.

As you probably know I didn't remove Descartes' false assumptions. That's already been done by Lichtenberg and later echoed by Nietzsche and now even the modern philosophers of this day.


Of cause it is, it was supposed to be an assumption in my example that points out your fallacy that a theory of X would prove that X is not a fact.


Do you really think I literally meant "your" theory? It is just a very perfect example of the difference between theory and fact you seem to have trouble associating correctly.
Theory does not prove a fact, but that does not immediately follow that you cannot make a theory based on a fact.

I understand this is a heated discussion but I am not impressed by references to children playing.
I expect if you feel you do not enjoy the discussion and perceive me as an arguable child you might want to consider how smart it is to continue.

I on the other hand enjoy a heated discussion as I would love it if you could bring out error in me, but insults will not get you there, only intellectual superiority like in the case of the HIV virus which was most enjoyable.

Creationists don't care who we evolved from, that's true, because they don't want to have evolved from anything. BUT, Creationists do have in their bag of tricks a collection of dumb arguments and cute remarks that specifically address the idea of us evolving from chimpanzees. It's at least satisfying to me to deprive them of that pleasure and that easy out, if only for a moment in time. It also lets them know that they can't just spew out any old rumor, lie, or cute remark without being challenged or corrected by somebody who's watching.

I view creationists as sneaky, obnoxious, dumb-but-arrogant children. I think it's important (and often fun) to discipline them whenever and wherever they get squirrely in any way.

Well, and if people can't handle the distinction, I guess they're doomed to be confused and upset. They sure seem to be able to tell the difference between George H.W. Bush and George Bush, and between the varied flavors of Cheetos, so I think they can handle the idea of chimps being our cousins, rather than our parents.

And doubtlessly any of Descartes' contemporaries who had an ounce of sense between them.

The point is, you removed them on this occasion. Just because somebody else did it previously is irrelevant. You were the philosopher that removed his false assumptions on this occasion, in this conversation. Credit where it's due!



You're actually talking gibberish now, I'm afraid, and are very far removed from the point.



No, I think you were simply being careless and sloppy, like you have been with everything else in this thread.



I've not negated, debated, or denied this. Or even mentioned it. You seem to be wittering about irrelevancies now.

It's not them I'm concerned with. It's their well-meaning but ignorant audience.

And it's not so much about what distinctions they can handle — it's a question of what most clearly and vividly communicates the upshot of evolutionary theory to them with the minimum of complication.

OK, that's fair enough. I also think things ought to be conveyed--as accurately as possible--with a minimum of complication.

I agree I have been sloppy, and in this you have taught me through today's discussion about something I can improve myself on.

Perhaps we have both been sloppy then. To refresh your memory, while you may now submit that the "theory of evolution" does not make evolution itself a theory. This is what you stated before.

The way I understood this is that you called evolution itself a theory instead of properly stating that the "theory of evolution" is a theory while evolution itself is a fact.

"Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution."
- Stephen J. Gould

You are welcome.



You seem to think I have contradicted myself, which I have not.



I say: "Evolution is a theory and may or may not also be a fact."

Is my position now sufficiently clear?

one of my favorite quotes that I have read can be found in The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins; Today the theory of evolution is about open as much to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun, but the full implications of Darwin's revolution have yet to be widely realized.

I actually saw one creationist call it the "flatulum".