Could I just point out that:
"Accuracy=Using statistical analysis of data" does not say anything like the same thing as the thumbnail given.
Doesn't a statistical analysis of data
"show where there may be errors of data collection or interpretation?"If not....what tool in evaluating data would demonstrate this?
The full thumbnail says 'predicting the phenomena to be explained' - i.e the theory should cover all observations - AND if there is a shortfall, explaining why there is a shortfall. If you wish to use such tools as statistical analysis that is one set of tools, another mat be examining the reliablity of the observing apparatus or of reporting methods, of testimony, of bias in seeting up the experiments etc.
"Consistency=Repeatability" is in no way the same as "Consistency - that there are no contradictions within the theory or model"?
Would an experiment be repeatable if there are contradictions within a theory or model?
Can you demonstrate this?
It probably wouldn't be repeatable, but that is no certainty. Whatever errors of consistency led to the initial formulation of the theory as it stands could quite possibly be repeated. That is what review and evaluation is all about, that people can examine looking for inconstencies.
"Coherence=Use of existing scientific laws or principles" doesn't say, isn't the same as, etc etc.
.....with surrounding beliefs and theories which are not to be superseded by the new, or at least
consistency with them. Within the realm of science...."beliefs and theories" can be scientific laws, ie Boyles Law....hypothesis based on scientific laws would require the experiment be at the very least, congruent/consistent with scientific law....
I'm sorry you can't see the spin.....however....I can.[/quote]
And in theistic circles they can involve the Book, medieval cholastics, the accumulated weight of Apologetics etc. I'm sorry you need to see spin in a neutral topic. But since you offer no alternative ways of evaluating competing arguments... back to blustering.
That you should decide that its all a materilaist plot is also unsurprising. That seems to be the reaction of most commited theists whenever they are confronted with ANY attempt to examine and clarify how we come to beliefs.
Strange coming from a non-theist/materialist who cannot or will not attempt to give credence to faith or spirituality when confronted from those who have used them both for basis of their beliefs. [/quote]
Please excuse me if I start to get frustrated here. I am asking for how you avaluate competing theories. You snort and sniff and deride an attempt to work out what the principles should be, yet fail signally to suggest ANY that are or could be extensions or replacements to the criteria listed. These criteria are quite general, though you cannot accpet them because they can be applied to scientific explanation. So TELL US WHAT CRITERIA YOU WANT TO USE... or simply accept that you have no idea or justification for your beliefs.
However, here is your huge chance... instead of simply sticking your head in the sand and denying anything of worth here, just add the missing criteria that we should use when evaluating any theory of anything. What additional criteria did you use to decide that abiogenesis and 'theogenesis' are "equal"?
One does not need "additional criteria" in proving abiogenesis does not come from material mechanisms....science has already demonstrated it cannot be done.....and in it's typical caveat of keeping the door open for eternity....they keep trying and failing, and they call it a "hypothesis"....which is quite convenient for them. [/quote]
I am not asking for proofs. Since proofs are not available for the 'big questions'. I am asking how should we evaluate one theory against another (this is thenineteenth time I have said this).
And if a theory 'sounds like a spin on' something else... well, perhaps you can show where it is deficient, misleading, or whatever. Its strange that if someone uses a word we don't understand, we have no problems with asking for what he menas. If someone thinks in a different way, its taboo to ask him to explain his thought processes.
It is only misleading when one attempts to use it as the primary criteria to "account for things"....including those that deal with matters of faith.
[/quote]
So if the list is misleading (where we ask you to explain why one theory is better than another) because one of the theories is 'a matter of faith', what criteria should we be using to evaluate the relative standing of the two theories??
So far you have signally failed to even approach an answer to the question. EVEN IF one were to accept your distaste for the criteria suggested, you have not proposed anything yourself, nor (dare I say it) explained WHY there should be other (unspecified) standards that should apply to 'matters of faith'. In your rush to tie proposals to a materialistic viewpoint, you are only exposing your own shortcomings, not necessarily those of the list of criteria.
