Wronger than wrong – Informal concept in philosophy of science.Logical positivism – Movement in Western philosophy.Karl Popper – Austrian-British philosopher of science (1902–1994).Cargo cult science – Form of pseudoscience.He also quotes another example when Pauli replied to Lev Landau, "What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not." See also Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not even wrong'." This is also often quoted as "That is not only not right it is not even wrong", or in Pauli's native German, " Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig es ist nicht einmal falsch!" Peierls remarks that quite a few apocryphal stories of this kind have been circulated and mentions that he listed only the ones personally vouched for by him. Rudolf Peierls documents an instance in which "a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. 44 (1).The phrase is generally attributed to the theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colorful objections to incorrect or careless thinking. in astrophysics from the University of Colorado.Ĭite this article: Jason Lisle, Ph.D. Lisle is Director of Physical Sciences at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. As Christians we should strive to be consistent and clear ( 2 Corinthians 1:18) as we boldly defend the faith. “What exactly do you mean by ‘evolution,’ ‘adaptation,’ or ‘science’? What is the central point you are attempting to make?” In many cases, the reader is confused because the author is confused. Given the chance to interact with the author, it may be helpful to ask him or her to define the terms in question. When an author writes in a way that makes no sense, using terms inconsistently or in a convoluted fashion, it suggests that his or her thoughts on the topic are confused. Muddled writing is a symptom of muddled thinking. This is a totally different process, yet some people erroneously confuse the two. In this latter type of adaptation, no individual organism does any adjusting whatsoever, but the group makeup shifts because some of its members die. Alternatively, adaptation can refer to a shift in a population of organisms due to the extinction of those members with traits unsuitable to their environment. One example is when a person moves to a higher elevation and his or her body responds by producing more red blood cells to accommodate the lesser supply of oxygen. This can refer to a non-genetic change within an individual organism in response to a change in the environment. We use the term evolution consistently in the sense of the alleged descent of all life from a common ancestor.Ĭonsider the term adaptation. This is a way of implicitly defining our terms to avoid fallacious reasoning. You may have noticed in many of ICR’s writings that we refer to “particles-to-people evolution,” “Darwinian evolution,” or some similar qualifying adjective at least once. How many fallacious arguments have I seen where the person thinks he has proved evolution (common descent) by giving an example of some other type of change that he also calls “evolution”? In logic, this type of bad argument is called an equivocation fallacy. But they are different and therefore must not be mixed. Any of these definitions are fine if used consistently. Or it can refer to the idea that all organisms share a common ancestor. It can refer to a shift in allele frequency in an organism’s DNA. Both evolutionists and creationists can be guilty of muddled thinking that results in muddled writing-papers in which terms are not defined or used consistently.Ĭonsider the term evolution. This type of problem frequently appears in debates over origins.
Anything less is confusing at best and “not even wrong” at worst. They must carefully define important terms and use them in a consistent way. Therefore, scientists must be able to cogently articulate their hypotheses, observations, and methods. Only when experimental methods are carefully articulated can they be critiqued or validated. A hypothesis that is not clearly stated cannot be tested. It advances only when scientists are able to communicate their discoveries to other scientists for independent evaluation and confirmation. The author would have to substantially improve the paper in order for it to even be assessed as wrong. It was even worse than wrong-it was incoherent.
The content was so garbled, however, that Pauli is said to have remarked that not only was the paper not right, it was “not even wrong.” He meant the paper was so poorly written, so muddled in its reasoning, that it was impossible to evaluate in any fashion. Physicist Wolfgang Pauli was once asked to review a technical paper and assess its accuracy.
0 kommentar(er)
