Theories that are not tethered to the ability to empirically prove them wrong are really fun to play with, but they can cause harm and become authoritarian (e.g., critical theory).
Lawrence: TY for your good observations. My main concern is that you did not distingish between a theory and a hypothesis. One of the scourges of our time is that agenda promoting activists have subtly upgraded their specious, unproven hypotheses by calling them theories. They get away with this sleight-of-hand because most people are not scientists, so they don't understand the difference between the two. We need to call out these deceptions.
In this case what you are mostly discussing are unfalsifiable hypotheses. By definition, an unfalsifiable hypothesis would never become a theory.
Lastly, you did not mention the Scientific Method — a 4000± year old proven methodology for separating the wheat from the chaff. Again, agenda activists hate the Scientific Method because it works. What few people know is that the Left's antithesis to the traditional Scientific Method has led them to no longer teach it in almost all US K-12 public schools. This is one of several undiscussed shortcomings of the NGSS. (See here:<https://c19science.info/Education/Fixing_Education.pdf>.)
Yes indeed, that might a topic for another post--the interesting differences between hypotheses and full theories that should have been tested many times and survived.
Yes, I do recall a time when I was stricter about not even calling unfalsifiable hypotheses theories!
And yes I wish it was taught more as you said about the Scientific Method, and of course you know it is an approach that can vary and is not algorithmic in a simple sense--it varies between animal ecology and physics, for example.
I am happy to recommend your excellent critical thinking writing on substack
Lawrence: Good that you might discuss the frequent (and purposeful) misuse of the term "theory" in a future piece.
BTW, there is not a significant difference in applying the Scientific Method to a physics situation and an animal ecology case. The eight steps would be essentially identical.
Unfalsifiable theories like CRT are faith based. Religions are also faith based. CRT is basically a religion. They are the same in this aspect.
Anything faith-based is subpar in terms of utility for making decisions because faith by definition can not be modified - to account for new facts about reality.
But utility has nothing to do with moral or immoral.
Faith can be moral (Christianity) or immoral (CRT) based on whether it net benefits people and society. Intent to benefit (like CRT) doesn't count as an actual benefit if the belief system is inherently racist (unbeneficial).
So we have three distinct things (1) fact based and malleable theories vs faith based ones.
(2) Useful worldviews versus useless ones, and (3) moral versus immoral ideas.
CRT just happens to be faith-based, useless, and immoral, all at the same time.
Very interesting comments. 2024 Christianity seems more moral than it was when it had absolute power during the Spanish inquisition. It seems to have incorporated enlightenment ideas and reformed.
Absolutely. Religions are not inherently moral. Every religion (even leftism/CRT) insists that it is (the most) moral but that insistence certainly doesn't make that claim true. As I said the first time, the morality of something is factually judged by its (integrated over time) effect on people and society. Morality is not judged by a religion's adherents unsubstantiated and faith-based claims.
CRT/DEI is simply the Spanish Inquisition reborn in the form appropriate to the latest out of control religion (leftism).
As a society we long ago learned the positives of religions and learned how to largely control the negatives. The only problem with leftism in our society today is that it is not classified as a religion, and therefore escapes all the guardrails we learned to put up against religions (such as forced participation in them).
Indeed. As I think of it, some religious folks have been some of the nicest people I have ever met--when they are also aculturated into US or UK freedom ethics as well.
Lawrence: TY for your good observations. My main concern is that you did not distingish between a theory and a hypothesis. One of the scourges of our time is that agenda promoting activists have subtly upgraded their specious, unproven hypotheses by calling them theories. They get away with this sleight-of-hand because most people are not scientists, so they don't understand the difference between the two. We need to call out these deceptions.
In this case what you are mostly discussing are unfalsifiable hypotheses. By definition, an unfalsifiable hypothesis would never become a theory.
Lastly, you did not mention the Scientific Method — a 4000± year old proven methodology for separating the wheat from the chaff. Again, agenda activists hate the Scientific Method because it works. What few people know is that the Left's antithesis to the traditional Scientific Method has led them to no longer teach it in almost all US K-12 public schools. This is one of several undiscussed shortcomings of the NGSS. (See here:<https://c19science.info/Education/Fixing_Education.pdf>.)
For more on such matters, interested readers can sign up for my FREE substack on Critical Thinking (<https://criticallythinking.substack.com>).
Yes indeed, that might a topic for another post--the interesting differences between hypotheses and full theories that should have been tested many times and survived.
Yes, I do recall a time when I was stricter about not even calling unfalsifiable hypotheses theories!
And yes I wish it was taught more as you said about the Scientific Method, and of course you know it is an approach that can vary and is not algorithmic in a simple sense--it varies between animal ecology and physics, for example.
I am happy to recommend your excellent critical thinking writing on substack
Lawrence: Good that you might discuss the frequent (and purposeful) misuse of the term "theory" in a future piece.
BTW, there is not a significant difference in applying the Scientific Method to a physics situation and an animal ecology case. The eight steps would be essentially identical.
FYI, I discussed the Scientific Method, and the Left's attacking it, in an eairlier substack commentary <https://criticallythinking.substack.com/p/the-lefts-assault-on-the-scientific>. In that I list the eight steps.
As a Disciple of Truth, i concur.
Unfalsifiable theories like CRT are faith based. Religions are also faith based. CRT is basically a religion. They are the same in this aspect.
Anything faith-based is subpar in terms of utility for making decisions because faith by definition can not be modified - to account for new facts about reality.
But utility has nothing to do with moral or immoral.
Faith can be moral (Christianity) or immoral (CRT) based on whether it net benefits people and society. Intent to benefit (like CRT) doesn't count as an actual benefit if the belief system is inherently racist (unbeneficial).
So we have three distinct things (1) fact based and malleable theories vs faith based ones.
(2) Useful worldviews versus useless ones, and (3) moral versus immoral ideas.
CRT just happens to be faith-based, useless, and immoral, all at the same time.
Very interesting comments. 2024 Christianity seems more moral than it was when it had absolute power during the Spanish inquisition. It seems to have incorporated enlightenment ideas and reformed.
Absolutely. Religions are not inherently moral. Every religion (even leftism/CRT) insists that it is (the most) moral but that insistence certainly doesn't make that claim true. As I said the first time, the morality of something is factually judged by its (integrated over time) effect on people and society. Morality is not judged by a religion's adherents unsubstantiated and faith-based claims.
CRT/DEI is simply the Spanish Inquisition reborn in the form appropriate to the latest out of control religion (leftism).
As a society we long ago learned the positives of religions and learned how to largely control the negatives. The only problem with leftism in our society today is that it is not classified as a religion, and therefore escapes all the guardrails we learned to put up against religions (such as forced participation in them).
Indeed. As I think of it, some religious folks have been some of the nicest people I have ever met--when they are also aculturated into US or UK freedom ethics as well.