1. I said it does contradict the theory... Evolution predicts change over millions of years... Living fossils show NO change over millions of years. You'd need a fair amount of mental gymnastics to claim there is no contradiction.
It does not, that is yet another misconception about the theory. Evolution predicts overall change in the biosphere over millions of years, it doesn't say that every single lineage will change in every respect that the exact same rate. In fact evolution would predict the opposite, given that natural selection depends on the environment and environments vary. Moreover it is untrue that "living fossils" show NO change over millions of years. The modern coelacanth for example is quite different from the fossil coelacanths we have. "Little change" doesn't mean "NO change".
2. And what predictions are they? All I hear about are ad hoc "predictions".... There was the one about Tiktaalik, however that has been debunked
Tiktaalik is a well-known example, although technically you could say it was less a prediction made explicitly to test the theory and more a use of the theory to predict observations in an operational sense. I'd never heard of it being debunked though, I'd love to know what that's supposed to mean.
3. And I was attempting to show that even IF an observation fits a theory there can and may be multiple creditable explanations, hence you cannot just claim that the observations fit this and be done with it. That is why experimental tests should be undertaken to ensure that the proper explanation is being given.
Yeah, you make many different observations obviously. Or are you again taking the position that experimental tests can test theories and observations can't ? And haven't you understood yet that what you say applies to all sciences ? Experimental results can also have several different explanations. That's why science is never about proof, it's about levels of confidence. And why making predictions is important.
4. I wasn't attempting to give another example, as I said I was showing where inference fails since multiple theories can be inferred from a single observation...
...or a single experimental result. That's why no science relies on a single observation, or a single experimental result.
You just said that people used to believe that cells were blobs of jelly. Where would such thoughts come from if not by observation (just visual observation of the skin etc), yet when further observation was able to be undertaken (via microscopes) we now see that such observations and claims were false.
People didn't even know cells existed until they invented microscopes. And microscopes had been invented, and cells discovered, quite a long time before Darwin's time. Maybe you should actually look up what people thought when and why instead of basing your analogy on hypotheticals like "where would such thoughts come from if not by observation ?"
I never claimed it to be a "theory" just that it was common knowledge at the time. Furthermore it IS a wrong way of doing science since as microbiologists can testify, they had it wrong. Or would you claim that being wrong is justified? The fact that they made these claims with NO experimental data or such is testament to the lack of scientific thinking in such claims, (which is the crux of what I am saying here- they had no experiments hence how can they say they are correct)
Look, unlike you I never took a microbiology class, but I can look up when the microscope was invented and the history of cell theory and what I'm seeing is that people were getting their ideas about cells from looking through microscopes and doing experiments long before Darwin was born. I would like to see some evidence for your assertion that people made those claims with no experimental data.
As for this : Furthermore it IS a wrong way of doing science since as microbiologists can testify, they had it wrong.
That is an incorrect inference. There are two ways a scientific conclusion can be wrong : if the method used is wrong, or if there isn't enough evidence to come to the right conclusion. "Not having invented the electronic microscope yet" is not, as a matter of fact, "a wrong way of doing science". If that were the case there would be no such thing as a right way of doing science, because none of our instruments are perfect.
The same is said in point 4. Experiments are the defining part of science, without them you are left with assumptions, inference and opinion, all of which are unscientific.
Do you admit that in every scientific endeavor there MUST be some form of experimental analysis that can be undertaken to verify claims?
Experiments and observations, yes. Nobody here disagrees with this. The problem is that you don't seem to understand the actual role of experiments, observations and inference play in science in practice. If you did you wouldn't be saying that people in Darwin's time thought cells were blobs of jelly because they did no experiments or hadn't looked through microscopes. Or you would be able to actually demonstrate this, maybe with a cite to a relevant source because I can't find anything. And you wouldn't be saying that inference is unscientific. Science cannot exist without inference; human reason
cannot exist without inference. Science cannot exist without experiment and observation either; Both are necessary.
6. Firstly I never claimed it to be a theory... Where have I ever said the "jelly-cell theory"? Furthermore it was their complete lack of experimental tests, is what I am focusing on.
You have given no evidence for such a lack of experimental tests. You have asserted it, many times, but you don't seem to know much on the subject at all. For example suggesting that further observations "via microscopes" led them to change their mind, as if they hadn't been looking through microscopes already for two centuries by that time.
7. If this is such, then shouldn't there be a sense of modesty in that even if a theory claims X. X can still be proven false, (yes many scientists admit this)...
There should be a sense of modesty in saying any statement at all, because nothing is ever certain. Even the most certain things we have, like mathematical statements, can't be said with absolute certainty because humans make mistakes and have momentary lapses all the time. Considering that, the danger is in thinking that just because science is explicit
about its lack of certainty, that means it's less certain than other pieces of knowledge. And that's unfounded.
8. Or just point out there lack of experimentation and adherence to assumption based "logic"
Yes. So please point to that please. You've been asserting it, you haven't actually shown me that those people weren't experimenting or looking through microscopes. And as far as I've been able to tell, they were.
9. It is useful... In the formation of a hypothesis.. That is it... Anything further is assumption based "logic" which is not scientific.
Yeah, the formation of a hypothesis and the deriving of predictions from it. And that's such a negligible
aspect of science...
10. Ha thanks for pointing out your own attempt at such evasive maneuvers. I'm asking you to "put your money where your mouth is" if you think science can thrive with no experimentation, please show it. Since from what I see it flies in the face of what all scientists claim about science, and what all scientists are taught at university about science.
From what I see it isn't something I have said at any point, and as a matter of fact explicitly denied in the paragraph you're responding to.
What examples did you give?
I asked you how various aspects of what you were saying applied to the Earth not being the center of the Universe, finding a planet's orbit, and now the discovery that cells aren't blobs of jelly.
11. Really... You should double check post 5 where you said this...
" This does nothing to answer either why experimental science is necessary, or why prediction/observation can't serve the same purpose, or whether pre-20th-century astronomy was a science."
If you read that carefully you'll notice that isn't a statement that I don't think experimental science is necessary, it's asking you to tell me why you
think it is. Note also that at that point in the conversation we were looking at experiments versus observations; I had thought after post# 9 that we could both agree that observations and experiments can substitute for each other in cases where you can't do both but maybe I was wrong.