Originally Posted by zosima
If somebody is unable or unwilling to understand the demographic saturation theory
and critical analysis of standard demography
then this person is also unable or unwilling to understand "some sort of formal model" with the same content.
If you do not want to understand the simple example of Japan
, where the population converged to 127.8 million (corresponding to a saturation value of 100%) or are unable to understand the premises and limitations of a statement like
- In a saturated population, a sex ratio at death of 120 man per 100 women leads to a sex rate at birth of around 120 boys per 100 girls.
then why should you accept the same information in the form of a formal system?
If you are unable or unwilling to understand the fundamental concept of evolutionary relatedness
, then why should you take seriously a formal system containing formal variables representing evolutionary relatedness
By the way, a formalised system is rather an endpoint, a recapitulation or a summary of a field of knowledge. Only after hundreds of years of geometric insights and the creation of lots of concepts, a first so-called axiomatic foundation of geometry could be created. The situation
with Newton's axioms is quite similar.
And in many cases, obscure formal systems only serve as an argument from authority. However, as an argument from authority a formal system only works, if it come from the right side. If e.g. a famous neo-Darwinian presented a formal model, you probably would accept it. However, if an outsider like me presented a more concise formal model with much more predictive power, you still would dismiss it, because you ultimately rely on the authority of official peer-reviewed science, don't you?
If you actually are interested in how a reincarnation theory can be used in order to predict demographic numbers and how it is possible to "independently verify" such results, then I'm glad to answer your questions. However, you should a first spend a few hours to read what I've written until now.
By examining the reasons/roots/premises of fundamental disagreements, one can learn a lot, even if the disagreements cannot be removed.
Originally Posted by six7s
I ask with Albert Einstein:
"Why do the individual concepts that occur in a theory require any separate justification after all, if they are indispensable only within the framework of the logical structure of the theory, and if it is the theory as a whole that stands the test?"
"The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of noteworthy kind. They are dependent upon each other. Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is -- insofar as it is thinkable at all -- primitive and muddled."
"Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. … The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors."
"A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is -- in my opinion -- the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth."