Re: Data & Predictions (was: "The Fourth Turning" - A Must Read)\

Peter C. McCluskey (
Fri, 14 Mar 1997 22:08:46 -0800 (Lee Daniel Crocker) writes:
>> Was Darwin's theory that man evolved from simpler organisms "proper
>> science"? Can you measure the statistical significance of its outcomes?

>And the most important, measurable, quanitifiable statistic imaginable:
>Of the millions of species of life on Earth ever studied, /not one/
>has ever been found that is not explainable by evolution. Put one of

Strauss & Howe's theories can clearly be tested against statistics
as quantifiable as that. For example, opinion polls that measure
how protective U.S. adults feel about children should, if Strauss &
Howe are correct, show an increase in protective attitudes over the
1982-2003 period and a decrease from about 2030 to 2050.
Note that the statistic you have adopted is so weak that creationism
passes easily - any of those million species can be explained by the
assertion that god designed them that way. (If you think evolution has
provided anything more than a post-hoc rationalization of how those
million species came to be, show me).

>your social theories to that test: if you postulate that some age
>was "the age of heroes" or some such nonsense, show me that /everyone/
>on the planet at that time fit some definable profile.

I'll do that after you show that all of those millions of species
are perfectly adapted to their environment. See how easy it is to
attack straw men?

Peter McCluskey |                        | "Don't blame me. I voted | | for Kodos." - Homer Simpson |     |