I get what you're saying, but it's more like saying that our understanding of the butterfly and it's larva stage may change of be redefined.
VID Live Now: JRE MMA Show Ep. 32 w/ Firas Zahabi
- Thread starter The Sound of Violence
- Start date
Firas is a very interesting guy. He knows his shit and his results speak for themselves.
I agree with you there. Theories are always being added too. Thats how the scientific process works.
Maybe it was his poor wording. To say a Theory can ever go back to being a Hypothesis or may never
make it past hypothesis stage means he either doesn't understand what hypotheses and theories
are or he mis spoke.
A Hypothesis in simple terms is a a completely untested idea of causal relationship.
A scientific Theory is a hypothesis that has been tested, well substantiated, re tested
by peers under different conditions and then it must demonstarate the ability predict accurate
answers applied to future problems.
For a Theory to go back to being a Hypothesis Firas would have to go back in time and not allow
those tests and peer reviews to be conducted. The tests have already been done on a Theory. Its never
going to become a Hypothesis again. It can be added to or changed with additional data or even be revolutionized
and completely dis proven but it can't become or be a Hypothesis again.
Had he said Theories can never prove anything as they can only disprove and may also
be added to given new data then that would have made perfect sense and been accurate
but to suggest a Theory never makes it past the Hypothesis stage is an inaccurate understanding
of the terms he was discussing.
Funny thought - We could be wasting our energy trying to figure out what he meant as he may have
simply confused "Common Theory" with Scientific Theory as well. I noticed they both kinda loosely associated
them. I'm going to go back and rewatch as I don't think Firas could be that mis informed
If I say I have a Theory that Egg is secretly a wanna be fighter then what I actually mean is that I have
an "untested idea" or more accurately a hypothesis but what I don't have is a Theory.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gklQ3GbmufI
Last edited:
I found the problem. Great discussion by the way. They fuck up the discussion right off the bat.
20 seconds in they both start arguing two entirely different definitions of "Whoo". Joe's definition of
whoo is not the same as the way Firas defines it.
Then like I suspected at 1:20 Firas confuses Common Theory with Scientific Theory.
He brings up Newton's Theory of gravity (which is a Scientific Theory) and then tries to
compare it to his own theory.
(1:20) Firas states "I Have a Theory that Gremlins are pulling you down to the earth"
Which of course is not a Theory... It couldn't get any further from an actual Theory.
What he has is a Hypothesis and a completely untested idea.
To make the discussion even more inaccurate and pointless, Joe at 2 minutes in then goes and tries
to counter Firas' Gremlin Hypothesis (Theory in Firas eyes) with the actual Scientific Theory of Newton's
Gravity. They are literally arguing a Hypothesis vs a Theory thinking they are both Theories
Thats the problem when you have a philosopher and a non scientist trying to demonstrate
a scientific argument and fucking it up royaly. In hindsight their discussion is perhaps the
dumbest fucking discussion on science I have ever heard. Neither have a clue how the
scientific process works
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJHj4BtP9Go
Last edited:
That's true in the sense that you'll hear of theories that were once accepted, but no longer are. At the same time by the more literal definition, that would mean that they were actually just hypothesis' all along.
<-- non scientist
That's valid but we aren't gonna agree on this one brother. That simply is not how the scientific process
works. Philosophically I guess you could infer that a Theory proven false would become a hypothesis but
in the scientific world it just becomes an invalidated Theory.
Meaning it was once a Hypothesis... it was tested and determined to be valid and became a Theory
then at a later date new data invalidated the Theory... thus becoming an invalidated Theory.
It won't become a Hypothesis again.
It would have to be resubmitted entirely adjusting for the new data in order to be considered a Hypothesis again.
I feel like I've been mind fucked by Firas and Joe into wasting so much energy on their nonsense.
How the conversation should have went had either been scientifically literate:
Firas words from the video: "There's this guy Isaac Newton that says there is this gravity this force
of gravity pulling you down to the earth (Newton's Scientific Theory of Gravity). Then some
guy name Zahabi tells you no Joe don't listen to Newton. I have another Theory more true
then Newton's Theory. I have a Theory that there are Gremlins pulling you down to the earth" etc...
Now Joe how do you know who is telling you the truth? My theory correlates just as much as Isaacs."
Joe: "Umm no it does not... You do not have a Theory. What you have is a completely untested Hypothesis
and you are confusing Scientific Theory (that has to undergo rigorous scientific testing, experimentation
peer review and must display the ability to be applied to and predict future events accurately) with common
Theory... which is a completely un tested idea and simply an unfounded point of view.
In order for this discussion to move forward you would have to first take your idea and submit it
to rigorous testing and the scientific process. Otherwise we are speaking about two entirely different
things. Your unfounded idea is NOT a Scientific Theory like Newtons. Therefore this entire
discussion is asinine. Now step your scientific literacy game up and get back to me
Mr. Philosopher"
Kidding of course... but that is literally the kind of nonsense and lack of scientific basics they both displayed
I think you might be misunderstanding what Firas was saying as a philosopher. Although, I fully agree with you that they weren't on the same proverbial page.
Think of it this way, all scientific theories are always open to reevaluation and reassessment, correct?
Absolutely... I'm with ya there
That by a strict, literal definition would make them a hypothesis because they're only true until they aren't. I don't necessarily agree with this assessment because it seems like semantics, but it does help to illustrate the bigger point he was trying to make.
I understand what you are saying. One thing though... Theories never prove anything true. They can only disprove
The problem starts when you try to inject a philosophical mental construct into scientific laws.
Like oil and water they simply don't mix. Which is where they got lost and ended up in a circular
nonsensical argument.
I'd like to think Firas simply misspoke but after seeing him compare his idea to Newtons Scientific
Theory as if they were remotely equivalent makes me think he simply isn't scientifically literate.
I'd like to hear what he says once someone explains to him that he was comparing an untested idea
to an actual tested Scientific Theory....
The bigger point I believe he was trying to illustrate is that science (and it's laws) are mental constructs in the absolute most literal sense.
Yes, they do.
A new way to mix oil and water
By the way are you a philosophy major? I recently started studying Seneca.
Any good philosophers you recommend?
Touche
Nah, I'm just an unfrozen caveman whom reads a lot and listens to a lot of podcasts, and enjoys civil conversations.
Ahh cool. Well sounds like you enjoy a lot of what I enjoy. I appreciate the convo.
Nice to get away from the typical MMA "Meat head" stuff once in a while.
If you like a nice clash of Science, Science Fiction and Philosophy you may like Isaac Arthur's channel
He tackles some crazy ass shit from all 3 perspectives.
Here's one he did on Uploading Our Brains To Computers to Become Immortal
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6icg0tu_5z4
Warning: Isaac has a speech impediment but his breakdowns are second to none once you get used to
his Elmer fuddish' voice
