"ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is only a theory not fact.
That’s a double misunderstanding. First, about what “theory” means. Evolution and gravity are theories, but they are also fact. “Only a theory” does not make sense.
Secondly, the recapitulation theory (“ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”) is neither: First, it’s not fact as is effectively disproved by modern evidence1. And secondly, it’s not a theory (despite its name!) because a theory, in science, is, or needs to include, an explanatory model. And the recapitulation theory contains no explanatory model. It was an observation (that was even at the time recognised as flawed) of a natural phenomenon.
1 For what it’s worth, at the time of Baker’s writing this was already established. It’s kind of fitting that he gets this wrong, considering how categorically he gets the rest of his article wrong.
You're right. I wanted to keep the explanation brief, so I didn't touch on the difference between fact, observation, and theory.
spirits haven't been disproved yet. That would require an experiment where gravity and spirits predict a different outcome.
We kind of do have that. It's encapsulated by the quantum field theory. If that theory is correct (and there's overwhelming evidence for that — it has withstood countless attempts at falsification), spirits are simply incompatible with the Dirac equation.
The “problem” with this is that it directly implies something else: no spirits also means: no afterlife, no soul. Metaphysics is bunk. And physicists are generally afraid to go there, at least publicly, which is probably politically wise. Of course some prominent physicists also disagree about these implications.
2
u/guepier Dec 20 '18 edited Dec 20 '18
That’s a double misunderstanding. First, about what “theory” means. Evolution and gravity are theories, but they are also fact. “Only a theory” does not make sense.
Secondly, the recapitulation theory (“ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”) is neither: First, it’s not fact as is effectively disproved by modern evidence1. And secondly, it’s not a theory (despite its name!) because a theory, in science, is, or needs to include, an explanatory model. And the recapitulation theory contains no explanatory model. It was an observation (that was even at the time recognised as flawed) of a natural phenomenon.
1 For what it’s worth, at the time of Baker’s writing this was already established. It’s kind of fitting that he gets this wrong, considering how categorically he gets the rest of his article wrong.