30 LR Two Question 2
- « 30 LR Two Question 1
- 95 of 3815
- 30 LR Two Question 3 »
Comments
It may be worth noting here an unsupported assumption we need to make in order to answer this question correctly: "current theory" about earthquakes is meant to explain earthquake data, rather than earthquakes generally.
My own assumption here is that you can theorize about phenomena for which you have no data. This would leave you with a theory about x (which may not even be x), but not necessarily a theory which attempts to explain data on x (again, which may not even be x). Existential theories may be the most obvious, but perhaps not the only examples.
I agree with your second sentence, but the first isn't true. We don't have to make any assumptions about what the current theory was meant to do in order to assert what it does (or in this case, does not) in fact do. This is an important distinction, and will inform your work on some future LR questions.
I've thought about your first and second sentences, and have concluded for the time being that we are in disagreement. I have refrained from posting the full ~500 word response, but will pass it along upon request for further discussion.
I'm pretty confident about my answer above, but if you feel strongly about it I'd gladly take a look at your response; I could be wrong (stranger things have happened).