Question on history/systems of psychology on evolution?

Adequate theory will be defined by those that analyze theory. As of late we have a very specific definition of substantial evidence, defined and decided by the scholars alive today. Adequate, including data, observation, and evidence, have taken a turn towards that which can be calculated with numbers (including by the way calculus... which was newton's invention) and, other scientific data, for example, finding the half life of the radioactive portion of a sample, using instruments recently developed to deduce it's age.

We no longer give observation as much weight or "credibility" as it used to have when it was the finest instrument we had for studying the world around us. People will never say, and they accomplished it with their own eyes, they will look at it as a lack of the technology to do better.

It is our century, that believes we are in the stages of progress and of course, always carrying the torch of "the newest and brightest" and sprinting like mad towards better: a slightly biased stance that always seems to be held by the people in possession of the present, just as is any society or culture or subculture, sure that they have found the rightest way available.

This mentality is used to implement a definition of best, good, and adequate as a linear progression back in time away from the point we are at now, which is always, in the eye of the beholder, the peak and the end point.

Do you know how many times the mayan calander has been "finally decoded"? And do you know which interpretation is the most accurate? The most recently thunk up. And of course, to all of us living in the present, the truths that were most true 50 years ago are not going to be as true for us, because, that's just not where we live nowadays and that's just not how it is.

For example, it wasn't even until the nineties that some idiotic articles changed the view that science and religion contradict each other. Yeah. That wasn't common knowledge, and it wasn't true either. Of course people of the past always look archaic when we use words that don't mean what they used to mean to describe them.

Anyway, now as our definitions of science and religion change; and as perfection and precision are tasks only performed well by computers and technology, and not the imperfect men who created these perfect machines; what is sufficient is, well, harder to analyze when you need a machine that can only process things that can be converted logically into 0's and 1's.

That and we really like calculus when calculating qualifiers like good and sufficient... which newton pulled out of his *** not too long ago. : )

Is that, helpful?