@Gregor's banner p

Gregor

Fuge, late, tace.

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 October 08 15:34:01 UTC

¡Oh! Pues si no me entienden no es maravilla que mis sentencias sean tenidas por disparates.

Verified Email 

				
User ID: 1525


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
Gregor


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Fuge, late, tace.

				
				
				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 October 08 15:34:01 UTC
				


				
					

					
¡Oh! Pues si no me entienden no es maravilla que mis sentencias sean tenidas por disparates.



				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 1525


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
							
								Verified Email
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom New Old Controversial
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You are right, if we look hard enough we can find a tautology at the root of all human knowledge, but they are generally useful to study a share of reality. 2+2=4 may mean the same as 4=4, but by changing the terms you are providing new information: That this operation may be written differently. Pragmatically we can use this to explain many things. But when Darwin says that traits that favor the preservation of the species are preserved, no new information is gained. It describes an aspect of reality, but in terms that don't imply anything beyond themselves. Saying that everything that is red is not green accurately describes reality as well, but pragmatically fails at explaining anything.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Natural Selection is no basis to make such predictions, because it can only predict that what already exists will likely continue to exist, unless it doesn't exist anymore on which case it will cease to exist. Of course, if you take a shark out of the water it will die, we can predict that 100%. But do we need Darwin for that? And you know what, even if the shark didn't die, that would still "prove" natural selection...


What predictions we can make don't need Natural Selection, and those we can't make aren't explained by Natural Selection either.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You know, when people started using antibiotics they didn't really predict that bacteria would become resistant to it. And they had Darwin's theory by that time. But now that resistant bacteria exists, you tell me that's proof of Natural Selection? You see how it works? No matter what example you give me, Natural Selection will always be the correct explanation, because it is no explanation at all. If bacteria hadn't become resistant then you would tell me that it lacked the traits for its survival, and so on. That's not a prediction, that's hindsight.


As I've said, there are things that are random (as far as we know) in nature and things that aren't. Natural Selection explains all, which means it explains nothing because it cannot meaningfuly distinguish randon and non random events. Right now you would predict that if a human being ingests arsenic they would die, but what if this human had a benefitial trait that made him inmune to arsenic? Natural Selection cannot discriminate what outcome is more likely, you'd have to look at genetics and physiology, none of which have any need for the theory of Natural Selection.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				There’s no psychopathology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Respectfully, you are missing the point. I agree with what you say, this is why I started by saying this is not an anti-psychiatry post. What I'm saying doesn't change anything in clinical practice. I never said psychiatry doesn't work, quite the contrary. I explicitly say that it exists because it works. I think you have the right mindset by thinking of it more as an engineering practice, you are actually agreeing with me there.


If you think this is just semantics then fair enough, but I do believe the way we speak shapes the way we understand things. This is what it's about, our concept of psychopathology. You mentioned geriatrics, but geriatrics is an epistemologically sound specialization of medicine. What comes first, the loss of muscle mass or aging? In this case we can clearly stablish an object of knowledge even if we can't do anything to stop aging. The same happens with dementia: What comes first, the loss of cognitive function or the proteinopathy? Note that we don't know what causes the proteinopathy, but we do know for sure that Alzheimer's is a brain disease. So I ask again, if depression is a brain disease, then what comes first? Until we can confidently answer that, we can't really say that depression is a "disease like any other". The fact that changing someone's brain is a treatment for depression does not mean anything, because we could also make a carpenter change their profession by messing with their brain, and as I said, both being depressed and being a carpenter change your brain in predictable and observable patterns.


Let's see an example: There's a person who went through a break up and a year after that they still can't get over it, they feel sad all the time, they don't enjoy anything, and they think they won't be able to live without the person they love. Of course this is a problem, of course this person needs help, and thankfully we have the means to thelp them, that's wonderful. But are they sick? Is this because of a problem in their brain? We don't know. Unless we do, on which case you'd have to illustrate. This is a question that nobody is asking because they are busy choosing who gets the zap, as we cannot give psychiatric treatment or psychotherapy to everyone in the world, even though most people culd benefit from it at some point in their lives. But I do believe it is a question worth asking, even if it were only out of curiosity for the human condition.


I never implied this is some sort of forbidden knowledge, and this is what baffles me the most. Even though it is evident that there is no such thing as psychopathology, most people act as if there were. I know this doesn't really change anything but I can't understand it, this is what moved me to make this post. I also never implied psychiatrists are witch-doctors, because even though psychiatry has epistemological issues it is still a legitimate branch of medicine because of the fact that it works. Note that I'm saying that psychopathology does not exist, not that psychiatry does not exist, because it seems as one can exist without the other. I would prescribe you a text by Georges Canguilhem called What is Psychology, it is about psychology but many of the issues he points out are also applicable to psychiatry.


Regarding the blog by Dr. Sisskind, I fail to see how his argument changes anything. He's a psychiatrist (I think?) talking about a working definition of mental illness that serves his profession. If there's anything specific you think is relevant then please point it out. But the article does talk about evolutionary psychology and oh boy do I have something to say about that. I will make a post about it soon, but for now let's just say that it tries to explain something we don't understand using something we understand even less. It is another of those things that I feel like everyone's playing a prank on me by believing it's legitimate. The good thing is I can rest assured knowing that I'll have psychiatrists to take care of me.


I'll end with a fun fact: Psychiatrists are called "shrinks" precisely because they were in love with Freud, or as Chesterton and you pronounce it, Fraud. This is of course a translation issue, and the anglicized version of Freud has long been proved to be a flunk.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				There’s no psychopathology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't understand why you keep trying to defend psychiatry when nobody's attacking it. I guess you wrote your answer as you read the text because you literally quoted my saying that psychiatry is legitimate. Psychiatry may be quircky and not as epistemologically sound as other branches of medicine, but it is still medicine, still scientific, and still helpful. I would say though that psychopathology is a placeholder. I understand that you have a pragmatic point of view, and you really should. This doesn't really change anything for psychiatrists, and they don't need to worry about this, so I thank you for taking the time to engage in this discussion. But should we really be satisfied by having a placeholder instead of a psychopathology? I don't know if you agree that your belief that depression is a brain disease is just that, a belief, but I believe that's the case because the evidence I've seen is not conclusive. Yes, it's impossible to be depressed without having a brain and depression is something that exists and changes your brain, but here is when it's important to think what comes first. We can agree that treating people with depression should be our first and foremost concern regardless of existential questions, but why stop at that? Why not try to understand what's going on? This shouldn't change the attention and the care we give to depressed people, but it can help us think more acurately about the problem and who knows, maybe even come up with more effective solutions in the future.


Furthermore, I think that believing that psychopathology is something different than a placeholder opens room for all sorts of abuses. Psychiatrists are scientists and know the limitations of their discipline (or at least they should), but psychopathology is being used in all sorts of contexts where it has no business whatsoever, and this is in part because it is an epistemologically bankrrupt concept. Just as a currency undergoes inflation and looses value, concepts that are no rigorous enough are more likely to be overused. Psychologists are the worst offenders here, or maybe it's just my perception because I'm a psychologist myself and of course I know many people in my profession, so I'm surrounded by people who very loudily make all sorts of claims. The best psychologists I know are aware that psychopathology is a placeholder, but most don't or ignore that fact. And as psychologists feel insecure about the scientific status of their discipline they overrely on psychopathology to sell their services.


There is something very funny about the history of psychology, because as you must know computers where made with the specific objective to imitate human thought. But then in the 70's a bunch of psychologists saw computers and were astonished at how much they reasembled human thought, and came to the conclusion that the human mind works like a computer. I'm personally against the expression "Artificial Intelligence" because computers are neither intelligent nor dumb. They do what they are programed to do. An animal, for instance, can be intelligent or dumb because it is directly involved in the outcome of its decissions, and they can be wrong or right. Computers are never wrong, therefore they lack the ability to be implied in their decissions. So even if LLMs resemble human speech, we would be wrong to believe that speaking to an LLM is the same as speaking to a person. In that sense, just the fact that we can treat depression as a brain disease does not mean that it is a brain disease. This is only technically correct because it ignores the problem by fixing over it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Fleming mentioned that AFTER bacteria started becoming resistant to antibiotics, which had already happened by 1945. Not to the scale it happens now, but enough to be observed. Again, not a prediction.


Before Darwin people thought God was nature, and they belived He perfomed his own "selection" of living beings. How does this differ from Darwin's explanation? You'd say that God is an intelligent subject and nature isn't, but in any case God's intelligence is unintelligible to humans, so in practical terms is the same. People didn't think everything propsers equally.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yes, that was not obvious but that wasn't Darwin's discovery either. There were plenty of people who studied natural history and arrived to that conclusion, and there were plenty of explanations for it as well, Lamarckism being perhaps the most notorious. Darwin was indeed very good at natural history and provided very thorough evidence for evolution. But this has nothing to do with Natural Selection. The theory of Natural Selection tries to explain evolution by stating that the least fit will die and the fittest will thrive. But what does fitness mean if not the ability to thrive, the lack of which causes death? And is it not obvious that those who thrive are more likely to pass on their genes than those who die? Species change, of that there is no doubt. But are we really supposed to be content by saying that those species who survive are alive and reproduce, while those that went extinct don't reproduce anymore?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think you still don't understand what a tautology is. All evidence in the known universe points at the fact that every red car is not green. Is that statement true and correct? Well yes, if that's what you wanna call it why not. But it's also dumb and useless, unless you want to use it as an example in a logic lecture. There's this common trend on this thread, where people mention Newton for the dullest of examples. For the hundreth time no, Newton did not discover that things fall down when you drop them. But Newton is a good example of a scientific theory that is not tautologic, so you can look that up.


You also seem to have quite a childish idea of religion, where religion = dumb. I guess it's because you like Richard Dawkins, or as I like to call him, Dick Dorkins. No, people didn't believe that praying was a solution to everything, the Angelic Doctor didn't wrote his Summa Theologica exploring the relation between faith and reason just to conclude that reason = big bad. I mean, there have been people who believed that but they still exist today, so being dumb has nothing to do with being religious. Furthermore, there are plenty of biologists and scientists who are religious, I'd say that most have been. For instance, Mendel was a catholic monk, but did he just sit down and pray waiting for the tastiest peas known to man to magically appear? Absolutely not, he went and invented genetics, the absolute madman.


And yes of course, I do have sources for that. It's not a polemic claim at all, there's nothing incompatible between the idea of evolution and creationism. For instance:




If the origin of species was attributed to divine action, the temporal emergence of these species was not necessarily instantaneous. Such a doctrine was the basis of Augustine of Hippo’s (354–430) theory of the original creation of primordial seeds (rationes seminales) of each species at an original moment in time, but with the emergence of species in historical time a possibility (Augustine, VI.13.23–25, [GL, 175–76]). This theory of a temporalized creation, put forth explicitly in detail in his treatise The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, allowed Augustine to argue that species emerged sequentially in historical time rather than all at once.




Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution-before-darwin/#MediRevi


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Well, they may evolve heavy fur or they may go extinct, we can't predict that. Otherwise it would be lamarckism, not darwinism. Unless we could control the environment's conditions, on which case it wouldn't be natural selection but human selection. The tautology is that if dogs survive is because they had traits that allowed him to survive, and if they didn't survive then they didn't have them. So basically no matter the circumstances, Natural Selection is true because it does not explain anything.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
And what is "the mechanism of selection"?




This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection




But




This statement is true but it’s useless as an explanation because it doesn’t give any information other than what is implied by its terms. Darwin’s critics accuse him of crafting a tautological statement because in his definition “favourable” or “beneficial” traits are defined as those that are preserved, and traits that are preserved are of course those that are favourable or beneficial.




So yes, Darwin did say that "traits that are benefitial are preserved", or in other words "those who survive, survive". Therefore, it is a tautology.




Your complaint seems to be that whenever...




No it isn't. My complaint is what I said it is, it's in the title of the post. As I said in another comment, if you wanna say that Darwin's theory is true and correct then go right ahead, but it is also trivial and useless.


And did you read the quote I cited? Here it is again:




The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, allowed Augustine to argue that species emerged sequentially in historical time rather than all at once.




In other words, Augustine argued that God selected some species to be born at specific points in time. This of course means that some other species where chosen to disappear in the same manner.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Of course, you can also see that the car is red with thousands of studies, and in real time...


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
We could also predict the change in coat lenght without the theory of natural selection...


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It's not simple, it's tautological. Of course I accept tautologies as true, I cannot not accept them.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I mean, yes, but I can't share your conclusion. There's no depth to a tautology. In every conceivable universe everything that has 2 legs doesn't have 3 legs. Do you consider this deep? It is no explanation at all. Truths that are universally true are usually just truisms.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
What do you mean by self filter? I believe I've only claimed that Darwin's theory is a tautology. For the rest, depends on what you mean by "fine". Should we burn Darwin's books? I guess not. Should we continue believing that the theory of Natural Selection has any explanatory value? Definitely not.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It is not a metaphor, it's an analogy. And you don't get the point. Of course we can see "natural selection in action", because it is true. The problem is that it cannot be false, so literally everything is proof that natural selection is true. Therefore it explains nothing and no new knowledge is won by this. Watching the car being painted red may be a good enough explanation, but watching the genes of the benefitial traits pass from one generation to the other doesn't change that Darwin's definition of benefitial traits is tautological.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Before Darwin people made all sorts of predictions about population growth and the proliferation of benetial traits. They learned, for instance, that after a flood certain species of plants were more plentiful. They then copied this process to create agriculture, etc.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Darwin didn't make this distinction between different time perspectives, but even then Darwin's explanation would be: They didn't survive because they don't exist anymore. It doesn't matter what time perspective you use, this holds true in every possible scenario.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't need any alternative definition of evolution because Natural Selection is not a definition of evolution. Natural Selection is, supposedly, the mechanism that explains evolution. So evolution is just that, there's nothing tautological about its definition. I don't see any way of defining Natural Selection that would make it non-tautological, and thus this post. I don't offer any alternative explanation for evolution either.


Survival and reproduction are filters but have no explanatory value because every living creature survives and reproduces itself, or dies. That's the definition of being alive: Surviving and reproducing. So when we say that a living creature has a trait that's benefitial for its survival and reproduction, what we are really saying is that a living creature is alive because it has the means to be alive. There are filters that are not tautological. For instance, recessive genes are so called because they have a lower probability of passing a specific phenotype from the parents to the offspring. This allows us to understand why some traits are expressed and other aren't by acquiring new information: Genetics.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
My argument is that Natural Selection is tautological, so it does not add any new knowledge. It doesn't matter if it's "systemized" or not.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You made two claims:




It’s not a tautology when viewed from a human scale perspective of time.




I rebutted this.




it is obvious that natural selection happens. There is no logical alternative, you cannot not accept it.




This is literally what I said, you are siding with me here. This is the definition of tautology, a claim that is true in every possible interpretation. Unless you meant to say that the only logical thing to do is accept Darwin's theory, on which case I'd say that's not the case at all. Even no explanation at all is better than a tautological explanation.


So which one is the "thrust" of your comment?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It's funny because nowhere in the book does Darwin explain what a species is or how is it originated, but more to the point, Carl Linnaeus would like an amicable word with you, because you seem to ignore the fact that a century before Darwin people were already talking about "A branching Tree of Life". Hell, even Aristotle understood the concept and studied the "Tree of life" of the isle of Lesbos. I won't bother to prove that the rest wasn't new either. What was new, and I'm getting tired of repeating it, is the idea that nature was bound by XIXth century England's economic principles. Why are different species everywhere? I actually don't know, but I do know that Natural Selection explains nothing, because it only says that diverse species exist and copy-pasted species don't. But in fact both exist, and that also proves Natural Selection right. This is both obvious and useless, because it provides no new knowledge. The fact that you ignore history doesn't mean that what's obvious now wasn't obvious before. England's XIXth century ideas weren't obvious, and England's navy, without which Darwin wouldn't have been able to gather evidence from all around the world, was not useless either.


For the rest, when other people and I say that Natural Selection is an inherent trait of life, we mean to say that it is so only in possible universes. This is of course an arbitrary limitation because we don't actually know for sure what's ultimately possible and impossible, but such arbitrary limits are necessary to have any sort of meaningful conversation, since I can make up an universe where up means down and down means soup and nothing makes sense and you would understand nothing of what I'm saying. So of course you can make up an universe in your mind where Darwinism isn't tautological, but that doesn't prove anything.


And you know, you could take any biology book and change "Natural Selection" by "God" and nothing would change, the meaning of the text would remain the same. The difference being that Natural Selection is a tautology, while God is simply unknowable. Both explain nothing but one is more clever than the other.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
5000 years ago people knew that short haired cats had short haired offspring. Entire empires and civilizations were created out of the concept of inheritance. What people lacked was the theory of genes, but Darwin lacked that as well. Darwin does not explain at all why detrimental traits are passed down, if we were to prove then Darwin's theory would be false. But we cannot prove that things that don't exist are preserved. If something exists then it is 1. Benefitial, 2. Bening, or 3. Extinted/In process of disappearing.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think you still fail to understand what a tautology is. Natural Selection does not explain the why of anything. Why do we see creatures with fins? Because they have survived. In other words, we see them because they are alive. What does this explain? You are exactly at the same point where you started. A tautology is, by definition, not an useful explanation. We didn't need to wait for Darwin to know that we can preserve and multiply creatures with desirable characteristics by keeping them alive and making them breed. The "why" of this is explained by genetics, not by Darwin's theory.


Now, how can we know that Natural Selection "selects" something? Because it exists. In your example, all this tells us is that people with sickle cells are not dead. Again, Natural Selection doesn't help us at all, we need genetics to understand why and how that happens. It's not true that we need Darwin's theory to notice atypical populations, this is just basic reasoning, and we certainly didn't wait for Darwin to start using it. Compare this to Lamarck's theory. His theory is not correct, ot least hasn't been proven, but it is not tautological because it explains how species acquire new traits, by a mechanism he called "inheritance of acquired traits", meaning that benefitial traits acquired by the parents are inherited by the offspring. So we could say, for instance, that if a car is blue it is because it somehow changed its DNA to be blue when it realized it would be faster, and then genetically passed on this knowledge. All that Darwin could say here is that where there are blue cars red cars did not survive.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


You seem to be saying...




I'm not. Why don't you focus on what I actually said? I won't respond to the "then everything is a tautology" claim because I've already done so several times on these comments, even on this very thread if I recall correctly.




Newton says...




No he does not.




It does seem that you are complaining about...




Key word: Seem. I'm only stating that there's no counterexample to a tautology. Because I'm trying to explain that the theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.




So that is how it differs from Darwin's explanation.




Yes, St. Augustine is not the same as Darwin. But in practical terms, Divine Selection and Natural selection have the same explanatory value. That is, none at all.


And yes, the Wikipedia article says that Flemming "predicted" antimicrobial resistance, but he "predicted" it in 1945, that is, 17 years after he discovered antibiotics. And he "predicted" it because he already observed the resistance in his laboratory. So no, he didn't "predict" it, he discovered it.