Minor Observation
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
esp,
Here are some points about facts and theories.
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" - part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess.
When evolution was mentioned President Reagan stated before an evangelical group in Dallas: "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science - that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world.
In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."
Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution.
Hope that helps
Cris
Here are some points about facts and theories.
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" - part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess.
When evolution was mentioned President Reagan stated before an evangelical group in Dallas: "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science - that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world.
In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."
Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution.
Hope that helps
Cris
Last edited:
scilosopher
Registered Senior Member
Cris,
I'm not sure how comfortable I feel about you quoting Reagan to make points concerning fine haired distinctions in scientific terminology.
Other than that good points.
I'm not sure how comfortable I feel about you quoting Reagan to make points concerning fine haired distinctions in scientific terminology.
Other than that good points.
[size=large]Bebelina,
Ok but most of us here aren't scientists so most us don't know what we are talking about. We really reflect what we have observed from the popular media.
This implies that if we can change the quality of the media then we could change the quality of the world. Hmm, I like that thought.
Cris
[/size]
Ok but most of us here aren't scientists so most us don't know what we are talking about. We really reflect what we have observed from the popular media.
This implies that if we can change the quality of the media then we could change the quality of the world. Hmm, I like that thought.
Cris
[/size]
Yes, media has power today, great power. Control the media and you control the modern physical world. Sounds alluring? 
But if we can´t seem to agree upon the definition of science, then how can we ever define a scientist?
I think we all are scientists, only specialized in different areas.
But if we can´t seem to agree upon the definition of science, then how can we ever define a scientist?
I think we all are scientists, only specialized in different areas.
A theory is an organizing principle which connects facts. A theory cannot be demoted to a mere fact. It is like saying a political system is a voter. The categories are different.
No, just flexible enough to allow the root to grow. Currently however, the tree of religion is the topic one must "bark up."
Unfortunately, you and I were never invited to agree. But for your benefit, Ill repost the definition:
The definition of science is, "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."
Do you need help with the definition of a scientist or can I assume you'll take it from here?
Well, if I wasn´t invited, I will not agree !
As the story goes, new definitions are needed all the time, evolution wouldn´t exist otherwise.
But that is a pretty good definition though, but not as simple as it may seem at a first glance. The separate words need their own definitions too.
What is classified as phenomena for example? And how do you indentify it? And what kind of theoretical explanations are we talking about here?
Let´s take a cup for example, how do you prove its existance in scientifical terms?
As the story goes, new definitions are needed all the time, evolution wouldn´t exist otherwise.
But that is a pretty good definition though, but not as simple as it may seem at a first glance. The separate words need their own definitions too.
What is classified as phenomena for example? And how do you indentify it? And what kind of theoretical explanations are we talking about here?
Let´s take a cup for example, how do you prove its existance in scientifical terms?
It appears you'll need to start with the basics. Allow me to show you a new world:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html
http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dfl0www/modules/introlog/PROP.HTM
Enjoy.
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html
http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dfl0www/modules/introlog/PROP.HTM
Enjoy.
Phenomena: Occurrences, circumstances, or facts that are perceptible by the senses.
The senses. There are five of them.
Any theory. Take your pick.
A cup helps to keep my coffee in bound. Therefore it exists. It does not however help to keep the coffee from spewing out my nose while reading your posts.
scilosopher
Registered Senior Member
Q,
So is string theory science? Most physicists don't think it can be experimentally verified or disproven for the next 10 years at least and more likely 20-50. In the meantime is it science or not?
Jose Wudka, at least, insists that scientific theories are falsifiable. It is quite possible that a string theorist will be able to last their whole career without their theories being falsifiable ...
Regardless, I would also repeat my statement that there is still a lot of grey area as I stated in my earlier post which you deemed unworthy of response. I don't feel I'm illogical either.
Science is not what the mainstream thinks it is and you're way of approaching the discussion isn't helping. There are ways in which science is wrong and not the correct way of viewing the world. For example when dealing with people. Sociology and psychology ... nueroscience or whatever can't explain human behavior. That doesn't mean that we should ignore certain feelings that don't fit in with psychological theory and tell the person they just can't be feeling that. I think science is a useful tool, but I got other tools in my tool box and what we don't understand still is much larger than that which we do.
That isn't to say that I'm down with all psuedo-science, but there are limits to what science can address, which I refuse to place on my world of thought.
So is string theory science? Most physicists don't think it can be experimentally verified or disproven for the next 10 years at least and more likely 20-50. In the meantime is it science or not?
Jose Wudka, at least, insists that scientific theories are falsifiable. It is quite possible that a string theorist will be able to last their whole career without their theories being falsifiable ...
Regardless, I would also repeat my statement that there is still a lot of grey area as I stated in my earlier post which you deemed unworthy of response. I don't feel I'm illogical either.
Science is not what the mainstream thinks it is and you're way of approaching the discussion isn't helping. There are ways in which science is wrong and not the correct way of viewing the world. For example when dealing with people. Sociology and psychology ... nueroscience or whatever can't explain human behavior. That doesn't mean that we should ignore certain feelings that don't fit in with psychological theory and tell the person they just can't be feeling that. I think science is a useful tool, but I got other tools in my tool box and what we don't understand still is much larger than that which we do.
That isn't to say that I'm down with all psuedo-science, but there are limits to what science can address, which I refuse to place on my world of thought.
So is string theory science? Most physicists don't think it can be experimentally verified or disproven for the next 10 years at least and more likely 20-50. In the meantime is it science or not?
Are you implying that string theory is NOT science simply because it has not been verified or disproved. That would be an argument to ignorance.
Jose Wudka, at least, insists that scientific theories are falsifiable.
That is true. One must show that any new theory should explain the existing data, provide new predictions and should be testable to falsify or replace another theory.
I think science is a useful tool, but I got other tools in my tool box and what we don't understand still is much larger than that which we do.
That isn't to say that I'm down with all psuedo-science, but there are limits to what science can address, which I refuse to place on my world of thought.
You can refuse any aspect of science you wish. There very well may be limits to what science can address, but that is simply a hindrance due to our level of current technology.
Are you implying that string theory is NOT science simply because it has not been verified or disproved. That would be an argument to ignorance.
Jose Wudka, at least, insists that scientific theories are falsifiable.
That is true. One must show that any new theory should explain the existing data, provide new predictions and should be testable to falsify or replace another theory.
I think science is a useful tool, but I got other tools in my tool box and what we don't understand still is much larger than that which we do.
That isn't to say that I'm down with all psuedo-science, but there are limits to what science can address, which I refuse to place on my world of thought.
You can refuse any aspect of science you wish. There very well may be limits to what science can address, but that is simply a hindrance due to our level of current technology.
scilosopher
Registered Senior Member
Q,
My implication of course was that string theory can't be falisfied NOW and yet is still considered science. Personally I agree with that classification. I wouldn't argue to ignorance as you suggest.
I would suggest that you stop acting like you know everything and being so jugemental.
I also do refuse to accept a lot of published science. Try reading some developmental biology papers sometime. A lot of published science that is useful and good is not really right. At least in biology. In biology it is due to them lack of information that can be effectively gathered in relation to the complexity of the phenomena.
This was true of all science at one point or another. In fact the vast majority of theories in science were wrong. That doesn't mean I reject the practice of science. My point is that it has limits and there are grey areas about what is science. Until those grey areas are filled it is understandable for people to have beliefs and wonder about things. There can be gems of wisdom in those beliefs and ideas even if they are not possible by what we already know from science. That doesn't mean some part of the thought is incorrect [oops I meant isn't correct ...]. The part that is right might need a lot of observation before it can be understood and the explanation that keeps it consistent is found.
Please, don't argue with my words before you think about them or play stupid. It doesn't make for interesting conversations.
My implication of course was that string theory can't be falisfied NOW and yet is still considered science. Personally I agree with that classification. I wouldn't argue to ignorance as you suggest.
I would suggest that you stop acting like you know everything and being so jugemental.
I also do refuse to accept a lot of published science. Try reading some developmental biology papers sometime. A lot of published science that is useful and good is not really right. At least in biology. In biology it is due to them lack of information that can be effectively gathered in relation to the complexity of the phenomena.
This was true of all science at one point or another. In fact the vast majority of theories in science were wrong. That doesn't mean I reject the practice of science. My point is that it has limits and there are grey areas about what is science. Until those grey areas are filled it is understandable for people to have beliefs and wonder about things. There can be gems of wisdom in those beliefs and ideas even if they are not possible by what we already know from science. That doesn't mean some part of the thought is incorrect [oops I meant isn't correct ...]. The part that is right might need a lot of observation before it can be understood and the explanation that keeps it consistent is found.
Please, don't argue with my words before you think about them or play stupid. It doesn't make for interesting conversations.
Last edited:
Q
Your original post seemed to say that there was too much crap in the forums to trawl through.
Yet you've stayed at least long enough to have a three page open debate; it cant be that bad.
Seriously, if you just want to debate pure science, why not stay in the general science forum, don't go where you don't like!
Your original post seemed to say that there was too much crap in the forums to trawl through.
Yet you've stayed at least long enough to have a three page open debate; it cant be that bad.
Seriously, if you just want to debate pure science, why not stay in the general science forum, don't go where you don't like!