Moderation of Pseudoscience Forum

[Neildo]

There are two different usages of the word "theory". In the general community, the word is used to mean something like "speculative guess", as you say. In science, though, a theory is a well-established explanation of a scientific fact. Thus we have Newton's theory of gravity, Darwin's theory of evolution etc. A speculative guess in science is usually called a "tentative hypothesis"; mathematicians like the word "conjecture".

A scientific theory isn't fact either though. Theories get updated all the time as new information is found. Scientific theories are to the best as we currently know. But yes, scientific theories hold a bit more weight than the average one.

- N

 

[coolmacguy]

I support any moderator that does not advocate censorship.

To the skeptical:

The fact that these "crazy theories" as you like to call them are still unexplained proves that more discussion on these topics is needed.

To the believers:

Ignoring the skeptics or trivializing their arguments won't make them go away.

 

[Lemming3k]

The fact that these "crazy theories" as you like to call them are still unexplained proves that more discussion on these topics is needed.

A theory(for reference im not using the scientific version of the word) is not unexplained, it is unproven, theres a difference, theories arnt difficult to accept as thats all they are and many theories are plausable, its proof to back them up that can be difficult to obtain and accept, a plausable theory is not a fact.

Ignoring the skeptics or trivializing their arguments won't make them go away.

Of course it wont, both sides believe they are right the arguement will go on for a very long time, as many arguements do, neither side should have the need to trivialize arguements.

 

[Persol]

Of course it wont, both sides believe they are right the arguement will go on for a very long time, as many arguements do, neither side should have the need to trivialize arguements.

Yet when we point out problems and raise questions, they are completely ignored by crazymikey and he starts posting completely unrelated information. Yet we address his points.

Kinda funny that.

 

[coolmacguy]

A theory(for reference im not using the scientific version of the word) is not unexplained, it is unproven, theres a difference

You are correct. I should have said "unproven."

theories arnt difficult to accept as thats all they are and many theories are plausable, its proof to back them up that can be difficult to obtain and accept, a plausable theory is not a fact.

Of course, therein lies the problem as there is disagreement as to what constitutes valid proof.

As an example, Galileo and Copernicus both provided sufficient evidence as proof of their theories, yet they were not accepted by science or the public within their lifetimes.

 

[Avatar]

I would think more than twice before drawing any paralels on Galileo and crazymikey

 

[tablariddim]

So whatever happened to Banshee?

 

[Lemming3k]

As an example, Galileo and Copernicus both provided sufficient evidence as proof of their theories, yet they were not accepted by science or the public within their lifetimes.

They lived in unfortunate times where the world wasnt ready for revelations that proved parts of religion incorrect in that we are indeed not the centre of our solar system, of course its a shame but there wasnt a lot they could do, i'd hope we live in times where theories with proof are welcome, that doesnt mean everyone will consider it sufficient proof though.

 

[Neildo]

They lived in unfortunate times where the world wasnt ready for revelations that proved parts of religion incorrect

That sounds like every Age, even today.

- N

 

[coolmacguy]

They lived in unfortunate times where the world wasnt ready for revelations that proved parts of religion incorrect in that we are indeed not the centre of our solar system

It could be argued that discovering ETI would prove parts of religion incorrect in that we are not the center of universal life.

 

[Neildo]

It could be argued that discovering ETI would prove parts of religion incorrect in that we are not the center of universal life.

It's cause we're not. Gotta love the ego of man. Us, us, us! Everything revolves around us! Memememememememememememememememeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!

- N

 

[Stryder]

The way I would suggest it, If the universe is filled with multiple different intelligences we would all be vying for a form of Enlightenment, in the sense that our grand goal would be that out species could do anything that any of the others could through science.

You might suggest that we always place ourselves at the centre, but you never question how you feel about another species forcifying that roll, thats why I would suggest it would be a shared prospect/ co-operative goal.