Religion, Dinosaurs, A.I. and Aliens
- Thread starter superstring01
- Start date
Something is only proven "true" when it's revealed in it's complete form.
Therefor a theory can be proven true but at that point it ceases to be a theory.
It can also continue to exist as a theory for centuries without needing to be proven false. Therein lies the problem.
While it is still a "partial" concept it is not necessarily false but can not be called true. Such as in the statement "true north".
The theory will not be considered true until it can be shown to be complete.
Until then however is is not considered "false" either.
It is still incomplete. The domain of a theory. But it can be proven false.
It would cease to be a theory at that point also.
A theory then can be proven true or false.
But at that point if would cease to be a theory.
Last edited:
Bull. Like I said, you are misusing the word "theory".
A theory is an explanation for set of facts. The depth of a pond (to use your example) would be an isolated fact. Therefore the guesses would NOT be theories, at best they'd qualify as hypotheses.
kids these days..what are we gonna do IF they grow up....
dyw..
do you agree or disagree with..
rule of thumb for discussions..
Original Post; declaritive statement,theory or question.
Reply Post; probatory response(is this what you are talking about?) to verify clarity, dispute, or confirm.
OP; claritive statements (rephrase the thought),share additional thoughts,data, relevent to OP
RP; communicate interest,request sources,
OP; provide sources , if you just heard it from someone else, communicate such,
both parties should be more interested in bringing as much data to the table as possible so all parties (even those not posting) can make their own descisions as to the validaty of OP,
agree or disagree?
dyw..
do you agree or disagree with..
rule of thumb for discussions..
Original Post; declaritive statement,theory or question.
Reply Post; probatory response(is this what you are talking about?) to verify clarity, dispute, or confirm.
OP; claritive statements (rephrase the thought),share additional thoughts,data, relevent to OP
RP; communicate interest,request sources,
OP; provide sources , if you just heard it from someone else, communicate such,
both parties should be more interested in bringing as much data to the table as possible so all parties (even those not posting) can make their own descisions as to the validaty of OP,
agree or disagree?
he has a goat..and it is yours..
Good point but certain people may not see that for what it is, but i really think they are just making excuses. Sure, if a poster brings something new to the table and articulates his position, which he bases off of other factors BUT then get proven to be wrong he is a crackpot\Troll etc. In actuality he\she HAD a theory. Still may be a crackpot but that is beside the point.
I'm still blocking the bridge. There isn't any nonsense getting by here.
Long as he's not throwing carrots, sounds like he's on his own.
Missed opportunities abound. Never played Kings's Quest apparently.
Last edited:
"True" is not the same as "proven".
A theory cannot be proven. That would require that we know everything and are absolutely certain that there actually is no contradictory evidence anywhere at all.
Since this is impossible it follows that "proven" is not possible either.
true..it helps the disscusion if everyone is on the same page..
PS NMSquirrel you're talking rubbish!
well.. maybe..but consider your typical posts..
Original Post; declaritive statement,theory or question.
Reply Post; probatory response(is this what you are talking about?) to verify clarity, dispute, or confirm.
Dyw; slam,insult,instigate,judge
OP; claritive statements (rephrase the thought),share additional thoughts,data, relevent to OP
RP; communicate interest,request sources,
Dyw; slam,insult,instigate,judge
OP; provide sources , if you just heard it from someone else, communicate such,
Dyw; slam,insult,instigate,judge
you notice i have left the RP part because in and amongst all your posturing, you do make some good points..
You DID notice the smilies, didn't you?
Etc.
If you notice I actually start out fairly calm and simply point out inconsistencies. It's only when they're repeated (or skirted) that I resort to anything more.
You need to look up the meaning of true and not twist it to suit your needs.
Absolutely a false statement. Proof requires knowledge of everything? Overly vague.
What little woo-woo site of yours did you hear that on?
That's ludicrousness. You fail to listen to reason.
I agree with Squirrel...
Dyw; slam,insult,instigate,judge and I'll add to that Deny, Misquote, Insinuate, Fabricate.
Last edited:
Incorrect. A theory may be true (inasmuch as it works and provides predictions) but still be unproven.
To be proven a theory must have nothing that would make it false. The only to know that there is nothing that could ever make a theory false is to know that the conditions or occurrences that would falsify it will never occur.
Woo woo site? Hardly. It's called taking science courses.
Please provide evidence of me misquoting or fabricating.
Or retract the accusation.
It's staring you right in the face on this very page. I don't need to "provide" anything.
Your doing a good job of that. Every statement you made on this page is one or the other.
Don't pretend you don't know it. Please...I want to continue thinking of you as a worthy adversary if nothing else.
But not that. No. Not a...
Sounds like a carrot to me, Squirrel. Finally realizes he needs some backup.
Last edited:
So you're lying. Okay.
I'm afraid my mind isn't as twisted as yours.
I repeat: please show me where I have misquoted and/ or fabricated. Or retract the accusation.
Yeah right.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
* * * * NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR * * * *
I wish scientists would agree on the definition of the word "theory." Until then, disagreements are unavoidable and instead of arguing we should simply say what we mean by a "theory."
Science uses "theory" to mean the highest level of respect that an assertion about the real universe can achieve: proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. This is what we mean when we say the theory of evolution or the theory of relativity. It is unreasonable to doubt them, even though there is a tiny but finite probability that one day some brilliant scientist (not a wannabe on SciForums!) may disprove one of them--or more likely, augment it, which is what Einstein did to Newton's theory.
Unfortunately the word has a different meaning in mathematics: proven 100% true for all eternity. This is because mathematics deals only with abstractions, not reality.
It has a different meaning in philosophy, yet another one in detective work, and every discipline uses it differently.
Most unfortunately of all, cosmology is an awkward blend of physics, mathematics and philosophy. So when microcosmologists coin a name like "string theory" to mean their latest entertaining Erector Set model of subatomic particles, they don't bother to stop and ponder the fact that they've just given the Religious Redneck Retards an excuse to say "evolution is only a theory."
This is why I borrow the language of the law, which is more precise than the language of science. With the proliferation of cops-and-courtrooms TV shows, everyone is familiar with the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt." It's enough to convict a suspect of a crime, and so it's also enough to elevate a scientific hypothesis to the exalted status of a theory. In both cases we could turn out to be wrong, but the probability is so low that to doubt without evidence is unreasonable.
Yes it is. That's a denial, and a false statement. (There's one example.)
False statement that ignored my previous definition of true and theory.
I said when proven it would cease to be a theory.
Twisting replies of others into a false statement that can be shown false. (That's two examples)
Another false statement. The knowledge of everything is in no way required to prove one particular individual theory.
(That's three examples)
You've based another false statement here on the back of a previous false interpretation.(That's four examples)
I've answered your request. Not responsible for making you believe the facts though.
Last edited:
Granted it would be unreasonable to doubt those theories. But there is, at the back of everyone's mind, the remote possibility that something may turn up which shows that the theory is incomplete or (at an extreme push) wrong in some cases.
The unstated clause in nearly every scientific statement is "under the conditions pertaining, which we haven't actually specified here but are understood to be the case".
Again we come back to laymen versus scientists.
"Proven true beyond a reasonable doubt" is not what the "man on the No. 3 bus" understands by "proven".
The unstated clause in nearly every scientific statement is "under the conditions pertaining, which we haven't actually specified here but are understood to be the case".
Again we come back to laymen versus scientists.
"Proven true beyond a reasonable doubt" is not what the "man on the No. 3 bus" understands by "proven".
Wrong. As explained.
Your "explanation" was incorrect. Can you give an example of theory that has been "proven" true and is no longer a theory?
Also wrong. As explained.
Incorrect.
And you also failed to provide examples of me misquoting, which was the other accusation I asked you to back up.