Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: an0n on December 29, 2004, 07:00:05 pm
-
For the stupid amongst you - namely the religious fanatics - I thought I'd make a thread about scientific theories and why you can't just sit and blindly ignore all facts and observable evidence on the basis that scientists call the study of such things a 'theory'.
Firstly, let's take a look at the dictionary definition of the word:
the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
See that? Repeatedly tested. Widely accepted. Can be used to make predictions about things.
Now let's take a look at the definition of the word 'right':
true ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr)
adj. tru·er, tru·est
Consistent with fact or reality; not false or erroneous.
Truthful.
Real; genuine.
Reliable; accurate.
Reliable. Accurate. Consistent with reality.
See how the two words are virtually synonymous?
And finally, let's take a look at Semiconductor Theory (http://www.tpub.com/neets/book7/24b.htm) and The Theory of Electromagnetic Induction (http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:Jdo4YS93dp8J:www.rowan.edu/colleges/las/physicsandastronomy/LabManual/labs/ElectromagneticInduction.pdf+%22theory+of+electromagnetic+induction%22&hl=en%20target=nw) - without which, you wouldn't even be reading this.
Scientific Theory != Guess
Scientific Theory = Observable Fact
Class dismissed.
-
Well written, but there seems to be something up with your last link...
-
An0n, i can observe things to be true even if they are not.
Repeatedly tested. Widely accepted. Can be used to make predictions about things
that describes the geocentric universe 3000 year ago.
-
Not really.
Unless you believe in horroscopes, in which case you're beyond help.
-
Evolution iz teh l337!
-
For me...the key thing to science and the reason it was so revolutionary at the time was that evaluation of currently accepted theories are constant. Which is why things like Einstines Theory of Relativity and such are always being re-evaluated. New theories have spawned to explain things that his theory doesn't explain and new theories may one day supplant Einstines work...but that doesn't make it more or less and thats fairly consistent with all of science.
So its an important system...
But, its not everything. Religion has its niche. Its when the two cross paths that we have trouble...in some cases. Not with all...
And thats the way things will be...
-
Religious fanaticism != stupidity
Religious fanaticism = fear/stubbornness/ignorance/lack of access to facts through upbringing and/or societal system.
Don't just bash religion for the hell of it, anon - it shows you up as being more like the fanatics than like the rest of us...
-
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but infectious disease will do a lot more damage if I let it.
-
You just love to start ****, don't you?
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
Religious fanaticism != stupidity
Religious fanaticism = fear/stubbornness/ignorance/lack of access to facts through upbringing and/or societal system...
and in all fairness, stupidity SHOULD be on that list as well. all the facts in the world won't help someone who's dense as a ****ing brick.
-
But then neither will religion. You can be a religious fanatic and stupid, but you can be a religious fanatic and razor-sharp as well. You won't be a religious fanatic because you're stupid. You can be a big-bang believer and still be thick as ****. One doesn't lead to another.
-
i think you're putting the emphasis on the wrong word. you're right, one isn't religious because they're stupid. but an argument could be made that one of the contributors to fanaticism is stupidity.
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
Religious fanaticism != stupidity
Religious fanaticism = fear/stubbornness/ignorance/lack of access to facts through upbringing and/or societal system.
Don't just bash religion for the hell of it, anon - it shows you up as being more like the fanatics than like the rest of us...
Couldn't keep your hands out of your pants, huh?
-
That is the perfect setup for a slam-dunk "your mom" zing.
-
It also shows the intellectual level of the arguer. :doubt:
I'm sick of reading these arguments between a 19 yr old and a 15 yr old...
-
Which one is 19, because I got a good idea who the 15 year old is...
-
Who have you been arguing with in the last three threads?
-
Is this going to be on the test?
-
No, the test will consist of 1 yes or no question:
Does what I believe in matter in any way shape or form to anyone else other than me?
-
OH! OH! FORTY-TWO!
-
Finally, someone gets the right answer.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Couldn't keep your hands out of your pants, huh?
Um, I'm not sure I follow.... How on Earth is that remotely relevant? :confused:
PeachE: Fair point. Though you could contribute fanaticism to major factors other than stupidity - look at Germany in the 30s, or even America in the past 3 years. The people were whipped up into a frenzy through careful manipulation of the media and information. These people are/were not stupid as a rule (obviously you get the odd dullard - ha, what a word! - but as a rule, people are fairly bright), and yet the effect was massive. The same thing can be accomplished for pretty much anything, given sufficient resources.
-
Originally posted by Raa
No, the test will consist of 1 yes or no question:
Does what I believe in matter in any way shape or form to anyone else other than me?
Yes it does, and it offends me. I will sue for 200 million gazillion dollars.
-
Oh yeah? And you smell like cheese.
-
The color of your shoes offends me. That's another 300 million gazillion dollars.
-
*ahem*
Scientific Theory is not fact, I'm sorry. It is (hopefully and usually) an eminintely logical conclusion that fits (many? most?) observed facts and does not blatantly contradict any of them.
However, scientific theories can be, and indeed have been, proven wrong. Scientific thinking, when faced with more than one explanation that fits the facts, usually tends towards the simpler one. However, when at an unspecified point in the future new empirical evidence, new facts, are established, that contradict that simpler explanation without contradicting one of the others, then that theory must change to fit the facts.
The Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact, not a theory. It has been observed, measured, and verified 14 million ways from Sunday.
However, if I may toss a match into the kindling, AFAIK the theory that the universe is expanding (not referring to the Big Bang Theory, mind you) is still just a theory. Yes, it fits the facts of red-shifting in the observed galaxies in our proximity, but there is another theory to fit that fact just as well: the universe could have stopped expanding eons ago, due to gravitational forces slowing everything down, and has now begun to contract. :)
Logically, this works, since those galactic bodies closer to the "center" of the universe's distribution of mass would have a stronger gravitational effect pulling them "inwards" at a faster clip then the Milky Way is being pulled. Same with the galaxies "rimward" from our position - we're being pulled in faster than they are, hence the red-shifting.
Now, granted, all this is still firmly theory - expansion or contraction - and could be overruled by some new shred of evidence at some point in the future. It is not fact, it is a logical conclusion that fits observed facts. Nothing more, nothing less.
-
Sandwich, Earth revolving around the Sun IS a theory... heliocentric theory to be more exact... it is not a fact but is regarded as such due to centuries of observation...
Now, quoting someone smarter than me...
A theory is a good theory (in the scientific sense) when it does two things, explain what happens with few elements, and predict things to happen in the future acuratly (or something like this).
Also, the big bang has more evidence than you realize and it also has flaws like any modern theory, so it still has ironing to do although most problems have been already ironed.
Here's a peak - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Supporting_evidence
-
Of course, you could say that observations and measurements are designed / determined based on a theory, and the assumption that we perceive images (i.e. what we see is what is really there) correctly is also based upon a theory which is neither proveable nor unproveable...... really you can find grounds to dismiss anything if you choose to do so.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
The Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact, not a theory. It has been observed, measured, and verified 14 million ways from Sunday.
goddammit, why does not one ever understand the word theory?
paraphrase of PeachE
scientifically speaking, the order by which we classify knowledge is roughly:
opinion < conjecture < hypothesis < notion < theory
there is NOTHING higher than theory. it's the top of the chain. it is the very best that modern science can do. it's by no means perfect, but the nothing is. there are NO facts. they simply don't exist. the only real "proof" method we have is observation, which really isn't a proof method at all. so there is no such thing as a fact.
-
Might as well stop fighting PeachE, an0n. You'll never beat their well entrenched ideas and opinions with facts. After all, they know the "truth" about the universe, despite never having studied it beyond what they learned in Physics 101 (or in some cases, High School, if that even). Reminding them that the world as they know it is built on the very theories they're attacking as "just a theory" will only make them all confused. Better to let them wallow in their ill-concieved, unfounded, and ignorant positions than try to expand their minds with logic, reason, and fact. At least this way we don't have to teach it to them or hear about how right they are and how wrong we are, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Besides, it's fun to laugh at them when they try to act all smart.
-
Theory basically is the most sensible answer given the available information.
We have watched the Earth go round the Sun, so we might call that fact, but true scientists will still call that a theory, because it is actually closer to the truth to say 'The Earth goes round the sun at the moment'. This quite possibly will not always be the case.
So the trail of intelligence goes....
Ignorance... Lack of understanding.
Spiritualism... Personification and attributes of power (eg. Fire)
Theory.. An attempt to explain the 'God like' powers of Fire.
Fact does not exist as unchangeable, it is merely the sum of knowledge until those facts change.
-
You can also consider the ramifications of things such as Quantum Mechanics on reality, with things such as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle...
-
One thing that I know is a fact is that this will turn into a Flame war.:lol: So I'm just gonna watch.:lol:
-
Originally posted by Flipside
We have watched the Earth go round the Sun, so we might call that fact, but true scientists will still call that a theory, because it is actually closer to the truth to say 'The Earth goes round the sun at the moment'. This quite possibly will not always be the case.
Or quite possible we are nothing more than computer simulations in an alien mainframe somewhere, there is no Earth, there is no Sun. (Actually a lack of processing power might explain why I keep bumping into people I know in the weirdest places :D )
As you say to a scientist there is no such thing as a fact because there is absolutely nothing that doesn't have another explaination.
-
Can one of the religous people answer me in this, why is it that they are right and the other side is wrong.
Can one of the scientisty (vocab failing) people answer me in this, why is it that they are right and the other side is wrong.
Can the conservatives answer me in this, why is it that they are right and not evil, and the other side is wrong.
Can the liberals answer me in this, why is it that they are right and not evil, and the other side is wrong.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Or quite possible we are nothing more than computer simulations in an alien mainframe somewhere, there is no Earth, there is no Sun. (Actually a lack of processing power might explain why I keep bumping into people I know in the weirdest places :D )
As you say to a scientist there is no such thing as a fact because there is absolutely nothing that doesn't have another explaination.
if(user.getPosition("karajoma") == city.getPosition("London") {
city.setWeather(Weather.DRIZZLE);
user.get("bloke1102").setPosition(user.getPosition("karajoma") + 2);
cabs.overchargeAmount(CabbieCharge.TOO_BLOODY_MUCH);
tube.setOnStrike(true);
city.destroy("Bristol");
}
-
Originally posted by Fergus
Can one of the scientisty (vocab failing) people answer me in this, why is it that they are right and the other side is wrong.
i know you're trying to come off as intelligent and possibly even deep, but this is an incredible oversimplification.
an0n's particular brand aside, the scientists (possibly the word you were looking for, yes?) aren't really into the whole "right vs wrong" approach to arguments. there are well supported theories and poorly supported theories (or notions). and we believe that all things being equal, a well supported theory is probably superior to a poorly supported theory.
the problem we tend to have with most religious fundamentalists is that they are willing to outright dismiss entire branches of science under the pretense that "it's just a theory", when in point of fact the entirety of all current knowledge is really just a theory and the real reason is that those particular branches of science conflict with their various religious beliefs.
this is particularly distressing to scientists (especially those in the education system, who routinely come under fire), since the whole point of science is to broaden ones horizons and to explore and develop new theories. to have entire fields cut off from exploration simply because they conflict with ( scientifically unsupported ) beliefs is ludicrous.
-
People can't really answer whether they're right or wrong, anyways, ecause each definition of 'right' - in the grand theological / philosoiphical / whatever the hell you'd call it - tends to be a subjective personal thing....
for some right means factually correct, others it means morally correct, and soforth.
-
Originally posted by PeachE
i know you're trying to come off as intelligent and possibly even deep, but this is an incredible oversimplification.
an0n's particular brand aside, the scientists (possibly the word you were looking for, yes?) aren't really into the whole "right vs wrong" approach to arguments. there are well supported theories and poorly supported theories (or notions). and we believe that all things being equal, a well supported theory is probably superior to a poorly supported theory.
the problem we tend to have with most religious fundamentalists is that they are willing to outright dismiss entire branches of science under the pretense that "it's just a theory", when in point of fact the entirety of all current knowledge is really just a theory and the real reason is that those particular branches of science conflict with their various religious beliefs.
this is particularly distressing to scientists (especially those in the education system, who routinely come under fire), since the whole point of science is to broaden ones horizons and to explore and develop new theories. to have entire fields cut off from exploration simply because they conflict with ( scientifically unsupported ) beliefs is ludicrous.
Why do you care what We think,:confused:
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Why do you care what We think,:confused:
It's not what people think, it's what they do because of that which causes problems.
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
Religious fanaticism != stupidity
Religious fanaticism = fear/stubbornness/ignorance/lack of access to facts through upbringing and/or societal system.
Don't just bash religion for the hell of it, anon - it shows you up as being more like the fanatics than like the rest of us...
PS: IceFire that "niche" is explaining things in simple terms and making people feel important and allowing them to think lazily in black and white
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Why do you care what We think,:confused:
believe me, we don't. we don't give a **** what you believe. we really don't. we're just tired of being told "you can't teach that because it conflicts with two thousand year old religious dogma"
-
Originally posted by PeachE
goddammit, why does not one ever understand the word theory?
There are no facts, only theories?? Huh - news to me. But then again, I guess that the non-existance of these things called "facts" is only a theory, not a fact. As a matter of fact (theory?), should I go so far as to say that the statement "Humans currently live on a planet" is also merely another theory?
Where does one draw the line between "proven" theories (i.e. directly observed events, such as the Earth rotating around it's axis), if you will, and "theorized" theories (such as evolution)?
And, in case the net does not convey the attitude of my questions, then let me state forthright: I am trying to understand, not make a thinly veiled point. :)
-
Well, someone must, to start another thread like this every two or three days.:lol:
And that is new to me too, I never thought there was no facts. I guess me sitting here is just a theory.:blah:
-
Sandwich, I've told you once, and I'll tell you again, the Earth moving around the Sun is "only" a theory... there are no proven theories or theorized theories whatever that means.
See here to clear whatever doubts you may have...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Characteristics
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
And that is new to me too, I never thought there was no facts. I guess me sitting here is just a theory.:blah:
nonprovable.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
As a matter of fact (theory?), should I go so far as to say that the statement "Humans currently live on a planet" is also merely another theory?
As I said before we could all be simulations in a mainframe somewhere.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Where does one draw the line between "proven" theories (i.e. directly observed events, such as the Earth rotating around it's axis), if you will, and "theorized" theories (such as evolution)?
There is no line. Science is in many ways the continuous application of Occam's Razor (i.e the simplest explaination that explains all the observable facts is the likeliest one to be true).
When there are multiple theories for something the simplest one is chosen. For instance in choosing whether I exist or am a computer simulation of myself I choose that I exist because otherwise my explaination has to include who built the mainframe, why they built it and also how their universe came to exist.
This choice isn't a matter of belief. I don't choose to believe I exist. The fact is that the balance of probabilities lies much further on the side of me being real than me being a computer simulation. There is no choice involved here. Just simple probability.
Now that this logical question is resolved I go about my day never wondering whether I exist or not. That I exist is taken as a fact (this doesn't actually make it one though). Until the day I die I will continue to act as if whether I exist or not is a fact until I get some evidence that contradicts this. If ever I see my dog get a general protection fault then the theory that I exist now bears examination. It's possible I hallucinated it or it's possible that I really don't.
Now lets take something that is a lot more controversial like evolution. There is a hell of a lot of supporting evidence for evolution. When compared against the other alternating theories there is more evidence in favour of Darwinian evolution than there are for every other theory. That doesn't mean that the other theories are definately wrong any more than it means that I'm not a computer simulation but the fact remains that given the possibilities evolution is way ahead of it's rivals. So again evolution is taken as a fact until evidence turns up that disputes it. So far there isn't any.
What might be confusing some people is that they confuse the words theory and hypothesis and assume that a theory is just a popular hypothesis. A hypothesis is never taken as fact. Anything that is done relying on a hypothesis is always done keeping an eye on the rivals in case they explain the events better than the this one did.
The reason a hypothesis is not equal to a theory is because either a hypothesis hasn't got much evidence to support it or there are peices of evidence it can't quite explain away yet.
However evolution is not a hypothesis. Many creationists argue against it as if it was and this is a fundemental mistake. There aren't many biologists who don't treat evolution as a fact. There aren't any who can provide as much supporting evidence for an alternative explaination.
Originally posted by aldo_14
if(user.getPosition("karajoma") == city.getPosition("London") {
city.setWeather(Weather.DRIZZLE);
user.get("bloke1102").setPosition(user.getPosition("karajoma") + 2);
cabs.overchargeAmount(CabbieCharge.TOO_BLOODY_MUCH);
tube.setOnStrike(true);
city.destroy("Bristol");
}
:lol:
-
Ok, I follw you both, Ghostavo and kara. The question I have left is this: There are far more precise and factual measurements for the Earth rotating on its axis than there are for evolution. Yet you call both of those "theories"? I just want to confirm that there is, indeed, a wide variety to the "proven-ness" of different theories, if I understand correctly.
-
Both receive the "theory" title, as both follow a set of prerequisites such as the ones I linked in my previous post. Anything that follows those can be regarded as a "scientific theory".
Also, saying that there are more precise/factual measurements about two diferent subjects is a bit... subjective to say the least.
PS.
Any scientist dreams of the day he will make a breakthrough and completly change how people think of the universe. If someone had the evidence that discredited (for example) evolution and in favor of another, and presented it with the prerequisites that were stated in the link in my previous post, he would instantly gain "fame and glory". Science is self correcting by nature, and human greed helps it along...
-
Well, we are really looking at the problem in the wrong way, science deals with 'why', not 'does'...
The Earth goes round the Sun, it DOES do that at the moment, once science proved this, it went about asking why the Earth goes round the Sun, to which, the answer is, it doesn't.
All it does is try to fly away from the Sun, all the Sun does is try to pull it in, the resulting outcome we call an orbit, but it is only really a balance of forces.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Any scientist dreams of the day he will make a breakthrough and completly change how people think of the universe. If someone had the evidence that discredited (for example) evolution and in favor of another, and presented it with the prerequisites that were stated in the link in my previous post, he would instantly gain "fame and glory". Science is self correcting by nature, and human greed helps it along...
No it wouldn't. Yes he would get fame and Glory, but it wouldn't destroy evolution. A whole lot of people would still belive it.
-
That's human nature, it would be as hard for evolutionists to let go of evolution, because it's what they are used to, as it would be for creationists to give that up, because that is what they are used to.
-
After a decade or two evolution would be replaced, however. It does take for scientific theories - particularly ones that completely replace the existing paradigm - to percolate through and become accepted. However it's foolishness to compare it to pseudoscience like creationism. I only have to point at the history of plate tectonics as a perfect example of how a paradigm-shifting theory goes from ridiculed concept to dominant theory and only need to point at the bible as a perfect example of how long religious theories/explanations last.
-
Well, tectonics was mainly not accepted at first because it was suggested by a Meteorologist, not a Geologist. Even science has it's share of egos and prides. The difference is with science is that the theory of tectonics or lack thereof was not a means of controlling people, whereas Religion is.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Ok, I follw you both, Ghostavo and kara. The question I have left is this: There are far more precise and factual measurements for the Earth rotating on its axis than there are for evolution. Yet you call both of those "theories"? I just want to confirm that there is, indeed, a wide variety to the "proven-ness" of different theories, if I understand correctly.
First I take issue with people saying that there is more proof that the Earth revolves around its axis than there is proof of evolution. There is a hell of a lot of proof for evolution. In fact because the Earth revolving is so simple to prove there have probably been less experiments carried out to directly prove that this particular theory is true than ones to do with evolution.
If you want to talk in general about theories however I'll agree that many of the newer theories have less corroborating evidence than older ones. This is simply because newer theories tend to build upon the older ones (e.g aerodynamics builds upon gravity) and thus become evidence for the older theory too.
This then makes is harder to overturn the older theory because any new explaination for it must also fit into the hole left by it (or provide an alternative explaination for any theories built upon it). This also means that if a theory is replaced it tends to be replaced by something fairly similar as the further you move from the original the less chance you have of it not directly contradicting supporting theories.
Returning to evolution it's therefore worth pointing out that evolution is a pretty old theory too. There are many theories built upon it. For science to overturn evolution it must also explain away all the theories built up on it. In over a hundred years no one has managed to do that. And the task is getting harder every day.
-
WOW, four threads closed in a day and a half, I say that this one next.:)
-
I don't, this lockage on request is getting a bit silly ;) Specially since the person making the request is often the one who turned it into a flame in the first place...
-
I'm not asking for this thread to be closed, I just think it will be the next one to be closed. They just closed another political one just a little while ago.
-
This one's not all that political. It's a discussion about precisely what science is. I think it's going well enough that it should stay open.
-
Don't worry Weather, I wasn't accusing you of asking for the thread to be closed ;)
And yes, this has been a very interesting thread so far :)
-
Nah, not that interesting, too me anyways. Seen it too many times. I guess since not that much political stuff isn't going on, people have to rant about something.:p But, I have seen inprovement, there have not been that many flamewars lately, so that is a good step.:yes:
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Nah, not that interesting, too me anyways. Seen it too many times.
Actually this isn't your standard science vs religion thread. It's more like a help the religious understand what science is thread so that next time there is a debate at least the religious people understand why claiming that evolution is just a theory doesn't work as an argument. :D
-
There are no truths in science.
That probably is the cornerstone to the science versus religion debate.
Science is about skepticism, relgion about belief.
That being said, scientists are people too, prone to dogma.
Read Thomas R. Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revloutions" for more insight into the subject ;)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226458083/qid=1104677357/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-8122786-7648660?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
-
Originally posted by Flipside
The difference is with science is that the theory of tectonics or lack thereof was not a means of controlling people, whereas Religion is.
[color=66ff00]Bush and his cronies would suggest otherwise, they've been selectively using science to aid their little rape of the middle east and other money making schemes.
Link (www.post-gazette.com/pg/04301/402384.stm)
[/color]