[Kazan]

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

[PeachE]

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"

[Sandwich]

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.

[WeatherOp]

Well, someone must, to start another thread like this every two or three days.

And that is new to me too, I never thought there was no facts. I guess me sitting here is just a theory.

[Ghostavo]

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

[PeachE]

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.

nonprovable.

[karajorma]

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

Code: [Select]



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");
}
[/B]

[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.

[Ghostavo]

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...

[Flipside]

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.

[WeatherOp]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[Shrike]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[WeatherOp]

WOW, four threads closed in a day and a half, I say that this one next.

[Flipside]

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...

[WeatherOp]

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.

[Kamikaze]

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.

[Flipside]

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