Skip to main content

Originally Posted by O No!:

"science says don't know"

ig·no·rant

<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"></script> <script type="text/javascript"></script> [ig-ner-uhnt] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2.
lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3.
uninformed; unaware.
 
So when it comes to the origin of the big bang, science and religion are both ignorant.

Hi ONO,

 

I thought I had read posts about you leaving when I took a break from here myself.  Didn't get to say bye, but I hope you don't or haven't gone.  While I don't always agree with you, I sure respect your means and methods of delivery.  Hope you are back.

Originally Posted by bluetick:
It appears you are the one who doesn't understand the word theory. Gravity is not a theory. It exists. It is provable.

blue, i must side with jimi on this small point. your usage of the term in this statement indicates a flaw in your thinking.  you appear to grasp a major part of the definition of "theory" as used in common usage as compared to the a scientific sense but not quite all the way.  in common usage, a "theory" is not much more than a wild guess.  but a "scientific theory" is as close to a "fact" as one can be but (disagreeing with jimi) it is not a "fact" but is described by facts. 

a scientific theory is made of many, many provable, falsifiable observations.  when some of those observations are contradictory, you have a unproven hypothesis.  when you have a series of observation that all point to the same conclusion, you have a scientific theory.  so, yes, gravitational theory, special and general relativity theories, Theory of Electromagnetism, Theory of Radioactivity or Nuclear Theory, The Theory of Molecular Bonds and atomic theory, germ theory, quantum theory, plate tectonic theory  and on and on are AL theories.  yet they are also facts but are subject to change as evidence is compiled. .

  disagreeing with "jimi": a theory is not a "fact."  a fact is something observable that is not subject to change as evidence is presented.  the theory of evolution could certainly be overturned based on some single new observation such as intelligent design.  if that "hypothesis" were proven, it would turn evolution on it's head.  so, from that standpoint evolution is a theory and not a immutable fact.  but so is gravity.

the underlying frameworks of any theory, especially evolution, are certainly up for dispute.  we do not know for a "fact" that evolution is driven by mainly selection or mainly mutation.  we do no know for a fact that the dog evolved from a amphibian.  but there are certainly some "facts" such as genetic markers and fossil evidence that certainly lead any reasonable person to conclude that, yes, dogs evolved from creatures that looked a lot like a large, toothed lizard.

so, from that standpoint, evolution, like gravity, certainly is a "fact."  but the overall description is called a "theory."

some people will forever be unable to grasp this fine yet important distinction but i do not believe that describes either bluetick or jimi. 

 

I really HAD intended to leave, but stopping by to read some of it, I just couldn't keep my mouth shut. I will admit, this forum is addicting, and I still think that no one changes anyone's minds, but I can't let things that are obviously untrue go by without crying, "False!"

 

So, here I am. Thanks for the kind words.

Originally Posted by Unobtanium:
Originally Posted by bluetick:
It appears you are the one who doesn't understand the word theory. Gravity is not a theory. It exists. It is provable.

blue, i must side with jimi on this small point. your usage of the term in this statement indicates a flaw in your thinking.  you appear to grasp a major part of the definition of "theory" as used in common usage as compared to the a scientific sense but not quite all the way.  in common usage, a "theory" is not much more than a wild guess.  but a "scientific theory" is as close to a "fact" as one can be but (disagreeing with jimi) it is not a "fact" but is described by facts. 

a scientific theory is made of many, many provable, falsifiable observations.  when some of those observations are contradictory, you have a unproven hypothesis.  when you have a series of observation that all point to the same conclusion, you have a scientific theory.  so, yes, gravitational theory, special and general relativity theories, Theory of Electromagnetism, Theory of Radioactivity or Nuclear Theory, The Theory of Molecular Bonds and atomic theory, germ theory, quantum theory, plate tectonic theory  and on and on are AL theories.  yet they are also facts but are subject to change as evidence is compiled. .

  disagreeing with "jimi": a theory is not a "fact."  a fact is something observable that is not subject to change as evidence is presented.  the theory of evolution could certainly be overturned based on some single new observation such as intelligent design.  if that "hypothesis" were proven, it would turn evolution on it's head.  so, from that standpoint evolution is a theory and not a immutable fact.  but so is gravity.

the underlying frameworks of any theory, especially evolution, are certainly up for dispute.  we do not know for a "fact" that evolution is driven by mainly selection or mainly mutation.  we do no know for a fact that the dog evolved from a amphibian.  but there are certainly some "facts" such as genetic markers and fossil evidence that certainly lead any reasonable person to conclude that, Cyes,[Come on uno] dogs evolved from creatures that looked a lot like a large, toothed lizard. some people don't know when you are pullin' leg but the buffalo does.

so, from that standpoint, evolution, like gravity, certainly is a "fact."  but the overall description is called a "theory."

some people will forever be unable to grasp this fine yet important distinction but i do not believe that describes either bluetick or jimi. 

 

 

I will relent that my statement of "gravity is not a theory" is wrong. A poor choice of words. Gravity, like evolution, is a theory. I am not as educated or eloquent as some of my forum colleagues. As only a high school graduate I may be limited in my ability to convey my intent.

 

It is my understanding that a scientific theory is an educated guess based on all available information and presented in a way that explains, in a reliable manner, why the theorist reached his conclusions.

Gravity and evolution is a fact. It (in my thinking) remains in the realm of theory because we don't know all there is to know about either. While I may not be articulate, I do believe I grasp the difference between theory and a law (in the scientific sense).

 

Either way, I defend my decision to argue with Jimi cause it makes me feel better. I get irritated by people who claim to know every thing there is to know about every topic that comes up, and belittles people he thinks is less intelligent than he is. I doubt he is any smarter that I am and I will admit I ain't no rocket scientist. On the other hand, I don't think I am a complete idiot either.

Originally Posted by bluetick:
I defend my decision to argue with Jimi cause it makes me feel better. I get irritated by people who claim to know every thing there is to know about every topic that comes up, and belittles people he thinks is less intelligent than he is. I doubt he is any smarter that I am and I will admit I ain't no rocket scientist. On the other hand, I don't think I am a complete idiot either.

Originally Posted by O No!:

I really HAD intended to leave, but stopping by to read some of it, I just couldn't keep my mouth shut. I will admit, this forum is addicting, and I still think that no one changes anyone's minds, but I can't let things that are obviously untrue go by without crying, "False!"

 

So, here I am. Thanks for the kind words.

 

 

 

Good! I've missed intelligent conversation with differing views in the Politics forum.

Originally Posted by CageTheElephant:
Originally Posted by O No!:

I really HAD intended to leave, but stopping by to read some of it, I just couldn't keep my mouth shut. I will admit, this forum is addicting, and I still think that no one changes anyone's minds, but I can't let things that are obviously untrue go by without crying, "False!"

 

So, here I am. Thanks for the kind words.

 

 

 

Good! I've missed intelligent conversation with differing views in the Politics forum.

Thanks, Cage. YOU are one of the reasons I'm back. I love to read your posts, and because I kept reading, I couldn't resist joining in on the conversation.

 

Originally Posted by O No!:
Originally Posted by CageTheElephant:
Originally Posted by O No!:

I really HAD intended to leave, but stopping by to read some of it, I just couldn't keep my mouth shut. I will admit, this forum is addicting, and I still think that no one changes anyone's minds, but I can't let things that are obviously untrue go by without crying, "False!"

 

So, here I am. Thanks for the kind words.

 

 

 

Good! I've missed intelligent conversation with differing views in the Politics forum.

Thanks, Cage. YOU are one of the reasons I'm back. I love to read your posts, and because I kept reading, I couldn't resist joining in on the conversation.
cupid smiley, heart smiley, animated smiley, animation smiley, cupid smiley

 

Originally Posted by bluetick:
...Gravity and evolution is a fact. It (in my thinking) remains in the realm of theory because we don't know all there is to know about either. While I may not be articulate, I do believe I grasp the difference between theory and a law (in the scientific sense)...

bluetick,
You didn't say this, but since you mentioned the difference between scientific laws and theories, I thought it a good opportunity to dispel an incorrect but commonly held notion that a scientific law is superior to a scientific theory. Or that a scientific theory aspires to become a scientific law. There is no hierarchy. A scientific law is neither better, nor higher, nor more solid, or true-er than a scientific theory. As you know, in science, nothing is sacrosanct (of course this does not necessarily mean that just because some unqualified dope on a forum questions a law or theory that the law or theory is wrong). Some of Newton's LAWS of physics were proven by Einstein not to explain everything correctly (mostly because Newton had no idea of the quantum realm) and so on.

For those that don't know the difference between scientific laws and theories, one way to describe the difference is that a scientific law describes what nature does (under certain conditions) and a scientific theory explains how nature works. Also, scientific laws are often described mathematically, whereas scientific theories are often non-mathematical. Biology has few laws due to the extreme difficulty in accounting for and describing the complexities of life, whereas physics lends itself to having many laws because it can more "easily" be explained in mathematical terms.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×