Scientific and mathematical inaccuracies, misconceptions and errors that get under your skin

[Wyes]

One minor one for me.

In E equals M C Squared, I always get irked when people say C is the speed of light....

C is the speed of light in a Vacuum, as light can and does slow down depending on the medium it is travelling through..

Arguably, no, light does not slow down in a medium. It does however take a longer path through said medium, making it appear to be slower. At least, this is the quantum interpretation (as far as I'm aware, not yet nearly as comfortable with quantum as I'd like). Thus, the speed of light is constant in a medium too, it's just got a longer path to take.

The least controversial one I can think of is the thought that Pi has an end.If we find the end of Pi, we have an exact ratio of the diameter to circumference of a circle, and the roundness of an arch is now nonexistant, having been reduced to a series of infinitesimally small jagged lines like pixel art. It's like finding the end of infinity, when you get there, you can always add 1 to it, meaning it will still go on; in this case, you can always make the little jaggies smaller, making the circle even more round. Pretty much the only result of proving Pi has an end is proving that we do, in fact live in a matrix (as we now know the resolution of life).

Well, I'm not going to argue that Pi has an end. Maybe it does, but I'm inclined to think not.
However, life may in fact have a resolution. The Planck length [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length] is pretty significant.


Other than that, some misconceptions I've seen in this thread;

Firstly, as far as climate change goes. It is a thing, it is happening, I think we can all agree on this. The arguments about this largely refer to scale. The scientific community at large (particularly y'know, the climate scientists) thinks it is being driven to new extremes by human activity. The minority that disagree with this largely work in unrelated fields.
Regardless, let's not argue about that, because we'll likely get nowhere.

Instead, I'll explain one of the reasons why so many scientists are so worried about this. In one word, bifurcation.

It is possible that we are approaching a point where the behaviour of the climate system is very sensitively dependent on changes in things like CO2 levels. What this means is that a tiny change in CO2 levels could result in a huge change in the behaviour of the climate system, in fact entirely new behaviour could emerge.

These kinds of bifurcations are seen all the time in physical systems (and for that matter, in mathematical systems).

Part of the issue with this is that while it may only take a minor CO2 change to cause a huge change in climate, it may require orders of magnitude more effort to get back to the initial state of the system, if it's possible at all.

Hopefully that conveys why so many scientists are sort of freaking out about this issue.




Other than that, it's mostly just misconceptions about nuclear power;

Nuclear fission as a global source of power is not sustainable. Uranium and thorium are finite resources. Unlike even fossil fuels, these do not get replenished (at least, not without a supernova, which we really don't want). It is possible (perhaps even likely) that mining asteroids will extend this supply sufficiently for it to get us by for a long time. If this is the case, then awesome, but we're probably still a decade or two away from anybody getting out there (come on, Planetary Resources!)

Besides that, modern nuclear power is actually pretty safe. Have you noticed how we really haven't heard much about the Fukushima plant in a while? The worst nuclear power incident since Chernobyl, and news about it quietened down pretty quickly. Now, I'm not saying that it is perfectly safe, nor that there haven't been ill effects from Fukushima; the current estimates put cancer related deaths due to the disaster at between 15 to 1300... but with the most likely amount being 130. Now, that's sad, it's horrible that people are going to die because of this. However, 130 deaths? That's pretty insignificant when compared to the deaths caused by coal and oil power (in fact, found this nifty little diagram [http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal/]).

Anyway, that's all I have to say about that.

EDIT: Oh also, Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste].

 

[lacktheknack]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/26557352.jpg

With that out of the way, I loooooooooooved (loathe) it when girls try to tell me that they don't want to do resistance training at the gym because they "don't want to become bulky she-hulks".

THAT'S NOT HOW THAT WORKS.

And then they complain that, while they're fit, lithe and great runners, they can't leg-press more than about a hundred pounds.

 

[thethird0611]

People that use the concept of scientific theories as scientific facts and laws. to disprove other theories facts and laws.

when thats all it is just a theory and any mad man with a tin foil hat can make up a theory it doesn't mean its right. until proven right

Perhaps you should look at the posts in this topic who's nitpick is people like you who don't actually understand the concept of scientific theories as opposed to regular theories. Gravity is a scientific theory, so trying to say that something like that is "just a theory" to marginalize it is only a display of ignorance.

Actually buddy, its the 'Law of Gravity'. Its been proven, there are ways to actually calculate gravity from mass. Its a law. Theories are, in essence, explanations of why something happens, but are not proven. There may be evidence, but its not proven. Im a Psych major (Yes, currently studying, but im doing my own research already), and very rarely, VERY rarely is something ever proven.

So yes, the guy is right when he talks about people using theories to prove or disprove something. He is not correct because you cant just make up a theory, there has to be some type of evidence to back it up. This aint philosophy.

Theories are there to be tested and discussed rationally, not to be used to forward your own biases. When something is proven it becomes a law. Believe me, I deal with theories on a daily basis, everything I come up with from research is a theory (Psychology is that way), and we use the exact same scientific method.

 

[Sean951]

People that use the concept of scientific theories as scientific facts and laws. to disprove other theories facts and laws.

when thats all it is just a theory and any mad man with a tin foil hat can make up a theory it doesn't mean its right. until proven right

Perhaps you should look at the posts in this topic who's nitpick is people like you who don't actually understand the concept of scientific theories as opposed to regular theories. Gravity is a scientific theory, so trying to say that something like that is "just a theory" to marginalize it is only a display of ignorance.

Actually buddy, its the 'Law of Gravity'. Its been proven, there are ways to actually calculate gravity from mass. Its a law. Theories are, in essence, explanations of why something happens, but are not proven. There may be evidence, but its not proven. Im a Psych major (Yes, currently studying, but im doing my own research already), and very rarely, VERY rarely is something ever proven.

So yes, the guy is right when he talks about people using theories to prove or disprove something. He is not correct because you cant just make up a theory, there has to be some type of evidence to back it up. This aint philosophy.

Theories are there to be tested and discussed rationally, not to be used to forward your own biases. When something is proven it becomes a law. Believe me, I deal with theories on a daily basis, everything I come up with from research is a theory (Psychology is that way), and we use the exact same scientific method.

Nice try, but Gravity is in fact both [http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law]. We don't dispute that it exists, or that we can model it with some degree of accuracy, but we don't know the "why" of gravity. We have some pretty good ideas, but that's about it.

 

[thethird0611]

People that use the concept of scientific theories as scientific facts and laws. to disprove other theories facts and laws.

when thats all it is just a theory and any mad man with a tin foil hat can make up a theory it doesn't mean its right. until proven right

Perhaps you should look at the posts in this topic who's nitpick is people like you who don't actually understand the concept of scientific theories as opposed to regular theories. Gravity is a scientific theory, so trying to say that something like that is "just a theory" to marginalize it is only a display of ignorance.

Actually buddy, its the 'Law of Gravity'. Its been proven, there are ways to actually calculate gravity from mass. Its a law. Theories are, in essence, explanations of why something happens, but are not proven. There may be evidence, but its not proven. Im a Psych major (Yes, currently studying, but im doing my own research already), and very rarely, VERY rarely is something ever proven.

So yes, the guy is right when he talks about people using theories to prove or disprove something. He is not correct because you cant just make up a theory, there has to be some type of evidence to back it up. This aint philosophy.

Theories are there to be tested and discussed rationally, not to be used to forward your own biases. When something is proven it becomes a law. Believe me, I deal with theories on a daily basis, everything I come up with from research is a theory (Psychology is that way), and we use the exact same scientific method.

Nice try, but Gravity is in fact both [http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law]. We don't dispute that it exists, or that we can model it with some degree of accuracy, but we don't know the "why" of gravity. We have some pretty good ideas, but that's about it.

Oh, thanks, you just helped my point. Nice try though.

"While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall."

So yeah, mis-info that would of been gladly accepted if you did it in a better tone, but now, thanks, you added fuel to my fire.

 

[Sean951]

People that use the concept of scientific theories as scientific facts and laws. to disprove other theories facts and laws.

when thats all it is just a theory and any mad man with a tin foil hat can make up a theory it doesn't mean its right. until proven right

Perhaps you should look at the posts in this topic who's nitpick is people like you who don't actually understand the concept of scientific theories as opposed to regular theories. Gravity is a scientific theory, so trying to say that something like that is "just a theory" to marginalize it is only a display of ignorance.

Actually buddy, its the 'Law of Gravity'. Its been proven, there are ways to actually calculate gravity from mass. Its a law. Theories are, in essence, explanations of why something happens, but are not proven. There may be evidence, but its not proven. Im a Psych major (Yes, currently studying, but im doing my own research already), and very rarely, VERY rarely is something ever proven.

So yes, the guy is right when he talks about people using theories to prove or disprove something. He is not correct because you cant just make up a theory, there has to be some type of evidence to back it up. This aint philosophy.

Theories are there to be tested and discussed rationally, not to be used to forward your own biases. When something is proven it becomes a law. Believe me, I deal with theories on a daily basis, everything I come up with from research is a theory (Psychology is that way), and we use the exact same scientific method.

Nice try, but Gravity is in fact both [http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law]. We don't dispute that it exists, or that we can model it with some degree of accuracy, but we don't know the "why" of gravity. We have some pretty good ideas, but that's about it.

Oh, thanks, you just helped my point. Nice try though.

"While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall."

So yeah, mis-info that would of been gladly accepted if you did it in a better tone, but now, thanks, you added fuel to my fire.

The irony of you attacking my tone while using "Actually, buddy" in your own post is fun.

The fact remains that a scientific theory is measured and tested. For example, we have tested Einsteins Theory of General Relativity via clocks, and is actually quite necessary in calculating the position of GPS units, among other things.

 

[thethird0611]

People that use the concept of scientific theories as scientific facts and laws. to disprove other theories facts and laws.

when thats all it is just a theory and any mad man with a tin foil hat can make up a theory it doesn't mean its right. until proven right

Perhaps you should look at the posts in this topic who's nitpick is people like you who don't actually understand the concept of scientific theories as opposed to regular theories. Gravity is a scientific theory, so trying to say that something like that is "just a theory" to marginalize it is only a display of ignorance.

Actually buddy, its the 'Law of Gravity'. Its been proven, there are ways to actually calculate gravity from mass. Its a law. Theories are, in essence, explanations of why something happens, but are not proven. There may be evidence, but its not proven. Im a Psych major (Yes, currently studying, but im doing my own research already), and very rarely, VERY rarely is something ever proven.

So yes, the guy is right when he talks about people using theories to prove or disprove something. He is not correct because you cant just make up a theory, there has to be some type of evidence to back it up. This aint philosophy.

Theories are there to be tested and discussed rationally, not to be used to forward your own biases. When something is proven it becomes a law. Believe me, I deal with theories on a daily basis, everything I come up with from research is a theory (Psychology is that way), and we use the exact same scientific method.

Nice try, but Gravity is in fact both [http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law]. We don't dispute that it exists, or that we can model it with some degree of accuracy, but we don't know the "why" of gravity. We have some pretty good ideas, but that's about it.

Oh, thanks, you just helped my point. Nice try though.

"While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall."

So yeah, mis-info that would of been gladly accepted if you did it in a better tone, but now, thanks, you added fuel to my fire.

The irony of you attacking my tone while using "Actually, buddy" in your own post is fun.

The fact remains that a scientific theory is measured and tested. For example, we have tested Einsteins Theory of General Relativity via clocks, and is actually quite necessary in calculating the position of GPS units, among other things.

Yeah, I used that because he was trying to force a veryyyyy incorrect opinion on someone is bad, me making a small mistake of gravity being a law (which it is, as you have shown), is different.

Scientific theory has some type of evidence behind it. As some type of scientist, you NEVER EVER EVER accept a theory as true, you accept it as a possible truth. You always keep your mind open to other truths, or you become bias.

So, lets use the highly discussed theory of evolution. This is an example, not a debate. I will not discuss it past the terminology we are using. The theory of evolution has some type of evidence behind it, but it is not proven, so it is theory, and could be COMPLETELY wrong. That's not saying it is, but it has the chance to be. Now, look at creationism. If you actually believe that the theory of evolution is proven, you will dispute the fact that creationism is a theory of the origin of species, to. This is because of written history of the bible (which precedes most books, and has much evidence behind its validity (not reliability)), as well as other evidence which is not relevant here. These are two highly debated THEORIES. Neither of them are true, neither of them are false, unless proven. Once its proven, it will become a law.

So, dont treat theories as true. Treat them as possible truths.

EDIT: Let me add, that neither of us were in the right treating others like that, so I will accept that. Lets try to kill that.

 

[Frission]

People that use the concept of scientific theories as scientific facts and laws. to disprove other theories facts and laws.

when thats all it is just a theory and any mad man with a tin foil hat can make up a theory it doesn't mean its right. until proven right

Perhaps you should look at the posts in this topic who's nitpick is people like you who don't actually understand the concept of scientific theories as opposed to regular theories. Gravity is a scientific theory, so trying to say that something like that is "just a theory" to marginalize it is only a display of ignorance.

Actually buddy, its the 'Law of Gravity'. Its been proven, there are ways to actually calculate gravity from mass. Its a law. Theories are, in essence, explanations of why something happens, but are not proven. There may be evidence, but its not proven. Im a Psych major (Yes, currently studying, but im doing my own research already), and very rarely, VERY rarely is something ever proven.

So yes, the guy is right when he talks about people using theories to prove or disprove something. He is not correct because you cant just make up a theory, there has to be some type of evidence to back it up. This aint philosophy.

Theories are there to be tested and discussed rationally, not to be used to forward your own biases. When something is proven it becomes a law. Believe me, I deal with theories on a daily basis, everything I come up with from research is a theory (Psychology is that way), and we use the exact same scientific method.

Nice try, but Gravity is in fact both [http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law]. We don't dispute that it exists, or that we can model it with some degree of accuracy, but we don't know the "why" of gravity. We have some pretty good ideas, but that's about it.

Oh, thanks, you just helped my point. Nice try though.

"While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall."

So yeah, mis-info that would of been gladly accepted if you did it in a better tone, but now, thanks, you added fuel to my fire.

The irony of you attacking my tone while using "Actually, buddy" in your own post is fun.

The fact remains that a scientific theory is measured and tested. For example, we have tested Einsteins Theory of General Relativity via clocks, and is actually quite necessary in calculating the position of GPS units, among other things.

Yeah, I used that because he was trying to force a veryyyyy incorrect opinion on someone is bad, me making a small mistake of gravity being a law (which it is, as you have shown), is different.

Scientific theory has some type of evidence behind it. As some type of scientist, you NEVER EVER EVER accept a theory as true, you accept it as a possible truth. You always keep your mind open to other truths, or you become bias.

So, lets use the highly discussed theory of evolution. This is an example, not a debate. I will not discuss it past the terminology we are using. The theory of evolution has some type of evidence behind it, but it is not proven, so it is theory, and could be COMPLETELY wrong. That's not saying it is, but it has the chance to be. Now, look at creationism. If you actually believe that the theory of evolution is proven, you will dispute the fact that creationism is a theory of the origin of species, to. This is because of written history of the bible (which precedes most books, and has much evidence behind its validity (not reliability)), as well as other evidence which is not relevant here. These are two highly debated THEORIES. Neither of them are true, neither of them are false, unless proven. Once its proven, it will become a law.

So, dont treat theories as true. Treat them as possible truths.

EDIT: Let me add, that neither of us were in the right treating others like that, so I will accept that. Lets try to kill that.

I may be missing a part of the argument, but are you seriously saying creationism is a valid theory? Have you heard about the exact details of scientific theories?

HAHAHAHAHA AAAAhhh. I would be crying if I couldn't laugh. There is no "evidence" for creationism. Evolution has so much for it that we're just trying to see the way it works. You're wondering about math, while the rest of us are already at calculus. Creationism can never be a theory, because it can't be tested for one. It can't be peer reviewed.

That's one thing I have to add to this thread. People who seriously believe in creationism, or think it's valid. Jeez, one biology class should be more than enough. Creationism is a symbol of the backwardness of certain parts of the U.S.

I acknowledge I'm being rude, but in a thread about scientific inaccuracies, I think I'm allowed the privilege of mocking your position.

EDIT: Scientific theories are so, because they can have experiments, which can be replicated.

This may slightly elitist of me and I apologize, but what level of education have you had?

 

[thethird0611]

People that use the concept of scientific theories as scientific facts and laws. to disprove other theories facts and laws.

when thats all it is just a theory and any mad man with a tin foil hat can make up a theory it doesn't mean its right. until proven right

Perhaps you should look at the posts in this topic who's nitpick is people like you who don't actually understand the concept of scientific theories as opposed to regular theories. Gravity is a scientific theory, so trying to say that something like that is "just a theory" to marginalize it is only a display of ignorance.

Actually buddy, its the 'Law of Gravity'. Its been proven, there are ways to actually calculate gravity from mass. Its a law. Theories are, in essence, explanations of why something happens, but are not proven. There may be evidence, but its not proven. Im a Psych major (Yes, currently studying, but im doing my own research already), and very rarely, VERY rarely is something ever proven.

So yes, the guy is right when he talks about people using theories to prove or disprove something. He is not correct because you cant just make up a theory, there has to be some type of evidence to back it up. This aint philosophy.

Theories are there to be tested and discussed rationally, not to be used to forward your own biases. When something is proven it becomes a law. Believe me, I deal with theories on a daily basis, everything I come up with from research is a theory (Psychology is that way), and we use the exact same scientific method.

Nice try, but Gravity is in fact both [http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law]. We don't dispute that it exists, or that we can model it with some degree of accuracy, but we don't know the "why" of gravity. We have some pretty good ideas, but that's about it.

Oh, thanks, you just helped my point. Nice try though.

"While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall."

So yeah, mis-info that would of been gladly accepted if you did it in a better tone, but now, thanks, you added fuel to my fire.

The irony of you attacking my tone while using "Actually, buddy" in your own post is fun.

The fact remains that a scientific theory is measured and tested. For example, we have tested Einsteins Theory of General Relativity via clocks, and is actually quite necessary in calculating the position of GPS units, among other things.

Yeah, I used that because he was trying to force a veryyyyy incorrect opinion on someone is bad, me making a small mistake of gravity being a law (which it is, as you have shown), is different.

Scientific theory has some type of evidence behind it. As some type of scientist, you NEVER EVER EVER accept a theory as true, you accept it as a possible truth. You always keep your mind open to other truths, or you become bias.

So, lets use the highly discussed theory of evolution. This is an example, not a debate. I will not discuss it past the terminology we are using. The theory of evolution has some type of evidence behind it, but it is not proven, so it is theory, and could be COMPLETELY wrong. That's not saying it is, but it has the chance to be. Now, look at creationism. If you actually believe that the theory of evolution is proven, you will dispute the fact that creationism is a theory of the origin of species, to. This is because of written history of the bible (which precedes most books, and has much evidence behind its validity (not reliability)), as well as other evidence which is not relevant here. These are two highly debated THEORIES. Neither of them are true, neither of them are false, unless proven. Once its proven, it will become a law.

So, dont treat theories as true. Treat them as possible truths.

EDIT: Let me add, that neither of us were in the right treating others like that, so I will accept that. Lets try to kill that.

I may be missing a part of the argument, but are you seriously saying creationism is a valid theory? Have you heard about the exact details of scientific theories?

HAHAHAHAHA AAAAhhh. I would be crying if I couldn't laugh. There is no "evidence" for creationism. Evolution has so much for it that we're just trying to see the way it works. You're wondering about math, while the rest of us are already at calculus. Creationism can never be a theory, because it can't be tested for one. It can't be peer reviewed.

That's one thing I have to add to this thread. People who seriously believe in creationism, or think it's valid. Jeez, one biology class should be more than enough. Creationism is a symbol of the backwardness of certain parts of the U.S.

I acknowledge I'm being rude, but in a thread about scientific inaccuracies, I think I'm allowed the privilege of mocking your position.

EDIT: Scientific theories are so, because they can have experiments, which can be replicated.

This may slightly elitist of me and I apologize, but what level of education have you had?

Ha. Hahahahaha. This is why I forewarned I wouldn't talk about it. Because of bias people like you. Thank you for the laugh, but trying to attack some personally is just a petty thing to do. Have fun in "I know everything, so this is wrong" mentality.

EDIT: Also, if you have a desire to actually have a discussion about this, PM me. I wont discuss it in the public forum because it brings out the worst in most around here. It also turns into what you did, which is belittle some ASAP to try to seem smarter.

 

[Sean951]

Thing is, Creation requires that we accept that there is a God (which can't be tested) and relies on mythology, specifically Jewish/Christian beliefs (You don't hear them talking about Prometheus). The books are neither the oldest made nor can the claims be tested. What is widely accepted is that things do evolve (such as the "Super Bugs" that are resistant to penicillin) and that the Earth is far older than what the Bible says.

Yes, a theory could be completely wrong, but to claim all theories are equal is rather misleading.

 

[thethird0611]

Thing is, Creation requires that we accept that there is a God (which can't be tested) and relies on mythology, specifically Jewish/Christian beliefs (You don't hear them talking about Prometheus). The books are neither the oldest made nor can the claims be tested. What is widely accepted is that things do evolve (such as the "Super Bugs" that are resistant to penicillin) and that the Earth is far older than what the Bible says.

Yes, a theory could be completely wrong, but to claim all theories are equal is rather misleading.

I will actually agree with you there. Very very true. Thumbs up. I feel like we have come to some type of conclusion. Haha. Seems pretty hard to do.

 

[Dense_Electric]

People that use the concept of scientific theories as scientific facts and laws. to disprove other theories facts and laws.

when thats all it is just a theory and any mad man with a tin foil hat can make up a theory it doesn't mean its right. until proven right

Wow.

This isn't a scientific error as much as it is one of simple definitions, but you know what really gets under my skin? People who don't know the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory.

No, contrary to what you claim (forgive me, but do you, by any chance, identify as politically conservative?), you can't just make up a scientific theory. What you mean to say is you can just make up a scientific hypothesis - and to a degree, yes, you can.

A hypothesis is merely speculation about a question based on an observation, and may or may not have actually been tested.

A theory, since you don't know what it means, is a hypothesis that has been tested over and over and consistently shown to be true, has been peer-reviewed and tested, and can be used to accurately predict the results of future experiments. Furthermore, theories are never suggested to be infallible like you claim. They're just the most likely situation out of many (usually by a pretty wide margin), supported by a good deal of hard evidence.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

A few of mine were already mentioned so I'll add a random new one. People who think that de-oxygenated blood in your veins is blue.

 

[Dryk]

Schrodingers cat was NOT about cats ACTUALLY being dead and alive at all. The idea was the thought experiment was to prove how ridiculous it would be if this idea was true. It was to poke a hole in the theory where such a cat would exist by saying "That would be stupid right?"

The thing that really annoys me about Schrodinger's Cat is that they assume that the detector doesn't count as an observer -_-

 

[Subscriptism]

People that use the concept of scientific theories as scientific facts and laws. to disprove other theories facts and laws.

when thats all it is just a theory and any mad man with a tin foil hat can make up a theory it doesn't mean its right. until proven right

Perhaps you should look at the posts in this topic who's nitpick is people like you who don't actually understand the concept of scientific theories as opposed to regular theories. Gravity is a scientific theory, so trying to say that something like that is "just a theory" to marginalize it is only a display of ignorance.

Actually buddy, its the 'Law of Gravity'. Its been proven, there are ways to actually calculate gravity from mass. Its a law. Theories are, in essence, explanations of why something happens, but are not proven. There may be evidence, but its not proven. Im a Psych major (Yes, currently studying, but im doing my own research already), and very rarely, VERY rarely is something ever proven.

So yes, the guy is right when he talks about people using theories to prove or disprove something. He is not correct because you cant just make up a theory, there has to be some type of evidence to back it up. This aint philosophy.

Theories are there to be tested and discussed rationally, not to be used to forward your own biases. When something is proven it becomes a law. Believe me, I deal with theories on a daily basis, everything I come up with from research is a theory (Psychology is that way), and we use the exact same scientific method.

Psych Major?
There's your problem. Scientific Theories are all but fact. They are models for how things work that the evidence for them is so overwhelming that they may as well be called true, however they cannot be called absolutely true because there is always an element of uncertainty. Also it's not the "Law of Gravity" it's the Universal Law of Gravitation, it is a law because that is the set of equations that can be used to accurately predict events. Gravity IS a scientific theory. Trust me I'm a Physics major, get a real science before you pretend you know shit.

 

[Quaxar]

People that use the concept of scientific theories as scientific facts and laws. to disprove other theories facts and laws.

when thats all it is just a theory and any mad man with a tin foil hat can make up a theory it doesn't mean its right. until proven right

Perhaps you should look at the posts in this topic who's nitpick is people like you who don't actually understand the concept of scientific theories as opposed to regular theories. Gravity is a scientific theory, so trying to say that something like that is "just a theory" to marginalize it is only a display of ignorance.

Actually buddy, its the 'Law of Gravity'. Its been proven, there are ways to actually calculate gravity from mass. Its a law. Theories are, in essence, explanations of why something happens, but are not proven. There may be evidence, but its not proven. Im a Psych major (Yes, currently studying, but im doing my own research already), and very rarely, VERY rarely is something ever proven.

So yes, the guy is right when he talks about people using theories to prove or disprove something. He is not correct because you cant just make up a theory, there has to be some type of evidence to back it up. This aint philosophy.

Theories are there to be tested and discussed rationally, not to be used to forward your own biases. When something is proven it becomes a law. Believe me, I deal with theories on a daily basis, everything I come up with from research is a theory (Psychology is that way), and we use the exact same scientific method.

Nice try, but Gravity is in fact both [http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law]. We don't dispute that it exists, or that we can model it with some degree of accuracy, but we don't know the "why" of gravity. We have some pretty good ideas, but that's about it.

Oh, thanks, you just helped my point. Nice try though.

"While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall."

So yeah, mis-info that would of been gladly accepted if you did it in a better tone, but now, thanks, you added fuel to my fire.

The irony of you attacking my tone while using "Actually, buddy" in your own post is fun.

The fact remains that a scientific theory is measured and tested. For example, we have tested Einsteins Theory of General Relativity via clocks, and is actually quite necessary in calculating the position of GPS units, among other things.

Yeah, I used that because he was trying to force a veryyyyy incorrect opinion on someone is bad, me making a small mistake of gravity being a law (which it is, as you have shown), is different.

Scientific theory has some type of evidence behind it. As some type of scientist, you NEVER EVER EVER accept a theory as true, you accept it as a possible truth. You always keep your mind open to other truths, or you become bias.

So, lets use the highly discussed theory of evolution. This is an example, not a debate. I will not discuss it past the terminology we are using. The theory of evolution has some type of evidence behind it, but it is not proven, so it is theory, and could be COMPLETELY wrong. That's not saying it is, but it has the chance to be. Now, look at creationism. If you actually believe that the theory of evolution is proven, you will dispute the fact that creationism is a theory of the origin of species, to. This is because of written history of the bible (which precedes most books, and has much evidence behind its validity (not reliability)), as well as other evidence which is not relevant here. These are two highly debated THEORIES. Neither of them are true, neither of them are false, unless proven. Once its proven, it will become a law.

So, dont treat theories as true. Treat them as possible truths.

EDIT: Let me add, that neither of us were in the right treating others like that, so I will accept that. Lets try to kill that.

Alright, I didn't want to do this but as my captcha says... zero tolerance. At least in this thread.

You partly confuse the general concept of a theory with the scientific meaning of theory. The "Laws of Gravity", "Laws of Thermodynamics" etc are still theories if it comes down to it, very well-proven ones that have so far been standing for decades and as such can be regarded as a working concept but it is still regarded a theory in scientific terms.
A scientific theory, as you rightly say, has evidence behind it and can be regarded as a truth but only until you find one single thing that clashes with the theory. Such is Gravity, should we happen to come across a single little spot on earth where things fall upwards and it would be scientifically sound it wouldn't matter a second if it was called a law, it would still be an old theory in need of reinterpretation.

Sometimes I feel like we should, just as an experiment, rename the theory of evolution to law of evolution and see how that influences the media.
The theory of evolution is not "highly discussed", it is as much discussed in a scientific manner as most other working models; though I could give you discussed in the media because they generally speaking haven't got much of a clue on most things.
Evolution has as much evidence behind it as is needed to make it a working model. It could be completely wrong, but so could gravity... you yourself say that one never accepts a theory as absolute.

On the topic of creationism:
Accepting the bible as evidence on the basis of being an old book would be a completely flawed logic. The Greek's mythological scriptures are much older but you don't see many people running around discussing Greek Creationism vs. Evolution. There is a plethora of religious creation stories, most of which involve one or more deities that existed before the existence of any existence and created something as complex as the universe and life in it which would mean they'd need to be even more complex than the thing they create which in turn would lead someone to think about how they came into existence.
Now, you could either explain this by infinitely ascending orders of mythical beings all creating less complex gods OR you can look at the <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham%27s_razor>very-unlikely but still more likely than that theory of formation of amino acids and other carbon compounds, then constantly increasing in complexity in small steps over millenia until finally reaching the first multi-cell organisms.

This is why the Theory of Creationism can never be regarded as a scientific theory and should in fact not even be a legal sequence of words. Hell, even the Vatican accepts the Theory of Evolution over Creationism, if that's not convincing enough I don't know what is.

So, don't treat (scientific) theories as true but as the most likely and currently accepted view of how things work, so far not invalidated by elaborate and countless experiments and other theories. But please don't treat (scientific) laws as absolute truths either.

 

[Thedutchjelle]

Being a Biomedical sciences student the thing that grinds me the most are insane "diet" claims by nutritionists. Gillian McKeith with her "eat loads of green plants, the chlorophyll in the plants will oxygenate your blood through photosynthesis ". >< My brother, though not stupid, sometimes falls for the tricks, but then I have to explain to him why he's wrong and he usually trusts me.

I saw a commercial about a special shampoo (I think it was Panthene) with "special keratin amino acid ! ". Oh Really ? And what exactly IS a "special keratin Amino Acid ?". IT IS A PROTEIN DAMNED, NOT AN AMINO ACID !

A poster on the escapist told me about a cream for the face that was "reinforced with Deoxyribonucleic Acid ". Because slapping DNA on your skin will repair that DNA. Now we can live for ever, fuck you, telomeres ! Do you want to have wings ? Here, just put on some bird wing DNA on your shoulders !

What astonishes me is that they're allowed to lie like that.

And that Homeopathic lady posted earlier was simply amazing. Mentioning Einstein makes your claims 75% smarter.

Biomedical Sciences here to ;D 3rd year in my Bachelor now.

I believe I a similair advertisement to the one you mentioned. Some cream that was supposed to stop the aging by repairing the damage in the DNA. I facepalmed so hard I now write with the back of my head.

Lot of good points already raised on the first page of the thread. Basically, all bio-errors that everbody with a decent education shouldn't make bug me badly. I can forgive people not knowing a certain enzyme fucks with a certain substrate. But thinking Chihuahua's (those dogs)were made by crossing a rat and a small dog..

Also people who say "it tastes like chemicals" "this has chemicals in it" etc. EVERYTHING is a chemical. Water is. Oxygen is. Plastic is. All have chemical properties.

 

[Emperor Nat]

Regardless, let's not argue about that, because we'll likely get nowhere.

I don't... I... are you allowed to say that on the internet? I thought we were meant to shout insults and start a petty squabble that derails the entire thread. I mean... what do you do in this situation? Am I to question your sexuality and make crude remarks about your mother? Or... no, that doesn't seem right...

OT: In all seriousness, some of these posts are annoying to say the least.

I guess my only two are the whole "We only use 10% of our brains" thing, and claims that science disproves religion. The two are, as noted, different fields. The fact that you can explain how my body works, the composition of it all and how we as a species came into being does not preclude divine intervention in same.

Generally I see this as physics or biology. But hey, if you were an omnipotent, omniscient being... would you not make a clear set of rules by which things can run? I mean, that's sorta how programming works. You try to set everything up so that there's always a script ready to account for what the player is doing.

And now, obligatory comedy skit.

Angel 1: "Hey, these humans are building a telescope. It can see pretty far."
Angel 2: "What's the problem?"
Angel 1: "Our skybox is kinda crappy at the moment. A few little dots, that's all."
Angel 2: "Uh... humans like flowers, right? Copy-paste something in there."