I think I might be able to help here: We need to talk about the term falsifiable.Clearing the Eye said:As I said, so long as you argue admittedly falsifiable ideas as fact, I'll disagree with you.Woodsey said:That's because you're using an incorrect version of the word fact to then debate whether something is a fact.Clearing the Eye said:I disagree. I believe there is a lot of well researched evidence to support the theory of evolution, but to call it a fact when you admit in your definition that it is fallible strikes me as an oxymoron.Woodsey said:Oh for the love of-Clearing the Eye said:Actually, evolution of species (micro and macro) is theory--it's the theory of evolution.Esotera said:But yeah, obviously evolution is still true, we have overwhelming evidence for this.
Evolution is a fact and a theory.
[a
href=https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=scientific+fact+definition&oq=scientific+fact+definition&aq=f&aqi=g1g-bK1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0j0i8i30.419.4267.0.4457.26.12.0.3.3.0.764.2928.3j5j1j1j0j1j1.12.0...0.0.azah4sE1R4U&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f4d6def3eef04394&biw=1366&bih=667]Scientific fact[/a]: an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final).
[a
href=https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=scientific+theory+definition&oq=scientific+theory+definition&aq=f&aqi=g-c2g1g-c1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0i7l2j0j0i7.55104.56531.1.56754.10.9.0.0.0.2.142.882.5j4.9.0...0.0.dIlY-E1JhMM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f4d6def3eef04394&biw=1366&bih=667]Scientific theory[/a]:a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
The fact is what happens, the theory is why it happens.
Everything is, however unlikely, subject to being wrong. Gravity. That's a fact and a theory. But it might turn out that our understanding of it is wrong, and that in reality it's down to a god with millions of invisible hands all holding us on to the ground.
There is such an overwhelming onslaught of evidence for our established understanding of gravity, however, that there is no reason to not call it a fact. Same for evolution.
Falsifiable means that in testing a hypothesis, there are outcomes that would disprove the hypothesis. Freud's theories are not falsifiable because whatever you observe, Freud can twist it to fit his "theory". What good is a theory if you invent it and it couldn't even hypothetically be proven false? God is not falsifiable, because no evidence could disprove him. That's what makes religion bad science. However, gravity IS falsifiable. If you dropped a rock without any trickery and it DIDN'T fall, that would disprove gravity. Gravity is falsifiable because there could be data that proves it wrong. Gravity is a solid theory because it could be proven wrong, but it never is.
Does this clarify things?