What the scientific laws and stuff actually mean.

Recommended Videos

Xanadu84

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,946
0
0
Clearing the Eye said:
Woodsey said:
Clearing the Eye said:
Woodsey said:
Clearing the Eye said:
Esotera said:
But yeah, obviously evolution is still true, we have overwhelming evidence for this.
Actually, evolution of species (micro and macro) is theory--it's the theory of evolution.
Oh for the love of-

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.
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.
That's because you're using an incorrect version of the word fact to then debate whether something is a fact.

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.
As I said, so long as you argue admittedly falsifiable ideas as fact, I'll disagree with you.
I think I might be able to help here: We need to talk about the term falsifiable.

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?
 

Lizardon

Robot in Disguise
Mar 22, 2010
1,055
0
0
As a Physics/Chemistry university student, it can get on my nerves when people confuse the terminology. I'd say part of the fault lies in the difference in the definitions used by the scientific community and in general conversion, like how people use theory to mean 'a guess'. It probably has something to do with how our language and definitions of words develop and change over time, while scientist still abide by the old definitions for consistency.
 

Clearing the Eye

New member
Jun 6, 2012
1,345
0
0
Xanadu84 said:
Clearing the Eye said:
Woodsey said:
Clearing the Eye said:
Woodsey said:
Clearing the Eye said:
Esotera said:
But yeah, obviously evolution is still true, we have overwhelming evidence for this.
Actually, evolution of species (micro and macro) is theory--it's the theory of evolution.
Oh for the love of-

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.
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.
That's because you're using an incorrect version of the word fact to then debate whether something is a fact.

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.
As I said, so long as you argue admittedly falsifiable ideas as fact, I'll disagree with you.
I think I might be able to help here: We need to talk about the term falsifiable.

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?
I've always said gravity is a solid theory--I think I actually said that somewhere in here. It sure does seem like we're not floating up and away on a consistent basis, after all.
 

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
meloxicam said:
Yopaz said:
You'd be surprised at how many adults actually believe in Santa. Of course, there's no real statistics, but a lot of adults have stated that they believe in Santa.
Just to point out Santa, god and the tooth-fairy are made up. just because people believe they are real doesn't make them real, see Pasteur's swan necked flask Experiment for evidence.
Never said they were real. I was simply trying to point out that the guy I quoted said that there were no adults believing in Santa, but believing in God was nothing unusual. I am a relatively relaxed Atheist who doesn't try to force my beliefs on anyone who is religious, but I am also a very serious Atheist who will stand on my point even held at gunpoint. From ym obvious annoyance over people dismissing evolution because it's "just a theory" I think that it would be clear enough that I'm not religious. Is there any reason you feel like telling Atheists that god is made up or did you just not understand my post?
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
Navvan said:
Yeah, that's why I used 'Scientific theory' and 'Scientific fact' at the start of the conversation and later said he was arguing with the wrong version/definition of the word to begin with.
 

A Random Reader

New member
Nov 18, 2009
341
0
0
Clearing the Eye said:
A Random Reader said:
It's fact, just by a different name, until such a time where observation disagrees with it.
If it is successfully challenged, it was never fact. Facts are truth and faultless. If something is proven wrong, it was never at least fully true and must have been faulty. Thus, it wasn't a fact. For example, if we think a a red ball is green, but later realize it to actually be red, that it was green was never a fact--it was always red.

Theory in science is an idea that has been tested and with evidence to support it. A theory is not a fact.
Thanks. See my original post for the edit.
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
1. Teaching Theory as fact is wrong. Until a theory is proven incontrovertibly, it cannot be a Scientific fact or law. Evolution is still theoretical. Not saying its bullshit, but the fact that we don't understand it fully, cannot comprehend it nor prove that the theories behind it actually happened exactly that way, cannot reproduce it in a lab nor observe it means its not a fact. Its a theory with data supporting the theory but never outright proving it.

2. Throughout scientific history we've proven one thing, no matter what we consider "fact" we always find something to disprove it or at least find we're not totally correct. This means that we are far from truly understanding the underpinnings of the way things work. Therefore all current scientific fact/law is subject to further review and therefore fallible. We are human after all, make mistakes on a regular basis, transpose numbers/decimal places which throw off data collected, etc. In otherwords anything we "know" today can be disproven or at least shown to be partially wrong somewhere down the line.

3. One of the biggest issues in scientific research is that we're not approaching the questions in an objective manner. Most studies I've read have one underlying problem. They set goals to prove things rather than objectively seek an answer. What I mean is they set a goal like "Prove x causes y" rather than doing a less focused research. They attempt to prove their theory is correct, but I feel that a lot of scientists find their theory to be wrong and skew data in favor of said theory. If we were to set a goal to "see what happens when x is introduced to y and study the effect of x on y" I would think science would be better off.

To explain point 3 more succinctly, too many studies are started with an end goal in mind and that tends to skew the data. Why? Possibly because the data doesn't always support the conclusion the scientist(s) are looking for and there's the human factor involved. By which I mean that data can be manipulated to show the results wanted.

In the end what we need are research groups with undefined end goals. Rather than try to prove or disprove something we need to just study things and let the data form the conclusion.

Example: how "Global Warming" suddenly became "Global Climate Change" when the data started to show that temperatures weren't rising like they said they were. I suggest people read the afterward of State of Fear by Michael Crichton as it pertains heavily to my current view on science and how research is handled.
I'm sure a number of you are going to disagree with me, and thats fine. But remember that science in the last few centuries has proved one thing: Everything we think is true now tends to be disproven or at least partially misunderstood years down the road.
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
A Random Reader said:
Clearing the Eye said:
A Random Reader said:
It's fact, just by a different name, until such a time where observation disagrees with it.
If it is successfully challenged, it was never fact. Facts are truth and faultless. If something is proven wrong, it was never at least fully true and must have been faulty. Thus, it wasn't a fact. For example, if we think a a red ball is green, but later realize it to actually be red, that it was green was never a fact--it was always red.

Theory in science is an idea that has been tested and with evidence to support it. A theory is not a fact.
Thanks. See my original post for the edit.
To quote Jim Carrey "The pen is blue... the pen is BLUE.... THE GOD DAMN PEN IS BLUE!!!"
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
amaranth_dru said:
1. Teaching Theory as fact is wrong. Until a theory is proven incontrovertibly, it cannot be a Scientific fact or law. Evolution is still theoretical. Not saying its bullshit, but the fact that we don't understand it fully, cannot comprehend it nor prove that the theories behind it actually happened exactly that way, cannot reproduce it in a lab nor observe it means its not a fact. Its a theory with data supporting the theory but never outright proving it.
While you are absolutely correct on everything else in your post, the semantic science-nazi in me just has to point out that we can comprehend evolution, we know exactly how it works, and we can reproduce it at will, in a laboratory or otherwise.

The short version of it is that evolution/natural selection works because of the imperfection involved in splitting chromosomes, specifically in reproductive cells. In short, one or both of the parents' genes are modified slightly by the RNA in the duplicating process (typically because of a chemical change in the cell or something along those lines), which creates mutations. If the mutation causes the creature to be more able to reproduce, then it will have more children than any other members of its species, and over the course of several generations the number of creatures with that trait will outnumber and eventually kill off the old species.

It's actually remarkably easy to reproduce the effect. The simplest way is to have a culture of bacteria and then introduce a low-dosage of antibiotics to it. Give it a few days (assuming you kept the dosage low enough to not kill all of the bacteria), and that culture will then be immune to that antibiotic.
 

Axolotl

New member
Feb 17, 2008
2,401
0
0
Bradeck said:
One of my favorite arguments put forward by Richard Dawkins, is the argument of relative objective indifference. I personally do not know that there is NOT a indestructible 2 quart purple teapot floating in orbit within the rings of Jupiter. I cannot test this, nor can I disprove it in any sense. Therefor, it is entirely feasible to assume that their currently is such a teapot orbiting Jupiter. However, because said teapot will not, and cannot, influence my life in ANY sense, then I do not care if it exists or not. Same with a 2000 year old zombie Jewish male who sits on a cloud in a place called "Heaven".
That argument was not created by Dawkins, it's by Bertrand Russell.
 

Bradeck

New member
Sep 5, 2011
243
0
0
Axolotl said:
Bradeck said:
One of my favorite arguments put forward by Richard Dawkins, is the argument of relative objective indifference. I personally do not know that there is NOT a indestructible 2 quart purple teapot floating in orbit within the rings of Jupiter. I cannot test this, nor can I disprove it in any sense. Therefor, it is entirely feasible to assume that their currently is such a teapot orbiting Jupiter. However, because said teapot will not, and cannot, influence my life in ANY sense, then I do not care if it exists or not. Same with a 2000 year old zombie Jewish male who sits on a cloud in a place called "Heaven".
That argument was not created by Dawkins, it's by Bertrand Russell.
Can you site the source? I thought Dawkins was the first to put this forward in terms of anti-theist belief. What I know of Russel is he used Reductio ad absurdum in his attacks against Christians, but I haven't read anything based off his works around indifference.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
Certain parts of what is called the theory of evolution are easily verified. The first part is natural selection - the assumption that animals with beneficial traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. Examples: relative rarity of albino rodents like squirrels, rabbits, observed changes in moth population during early industrialization, etc. This point is beyond contention: a life form best adapted to a certain set of conditions is most likely to survive and reproduce.

Evolution takes the observed truth of natural selection and presumes that on a long enough time table, a beneficial trait will be common in a species. Demonstrating the truth in this one is a hair harder but still easy enough to show: dog breeding, for example, offers an example of evolution albeit with human intervention as a mechanism rather than natural selection.

Speciation is the assumption that the process of natural selection would eventually alter a species by such a degree that it is no longer the same species - in other words, vast changes. This is the part where there is room for contention all told as this has never been observed directly in complex life forms as doing so would require hundreds if not thousands of generations.
 

Lukeje

New member
Feb 6, 2008
4,048
0
0
Bradeck said:
Axolotl said:
Bradeck said:
One of my favorite arguments put forward by Richard Dawkins, is the argument of relative objective indifference. I personally do not know that there is NOT a indestructible 2 quart purple teapot floating in orbit within the rings of Jupiter. I cannot test this, nor can I disprove it in any sense. Therefor, it is entirely feasible to assume that their currently is such a teapot orbiting Jupiter. However, because said teapot will not, and cannot, influence my life in ANY sense, then I do not care if it exists or not. Same with a 2000 year old zombie Jewish male who sits on a cloud in a place called "Heaven".
That argument was not created by Dawkins, it's by Bertrand Russell.
Can you site the source? I thought Dawkins was the first to put this forward in terms of anti-theist belief. What I know of Russel is he used Reductio ad absurdum in his attacks against Christians, but I haven't read anything based off his works around indifference.
The wikipedia article contains the source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
 

Bradeck

New member
Sep 5, 2011
243
0
0
Lukeje said:
Bradeck said:
Axolotl said:
Bradeck said:
One of my favorite arguments put forward by Richard Dawkins, is the argument of relative objective indifference. I personally do not know that there is NOT a indestructible 2 quart purple teapot floating in orbit within the rings of Jupiter. I cannot test this, nor can I disprove it in any sense. Therefor, it is entirely feasible to assume that their currently is such a teapot orbiting Jupiter. However, because said teapot will not, and cannot, influence my life in ANY sense, then I do not care if it exists or not. Same with a 2000 year old zombie Jewish male who sits on a cloud in a place called "Heaven".
That argument was not created by Dawkins, it's by Bertrand Russell.
Can you site the source? I thought Dawkins was the first to put this forward in terms of anti-theist belief. What I know of Russel is he used Reductio ad absurdum in his attacks against Christians, but I haven't read anything based off his works around indifference.
The wikipedia article contains the source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
Thank you for showing me that. I was citing the wrong person all this time! Good to present proper citations on my statements! Again, thank you.
 

chadachada123

New member
Jan 17, 2011
2,310
0
0
Bradeck said:
I really advise you to go onto youtube and watch some videos by an amateur scientist/atheist blogger by the name of Thunderfoot. He also participates in a weekly livecast on youtube labeled the Magic Sandwich Show, in which several of the most intelligent men on both sides, attempt to debate these deep scientific quandaries you know find yourself in.

One of my favorite arguments put forward by Richard Dawkins, is the argument of relative objective indifference. I personally do not know that there is NOT a indestructible 2 quart purple teapot floating in orbit within the rings of Jupiter. I cannot test this, nor can I disprove it in any sense. Therefor, it is entirely feasible to assume that their currently is such a teapot orbiting Jupiter. However, because said teapot will not, and cannot, influence my life in ANY sense, then I do not care if it exists or not. Same with a 2000 year old zombie Jewish male who sits on a cloud in a place called "Heaven".
Oh, I know who Thunderf00t is, and I've seen a few of his videos (and will certainly watch your suggested one if I find it). It sounds like just a play off of Russell's Teapot (same, but with a Teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars), but will be explained far more completely than Bertrand Russell's paragraph-long blurb.

I haven't seen any of the Magic Sandwich Show, despite being subscribed to Thunderf00t. I only subscribed a month or two ago though, so I'm not sure why I haven't seen any of those videos.

Edit: Freaking seriously? I got ninja'd about Bertrand Russell? And here I thought that I would bring something new to the table.

But naw, I know pretty much every great argument against superstitious belief and dogma.
 

Bradeck

New member
Sep 5, 2011
243
0
0
chadachada123 said:
Bradeck said:
I really advise you to go onto youtube and watch some videos by an amateur scientist/atheist blogger by the name of Thunderfoot. He also participates in a weekly livecast on youtube labeled the Magic Sandwich Show, in which several of the most intelligent men on both sides, attempt to debate these deep scientific quandaries you know find yourself in.

One of my favorite arguments put forward by Richard Dawkins, is the argument of relative objective indifference. I personally do not know that there is NOT a indestructible 2 quart purple teapot floating in orbit within the rings of Jupiter. I cannot test this, nor can I disprove it in any sense. Therefor, it is entirely feasible to assume that their currently is such a teapot orbiting Jupiter. However, because said teapot will not, and cannot, influence my life in ANY sense, then I do not care if it exists or not. Same with a 2000 year old zombie Jewish male who sits on a cloud in a place called "Heaven".
Oh, I know who Thunderf00t is, and I've seen a few of his videos (and will certainly watch your suggested one if I find it). It sounds like just a play off of Russell's Teapot (same, but with a Teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars), but will be explained far more completely than Bertrand Russell's paragraph-long blurb.

I haven't seen any of the Magic Sandwich Show, despite being subscribed to Thunderf00t. I only subscribed a month or two ago though, so I'm not sure why I haven't seen any of those videos.

Edit: Freaking seriously? I got ninja'd about Bertrand Russell? And here I thought that I would bring something new to the table.

But naw, I know pretty much every great argument against superstitious belief and dogma.
Here is their content! Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMagicSandwichShow
 

Xanadu84

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,946
0
0
Clearing the Eye said:
Xanadu84 said:
Clearing the Eye said:
As I said, so long as you argue admittedly falsifiable ideas as fact, I'll disagree with you.
I think I might be able to help here: We need to talk about the term falsifiable.

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?
I've always said gravity is a solid theory--I think I actually said that somewhere in here. It sure does seem like we're not floating up and away on a consistent basis, after all.
I'm not talking about gravity, I'm talking about the use of the word falsifiable. You said that there was a problem with arguing falsifiable ideas as facts. In actuality, strong facts MUST be falsifiable. If something is not falsifiable, it is basically psuedoscience. In order for a hypothesis to be falsifiable, it must be possible to bring forth evidence that disproves it. Psuedoscience like Freud's theories are not falsifiable, because no matter what data you might possibly gather, Freuds theory backs it up through strange and vague twists: That's not good science. The theory of gravity IS falsifiable. Because there are tests you could do that would hypothetically disprove gravity. Like dropping a rock. If you dropped a rock and it fell upward, we would have to rethink a few things. But it never falls up. The fact that there are so many tests that COULD disprove gravity, but never DO, is what makes gravity such a strong theory.

It is good to be falsifiable. Falsifiable means that it is possible to properly test. If something is not falsifiable, the only way you can believe it is through blind faith, NOT science. Saying that a hypothesis is falsifiable is a compliment.
 

Xanadu84

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,946
0
0
amaranth_dru said:
1. Teaching Theory as fact is wrong. Until a theory is proven incontrovertibly, it cannot be a Scientific fact or law. Evolution is still theoretical. Not saying its bullshit, but the fact that we don't understand it fully, cannot comprehend it nor prove that the theories behind it actually happened exactly that way, cannot reproduce it in a lab nor observe it means its not a fact. Its a theory with data supporting the theory but never outright proving it.
Theres a problem here, and i is in practicality.

If we apply this logic, then we can't teach English because there's no guerentee that anyone outside of this classroom speaks English. We can't teach history. We can't teach math. We can't teach basketball because we can't be sure that that ball exists, or the players, or the score, or if this is all a dream.

Sure, philosophically, Evolution might be wrong. But given the number of times tests have independently confirmed it, evolution has about the same chance of being a real thing as gravity. Also, saying that evolution isn't a practical certainty because we don't understand all of it is like saying that because we don't know a pattern to Pi, multiplication might not be real. We may not be sure of every little detail about the field of Evolution, but there are some basics that we can safely say are set in stone.
 

El Dwarfio

New member
Jan 30, 2012
349
0
0
Erana said:
please take it to PMs and not derail the thread)
Your whole post is completely unrelated to the OP, why post it if you aren't trying to derail the thread.

OT: Yeah I think its related to modern language conceptions. Some people see the "Theory of Evolution" and therefore assume it's only a 'theory' and hasn't been proven. Meh I don't givashit, doesn't lessen my life in anyway.

NB - almost spelt theory feary, wtf?!?