|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
 Posted - 08/27/2004 : 03:42:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rubicon95
Would it be fair to say my point has some validity.
quote:
Originally posted by Rubicon95
quote:
If I conduct experiment {E} that falsifies theory {T}, neither the success or failure of {E}, nor the implications of that success or failure, have anything whatsoever to do with my intentions.
If I started to test a theory, say evolution, with the intention of proving it false and I prove it false. Is my conclusion valid or invalid? I would say that it is invalid ...
No, your point has zero validity. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
 |
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 06:38:32 [Permalink]
|
Actually, Dave that statement happened before the premise. You're assuming that I meant scientists.
Using scientific methods does not make one a scientist as using hammer makes one a carpenter.
I think that's where we get junk science - and poor construction. :-)
You can't prove a theory? So what happens when you test the theory and it is true. Is it still a theory or is it something else?
Perhaps we should start a new thread on "what is theory?" with our view points and CA can give the Webster's dictionary's version...to keep us on track.
|
|
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 07:16:18 [Permalink]
|
CA
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/wedge.html
Do you think the proponents of ID had any agenda in their testing of evolution? They entered in a test to debunk evolution and prove supernatural causes and succeeded. If I understand you correctly, then you would agree to their findings.
BTW, thank you for the quote, I am trying to find where you got it from. Did you read the book or take a class with her.
Cheers |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 07:24:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rubicon95
CA
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/wedge.html
Do you think the proponents of ID had any agenda in their testing of evolution? They entered in a test to debunk evolution and prove supernatural causes and succeeded. If I understand you correctly, then you would agree to their findings.
BTW, thank you for the quote, I am trying to find where you got it from. Did you read the book or take a class with her.
Cheers
I believe that methodology cames into play here. CA, in his gruff way, I believe is venting frustration with debunking the same subjects over and over. While I find it counter-productive to namecall, as CA has done, it does not change the basis for his disagreement.
While some science is done with an expected result, a scientist normally does not throw out data based on whim or refutation of the expected result. That isn't to say that it doesn't happen. Most notably, the studies on second-hand smoke are particularly suspect due to data gathering inconstitancies and the volume of individuals culled from the test group when they did not meet the expected result.
If the methodology is flawed, the result is suspect. Intent should not, and in most cases, does not play a factor in testing a theory. In the case of Creationist science, the methodology is deeply flawed.
And CA, you would make your point so much better if you actually debunked the assertation, not resort to namecalling. I've seen you do much better by treating others with a modicum of respect. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 08/27/2004 07:26:16 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13479 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 07:31:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Rubicon95:
You can't prove a theory? So what happens when you test the theory and it is true. Is it still a theory or is it something else?
While a theory holds a pretty lofty place in science, all conclusions in science are tentative. The introduction of new evidence can alter a theory or the theory can be completely abandoned. In this way, science does not become dogma.
This is not to say that a theory remains in the hypothesis stage of scientific investigation. A theory must be well supported and have predictive qualities. It has passed peer review. A theory is as good as it gets in science.
Absolute proofs may be found in math...
quote:
Rubicon95:
Perhaps we should start a new thread on "what is theory?" with our view points and CA can give the Webster's dictionary's version...to keep us on track.
The criteria for what makes a scientific theory is pretty clear. It is not like the more casual use of the word which in everyday speak can often mean a hunch. In science, a theory is not a hunch... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
SciFi Chick
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 08:46:13 [Permalink]
|
I just went back and re-read the whole topic, and I see now that I misunderstood Rucicon95. I had the Tunguska incident on my mind, and that clouded my perception.
Thus, I retract my earlier statement. I certainly wasn't saying that the group I used as an example were somehow the norm with science. I have the greatest respect for scientists and the scientific process.
Dave W summed up my thoughts rather well, so I won't bother rewording it further. |
"There is no 'I' in TEAM, but there is an 'M' and an 'E'." -Carson
"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud."
-Sophocles |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26027 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 09:27:30 [Permalink]
|
Rubicon95 wrote:quote:
Actually, Dave that statement happened before the premise. You're assuming that I meant scientists.
Indeed I was. The point is that the context had turned to scientists, and you did nothing to dispell that until after a bunch of people had made quite-reasonable assumptions about what you meant. Afterwards, you started playing the game of correcting the prior context, claiming that those assumptions were completely unwarranted. I left such behavior back in the school-yard.quote:
Using scientific methods does not make one a scientist as using hammer makes one a carpenter.
I think that's where we get junk science - and poor construction. :-)
No, crackpots leave out necessary parts of the scientific method (like controlled experiments and blinding), and it's quite obvious that they do. They use scientific terminology, but that's not a use of scientific methods.
Look, a guy in a business suit with a peg leg and no shoe, travelling at barely more than a jog would be justified in calling himself a runner. A fully-limbed guy wearing the best shoes, running shorts, looking like an Olympian, but who rides the bus and sits all day and night, would only be called a runner by those fooled by appearances.
Runners are those who run. Scientists are those who do science. Junk science isn't science, whether it's done by people who call themselves 'scientists' or not. Getting back to something more along the lines of the OP, those who "steal" the label 'scientist' do not deserve it. And on the other hand, there are plenty who deserve the label, but don't use it. The label, though, isn't what's important. It's whether or not science is actually being done which is the important part of being a scientist.quote:
You can't prove a theory? So what happens when you test the theory and it is true. Is it still a theory or is it something else?
To add to what Kil has said:- Facts are observations
- Theories are explanations of facts
- Laws are theories which can be distilled into equations
And, since a single negative experimental result under proper conditions can falsify a theory, at any time, then no: you cannot prove a theory. There is always a non-zero chance that a future experiment will demonstrate a theory to be wrong, which means you can come very close to 100% certainty (as we are with evolution, electron theory, gravity, etc.), but never actually reach it.quote:
Perhaps we should start a new thread on "what is theory?" with our view points and CA can give the Webster's dictionary's version...to keep us on track.
No need, as that side discussion should be done by now. Unless you'd like to see some links to scientists explaining what the word "theory" means, too. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26027 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 10:04:11 [Permalink]
|
Ricky wrote:quote:
Or is there something I'm missing here?
What you're missing is me saying, "well, crap, I learned that distiction incorrectly, didn't I?"  Good job, Ricky. Luckily, the correct information doesn't seem to invalidate my points. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2004 : 05:53:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
Laws are theories which can be distilled into equations
quote:
A physical law or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations. It is different from a theory which is a framework designed to make predictions and to explain physical laws.
Now if I understand you correctly Dave, you are saying that laws are just theories that can be made into equations?
Given that the term does not lend itself to strict definitions, note:quote:
- Scientific Laws - rules, preferably mathematical, by which we believe nature operates
- Scientific Theory - conceptual scheme invented or postulated in order to explain observed phenomena and relationships between them
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2004 : 10:51:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
important to point out that a theory can never become a law and a law was never a theory.
If laws don't come from theories, then how do we discover them?
From your source on scientific law....
quote:
Some of the more famous laws of nature are Isaac Newton's theories of (now) classical mechanics presented in Principia Mathematica and Albert Einstein's theory of relativity.
quote:
Within most fields of study, and in science in particular, the elevation of some principle of that field to the status of "law" usually takes place after a very long time during which the principle is used and tested and verified. Though in some fields of study such laws are simply postulated as a foundation and assumed.
In science theory comes before law. It's only a law after the theory has been exaustively tested, and shown to be extremely reliable. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9693 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2004 : 15:30:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
In science theory comes before law. It's only a law after the theory has been exaustively tested, and shown to be extremely reliable.
Then it's about time to start talking about the Law of Evolution. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2004 : 02:03:15 [Permalink]
|
| The term theory in science doesn't mean questionable or weakly supported. It means an overall description of some process as opposed to evidence or data upon which the theory is developed and based. The level of supporting evidence is on a continuum from overwhelming to insufficient. In the case of evolutionary theory, there is overwhelming evidence supporting it. Arguing whether or not evolution is theory or law does not mean anything. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
