Scientific theories

[Naso]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Yes, but the problem is, as we have seen in the E vs C threads, that some people seem incapable of understanding that basic limitation of science.

The problem is that you dont want to see that that is not a limitation, for the use that science has born.
As Takeda said, you are (maliciously, I bet ) using (or assuming, pretend the others use) a tool for a purpose that it's not intended to be used, to have a definitive answer.
And this is the mistake at the roots of your attacks.

It becomes especially frustrating when some people cling to "scientific evidence" without even knowing that they are clinging to an illusion.

scientific evidence it's not an illusion, it's a fact.
The theory that try to explain the scientific evidences can be an illusion, but never pretend to be different.
(Are you mixing the evidence concept from your work? )

Science.

A piece of wood stay on surface of water. <---- this is an evidence.
There can be an explanation of this evidence? <---- the question of the science
Maybe it's related with density. <----- scientific theory
A piece of steel sink <----- experiment, more evidence.
A piece of cave steel stay on surface <----- contraddicting evidence.
Maybe it's related with medium density of the entire body volume inclosed inside the transitional surface <---- improved theory.
and so on....

Religion.

A piece of wood stay on surface <--- evidence.
A piece of steel sink <---- evidence.
The steel it's in sin the wood go to paradise it's God will, stop asking questions. <------ Religious Dogma.

One huge problem is when those with their faith in science chose to disregard the basic scientific method in their defence of the current theorem. One example of this is the reaction one often gets in the E vs C discussion where people will do pretty much anything to fit any new observation into the current theroem.

I must admit that there is people that seem to adhere to science in the same way as it is a religion, and this is a big mistake, but no one of theese is a scientist (even if he pretend to be).
And I have missed where someone have introduced new observations in the question, unless you want to use "it's written in the book so it must be true" as an evidence (and it's not, it's faith).
What you posed 'till now are only objections, based on no-scientific presumes, and not supported by evidences of any sort.

Sidenote: Personally I feel that it is a shortcoming, the fact that science is not able to provide facts, or "tell the truth".

Again, Science it's not intended to "provide the truth", if you want to see it in that way it's you that are giving the science a religon-like behaviour.

The science objective it's "to have a good approximation of the limited vision that we can have of a too complex truth to be known completely".

If you seek the truth, it's better you ask some religion, have faith that the answers they give you are the truth, and leave the science do his work, to try to understand how it works....

Mmmm... yeah.... this is a good one:

religion it's the answer to the question "WHY ?"
science it's the answer (or a try) to the question "HOW ?"

[Hortlund]

Let me try to explain my concern with the theory of evolution from a scientific method-approach.

I have stolen this definition of the scientific method from MT (thanks MT)

1. Observe something.
2. Invent a hypothesis that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
5. Modify the hypothesis based on your results.
6. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no differences between hypothesis and experiment or observation.

The problem with the evolutionists and their claim to fame is that the theory of evolution got stuck on p4. Suddenly they were faced with a number of observations that was not consistent with the theory.

But instead of modifying the theory, they either ignored the observations or they drew amazingly wild conclusions from other observations (for example, the tooth that turned into an evidence of the missing link, and then reverted back to being a pig tooth)

Anyway, after a number of years the number of observations inconsistet with the theory rose, and the evolutionists realized that they had to do something. They applied p5, and along came the punctuated equilibrium.

The problem is that this new theory is inconsistent with the original theory. While darwins theory requires a slow and steady evolution, the new theory suggested sudden jumps in evolution.

This is something that is ignored by evolutionists, and from that day on, they used a combination of Darwins "slow and steady" evolution, and the punctuated equilibriums "jump" evolution to explain every new observation they found that contradicted the basic theory.

That is just bad science. It gives the wrong results, and it is simply put, not scientific at all.

[Naso]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Einstein -
"My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God."
[Albert Einstein, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

I want to know the thoughts of God. Everything else is just details

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.


MEGA SNIP!!!!!



Seems like your heroes have more in common with the "2000 year old goat-herders " than you might realize...

Here you go!!

Tell me when I, or some other "science guys" have stated that science and religion are mutual exclusive.

It's you that seem to suggest, before this last post, the opposite.

I want to know the thoughts of God. Everything else is just details

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

What a big man he was.

We are lucky you were'nt the judge that had to decide if burn Galileo.



...Or cream Albert.



Ouch... tongue in cheek, mate

[Naso]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Let me try to explain my concern with the theory of evolution from a scientific method-approach.

I have stolen this definition of the scientific method from MT (thanks MT)

1. Observe something.
2. Invent a hypothesis that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
5. Modify the hypothesis based on your results.
6. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no differences between hypothesis and experiment or observation.

The problem with the evolutionists and their claim to fame is that the theory of evolution got stuck on p4. Suddenly they were faced with a number of observations that was not consistent with the theory.

But instead of modifying the theory, they either ignored the observations or they drew amazingly wild conclusions from other observations (for example, the tooth that turned into an evidence of the missing link, and then reverted back to being a pig tooth)

Anyway, after a number of years the number of observations inconsistet with the theory rose, and the evolutionists realized that they had to do something. They applied p5, and along came the punctuated equilibrium.

The problem is that this new theory is inconsistent with the original theory. While darwins theory requires a slow and steady evolution, the new theory suggested sudden jumps in evolution.

This is something that is ignored by evolutionists, and from that day on, they used a combination of Darwins "slow and steady" evolution, and the punctuated equilibriums "jump" evolution to explain every new observation they found that contradicted the basic theory.

That is just bad science. It gives the wrong results, and it is simply put, not scientific at all.

I ask you gentle to move this post in the other megathread, Santa asked to avoid the E. vs C.  arguments.

(J/k)

[StSanta]

Regarding Einsteins quotes about God: he believed in Spinoza's God, i.e the universe as a deity. The following quotes makes it very clear:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings"

Another quote:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

A more complete quote from  "Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium", published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.

"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted [italics his], in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task..."


Hortlund, your sources misrepresent Einstein, and he states this quite clearly.

Darwin on the other hand was a deeply religious person. Still, he felt that the science was so compelling it lead him to believe that parts of the bible were not to be taken literally - and did he get a bashing for holding that view.

And please Hortlund, we can discuss evolution and scientific methodology in great detail later. You're quite wrong and I'll show you where and how. For now, let this thread be about theory and facts in science. We'll move on to evolution after we've covered this and the scientific methodology. Your 7 step argument is fallacious because its too simplistic to describe the scientific methodology - or rather, you make some assumptions about step 4 and evolution that aren't true. But more on that later in ANOTHER thread. We'll go into details there.

[StSanta]

Ok, to sum it up, are we in agreement that there are scientific facts, which need not be absolute, and that there are scientific theories which tries to explain facts? Furthermore, that scientific theories aren't JFK murder theories, but rather substantiated through a rigorous verification process (which will be the enxt thread of discussion).

Can we also agree that a theory doesn't necessarily have to be true; it is what is concluded based on the *available evidence* at the time.

This distinction between scientific facts, scientific theories and ordinary socalled 'theories' is extremely important, and unless we have a common understanding and are in agreement on this, it is useless to go further.

Mind you, I'm not trying to present MY views on it: rather, I'm trying to describe some concepts in science as they are defined. Just a prelude for something bigger. There's a need to convey just what this stuff is - otherwise we'll just get stuck later on.

[Hortlund]

Well, personally I think it becomes a bloody pointless discussion actually.

What is the use in having a philosophical discussion about what is theory and what is fact, when everyone has agreed that science can provide theories but not facts? <-- =discussion over.  


You are the one bringing evolution into the debate by using quotes defending the theory of evolution as base for the discussion. Frankly I fail to see how it would be possible to draw  general principles about theory and thruth from those quotes without looking at how the author of the quote arrived at his conclusions about theory and truth. For example the statement "Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. " is simply ludicrous. But we are supposed to take that for granted because we are discussing what is theory and what is fact? We have already agreed that science cannot provide us with facts, only theorys.

Now you want to have an argument about "when does theory become fact" or "is there such a good theory that it should be considered a fact"?

Well, the answer to both is never and no (unless we are talking about mathematics, which we aint).

[Hortlund]

But go ahead and start your other threads where you will prove that I'm quite wrong and I'll show me that., There you can show me why MT's (it is not mine) 7 step argument is fallacious.

PM me or something when you want me to reply in those threads, because apparently I should not have posted in this one.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by StSanta
Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness.

Well I take issue with that bit - my dictionary defines  a proposition as "an act of propounding (offering for consideration): an offer: a statement of judgement: a premise (a proposition stated for after reasoning): a statement of a problem or theorem for (or with) solution or demonstration (math.): a possibility, suggestion, course of action for consideration" all of which seem to me to very much imply tentativeness or lack of certainty.

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

I feel labelling something that is not 100% certain "a fact" a gross dishonesty, no matter how well intended. In my view, science can not afford anything less than scrupulous honesty and this labelling of the uncertain as a "fact" while understandable,seems ultimately unforgivable. It may well slow down progress and lead to very sloppy thinking, both of which seem undesireable to me. Every theory in science should be open to the possibility that the theorist may have got it wrong.
To accept this shorthand labelling of theories as facts also raises an interesting and thorny problem - who decides what constitutes "enough evidence" and when we have it? Do we treat each theory on a case by case basis? Or should we apply blanket rules? How often do we have to review the evidence? And who reviews it? On the whole just not labelling theories as facts, no matter how solid they currently seem, looks like a much easier course of action.

So, are there people here that question that change in allele frequency (I guess simplisticly one could call it change in gene 'markers') occurs? If so, I can point you to studies done to (amongst other things) bacteria and banana flies.

Science can only benefit from people always questioning theories. If someone disproves a theory, science benefits - if they fail to disprove it, science still benefits. Either way our knowledge increases. We should not treat science as a point-winning exercise.

Another question: how many of you equate scientific theories to theories about, say, the assassination of JFK? If you see this to be inaccurate, we're a good way towards a reasonable discussion.

A correctly framed scientific theory generally requires that we should have the means to prove it false, because if we maintain scrupulously honesty, we must accept that we probably cannot ever prove a theory true. I see no reason why one cannot frame a conspiracy theory using scientific methods - making it no different from any other scientific theory - although the theorists rarely, if ever, do so.

I also think it's worth noting that 100% knowledge is not required before calling something a fact - that a fact is not set in stone. Some argue that this is the downfall of science and points to the cases where science have been proven wrong. they seemingly forget, however, that science was proven wrong by science. That's the beauty of it - it is self correcting.

As stated above, labelling a theory as a fact can really only slow down the process of disproving that theory if someone finds faults in it. A "fact" seems much more unassailable than "a theory". Indeed a fact according to my dictionary is "a deed, act or anything done (arch.): anything that comes to pass: a truth: truth: a reality, or a real state of things, as distinguished from a mere statement or belief: an assertion of fact". Better to be scrupulously honest and call a theory "a theory" - a label which encourages people to keep an open mind. Science has nothing to lose from people questioning theories, nor from people finding flaws in theories. Treating theories as facts - mistaking them for "the truth" - on the other hand seems to me not only sloppy thinking and dangerous because of it, but also a sure fire way of slowing knowledge advancement up. Scientific method seems our best shot at impartiality and should eventually correct its own mistakes, but the science gets done by scientists - as irrational, passionate, self-serving, prone to short-sighted empire-building or protecting their vested interests, and kow-towing to the dominant alpha male as any other group of primates. I reckon we should give them as little chance as possible to proclaim their pet theories "facts". After all - can anyone think of a serious downside to calling a theory "a theory"? I can't. But I can see the downside to calling a theory "a fact". It may seem like semantic nonsense, but in these primitive times, most people still seem to behave as if words do have magic powers (How else does one explain the fact that the word diddly "is" dirty while the word coitus "is" clean? Note: this seems to apply mostly to Saxon words - Latin words appear to avoid the label "dirty"), and many get confused by the premises that "the map is not the territory".

[Thrawn]

I agree with Hortland, science and it's "theories"  are useless for the most part.

*He typed, communicating with people all over the world.*

[Naso]

I agree thrawn.

* he answered some minute later, being 6.000 km away *

[Hortlund]

Well, it is pretty apparent that the ability to communicate with people all over the world, hasnt done any improvements for the reading comprehension of some people.

[Naso]

Ah, finally some autocritic, Steve!!

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Let me try to explain my concern with the theory of evolution from a scientific method-approach.

I have stolen this definition of the scientific method from MT (thanks MT)

1. Observe something.
2. Invent a hypothesis that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
5. Modify the hypothesis based on your results.
6. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no differences between hypothesis and experiment or observation.

The problem with the evolutionists and their claim to fame is that the theory of evolution got stuck on p4. Suddenly they were faced with a number of observations that was not consistent with the theory.

But instead of modifying the theory, they either ignored the observations or they drew amazingly wild conclusions from other observations (for example, the tooth that turned into an evidence of the missing link, and then reverted back to being a pig tooth)

Anyway, after a number of years the number of observations inconsistet with the theory rose, and the evolutionists realized that they had to do something. They applied p5, and along came the punctuated equilibrium.

The problem is that this new theory is inconsistent with the original theory. While darwins theory requires a slow and steady evolution, the new theory suggested sudden jumps in evolution.

This is something that is ignored by evolutionists, and from that day on, they used a combination of Darwins "slow and steady" evolution, and the punctuated equilibriums "jump" evolution to explain every new observation they found that contradicted the basic theory.

That is just bad science. It gives the wrong results, and it is simply put, not scientific at all.

Steve has made a point here, but it is not the one he meant to make. The real value of the scientific method is in the ability to go back and change the hypothesis.

As you have stated, when the facts failed to mesh with the hypothesis, the hypothesis was reworked. This isn't a failure of the scientific method, it is a triumph.

Creationists cannot change the hypothesis.. ever, so there can never be by definition a Creation science.

Regarding the 100% statement, Hortlund is correct. However he neatly ignores the fact that some scientific "theories" approach certainty so closely that people have stopped trying to disprove them. Pythagorus comes to mind.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by midnight Target

As you have stated, when the facts failed to mesh with the hypothesis, the hypothesis was reworked. This isn't a failure of the scientific method, it is a triumph.

Creationists cannot change the hypothesis.. ever, so there can never be by definition a Creation science.
 

Actually, my major beef with the theory of evolution right now is the un-scientific methot they use to defend their theory. Simply put they are ignoring observations that are different from their hypothesis. OR they are drawing too far fetched conclusions from observations so that these observations support their theory.

Creationists cannot change the hypothesis of evolution? Maybe, but there are other hypothesis about the history of life than just the theory of evolution. Most evolutuionists tend to disregard that pesky little fact.

I disagree with your statement that there never can be any creation science. Why not?