| Forum Index > Closed |
|
shmay
United States1091 Posts
On December 12 2007 16:31 JensOfSweden wrote: Edit: yea, Darwins theory isn't exactly undisputable and you people who actually don't even know in DETAIL what it's about shouldn't assume it is. please enlighten us, or for that matter, name one legit scientific circle that doesn't consider evolution indisputable | ||
|
vusak
Australia13 Posts
1 facet is for non-scientists (ie. those who are distinctly anti-science as well as those who are just not involved/interested in science) Basically for this group, science should be saying fact == theory == fact. All current popular scientific theories are facts and should be accepted as such, because they are the BEST ideas we have on how things are and give the greatest probability of being useful for prediction or engineering or any other application of science. The other facet is for scientists and enthusiasts. For this group, science says fact != theory != fact, because theories change, theories themselves evolve through the pressures of evidence and counter-evidence facilitated by journals, reports, conferences etc. The fundamental distinction between science and non-science is that science accepts improvements on itself and is willing to drop previously held theories in favour of something more useful. So if youre a biologist who doesnt believe in evolution, thats fine. As long as none of your research is predicated on the assumption that creationism is an equally valid theory. On the other hand it wouldnt be so bad having a 100% critic in a research team because they would keep you on your toes, unless they just got preachy and disrupted morale. | ||
|
baal
10535 Posts
On December 12 2007 19:55 Frits wrote: This just in, evolution is a myth! Haha no seriously, Kirk Cameron is hilarious, and yes he IS serious. i wonder what this guy has to say about this: ![[image loading]](http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h246/madplo/coconut9jw.jpg) | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32045 Posts
On December 12 2007 19:55 Frits wrote: This just in, evolution is a myth! http://youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4 Haha no seriously, Kirk Cameron is hilarious, and yes he IS serious. rofl, wow, this is ridiculous. | ||
|
Wonders
Australia753 Posts
Bananas should also peel themselves and jump into your mouth when you open it too. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
 | ||
|
Dreamer]
Sweden358 Posts
(would that work by the way??) | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
| ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
A theory is on a higher level of understanding. It can predict other facts. And it does so accurately if it's a good theory. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
A fact is essentially just a theory that has been extremely reliable and well tested. There is no real reason to distinguish the two, other than that difference. An extremely simplified example of a simple fact predicting other simple facts is the equation 1+1 equals 2. A fact correct? Well with that fact we can also state the fact that 1+1+1 = 3. And we can build from there until we have almost the entirety of our current understanding of physical mathetmatics Facts are mini theories in themselves. | ||
|
EarthServant
United States106 Posts
On December 12 2007 20:39 vusak wrote: There are 2 facets to science in terms of how the concepts 'fact' and 'theory' interact. 1 facet is for non-scientists (ie. those who are distinctly anti-science as well as those who are just not involved/interested in science) Basically for this group, science should be saying fact == theory == fact. All current popular scientific theories are facts and should be accepted as such, because they are the BEST ideas we have on how things are and give the greatest probability of being useful for prediction or engineering or any other application of science. The other facet is for scientists and enthusiasts. For this group, science says fact != theory != fact, because theories change, theories themselves evolve through the pressures of evidence and counter-evidence facilitated by journals, reports, conferences etc. The fundamental distinction between science and non-science is that science accepts improvements on itself and is willing to drop previously held theories in favour of something more useful. So if youre a biologist who doesnt believe in evolution, thats fine. As long as none of your research is predicated on the assumption that creationism is an equally valid theory. On the other hand it wouldnt be so bad having a 100% critic in a research team because they would keep you on your toes, unless they just got preachy and disrupted morale. Uhm, much like the Theory of Gravity, Evolution IS fact. The reason that it is called a Theory is because we don't completely understand every facet of evolution. We know that Evolution occurs, and it can be demonstrated by looking at any rapidly reproducing species. How do you think super resistant staph came into being? Theory basically means that we know something happens or exists, but that not all of the underlying mechanisms have been discovered yet. For instance, you don't need to understand every part of the mechanical workings of your car engine in order for it to start. Just because it isn't understood doesn't make it magical. If you are a biologist who doesn't believe in evolution, you are denying a very important piece of scientific fact that basically guarantees that you cannot work in microbiology. Many parts of the theory are in doubt, but not evolution itself. | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On December 13 2007 00:41 EarthServant wrote: Uhm, much like the Theory of Gravity, Evolution IS fact. This is absolutely wrong. Let me tell you something about gravity. Its a theory. And its probably 90% wrong. All other theories in the past have been wrong. All of them. I've been arguing this point since page 1. Perhaps you should look at the spoiler I left on that page. | ||
|
lugggy
450 Posts
On December 13 2007 01:00 fight_or_flight wrote: This is absolutely wrong. Let me tell you something about gravity. Its a theory. And its probably 90% wrong. All other theories in the past have been wrong. All of them. I've been arguing this point since page 1. Perhaps you should look at the spoiler I left on that page. As already pointed out, a scientific theory is a lot better than a scientific fact. The theory of evolution, though, is not fact. It ties together facts, makes predictions about them, and over time we have seen the theory to be very powerful and never refuted by any facts. Saying evolution is probably 90% wrong seems kind of unfounded though. It's probably 90% right, as things like genetics and fossils have confirmed it. It is a fact that evolution happened and is happening. The exact theory is constantly being revised but evolution itself, however it is happening, clearly is happening and life on earth clearly has been going through this all the way back to single-celled organisms. This is fact, definitely not "probably 90% wrong" as you say. | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
| ||
|
lugggy
450 Posts
| ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On December 13 2007 01:00 fight_or_flight wrote: This is absolutely wrong. Let me tell you something about gravity. Its a theory. And its probably 90% wrong. All other theories in the past have been wrong. All of them. I've been arguing this point since page 1. Perhaps you should look at the spoiler I left on that page. You seem to just love pulling bullshit statistics out of your ass. I'd say you do it 97.365% of the time. There's a 3.259 % margin of error +/-. It's not "absolutely" wrong at all. It's partially wrong at worst. There are aspects of both evolutionary theory and the theory of gravity that are absolutely facts(thats 100% fact, sense you seem to be incapable of communicating ideas outside of numeric %'s). Theories are constantly evolving. They are metaphorically "living". They are not "right" and "wrong" but merely reflect our current understanding of a topic. If new information is discovered, it is incorporated into the theory if the findings continue to support it. If the newly discovered information is found to be creditable and it does not fit into the current theory than the theory is completely restructured and/or abandoned. You're a complete fool if you think all theories of the past have been wrong. I don't see how you could possibly think that if you had any sense in you at all. There is nothing about a "fact" that says it is unreviseable. This is merely fabricated by your own definitions of the word. One that others do not share with you. For hundreds of years neuton's theories were regarded as facts. However in the early 20th century physicists began to discover phenomenon that was not explained by the current neutonian theories. All the sudden the theories were no longer facts but they were not "wrong". They still applied in almost all situations except a very few that involved cosmological equations. This is of course referring to the theory of relativity and the special theory of relativity. The point is, the word fact is no different than saying an extremely well tested theory. If you use the word fact to mean something that is unreviseably true, that will remain true forever, no matter what. Than we would be left with very few facts left in the world. None actually Especially if you consider how little we know about the universe compared to what could be known. fight_or_flight, I suggest you stop starting petty superficial arguments based on the definitions of words and actually discuss something of substance. There is more to a subject than percentages. | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
Anyway, it could be mostly fact and just changing, but if need be we should be able to completely discard it in favor of a different theory. Remember, 100 years ago gravity was a 'force'. Now its not...in another 100 years it could be something else. | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On December 13 2007 01:30 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: fight_or_flight, I suggest you stop starting petty superficial arguments based on the definitions of words and actually discuss something of substance. There is more to a subject than percentages. I used one pseudo-percentage in 10 pages. Anyway, I feel that scientific dogma is very bad, and when it occurs its bad for everybody. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On December 13 2007 01:41 fight_or_flight wrote: I said probably 90% wrong, as in probably mostly wrong. Anyway, it could be mostly fact and just changing, but if need be we should be able to completely discard it in favor of a different theory. Remember, 100 years ago gravity was a 'force'. Now its not...in another 100 years it could be something else. And where are you getting the 90% from? How are you calculating that probability? How are you calculating the >50% probability that you need to make the statement that the 90% is PROBABLY right? Can't you see how full of shit you sound? What about evolution makes it "probably" 90% wrong? Or wrong at all? Yes as I said, neuton's theory has been revised. Mainly due to the discovery that light was being curved when passing near incredibly massive bodies (I believe it was a neutron star, a very massive but not very bright dying star, but I could be wrong on this detail). But guess what? Gravity is STILL A FORCE. Perhaps before you get all high and mighty and start trying to calculate the probability of evolution being correct you might actually want to get the basics down. You can start by learning what the definition of a force is, in physics. Here, I'll help. In physics, force is that which can cause a mass to accelerate. Does gravity cause mass to accelerate? Yes. It's a force. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On December 13 2007 01:44 fight_or_flight wrote: I used one pseudo-percentage in 10 pages. Anyway, I feel that scientific dogma is very bad, and when it occurs its bad for everybody. Scientific dogma is an oxymoron. If someone is actually being scientific they will never be dogmatic. Science is based off evidence. Dogma plays no role in science. Oh, and pseudo-percentage is an interesting way of saying "something I completely made up with no reasoning or solid grounds to back it up with". | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
GSL Code S
Rogue vs GuMiho
Maru vs Solar
Online Event
Replay Cast
GSL Code S
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs Bunny
The PondCast
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
SOOP
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
