124 replies to this topic

[Spock_the_Future]

HerNibs, on 01 February 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

Ummm... ok.    I thought it was just an example.

Fact is - "theory" and "scientific theory" are two different things and are not interchangeable.  

Nibs

Hi Nibs,

Facts are whose facts ? Yours or mine or those two scientific group's ? Do you consider that there is a source of reasons for scientific lobbies endorsing theories as facts ? We never took part or were actively involved in them. What does prompt us to take them as facts ? This is what the thread is about in the end, isn't it ? Or should we start with my fact is a theory with you and so is yours with mine and we can talk ?

You tell me ?

Edited by Spock_the_Future, 01 February 2012 - 08:49 PM.

[HerNibs]

Spock_the_Future, on 01 February 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

Hi Nibs,

Facts are whose facts ? Yours or mine or those two scientific group's ? Do you consider that there is a source of reasons for scientific lobbies endorsing theories as facts ? We never took part or were actively involved in them. What does prompt us to take them as facts ? This is what the thread is about in the end, isn't it ? Or should we start with my fact is a theory with you and so is yours with mine and we can talk ?

You tell me ?

Well, I'm talking about this kind of "fact"

Quote

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts

If it's a scientific fact, I can test and verify it.

I disagree with what this thread is about.  IMO it's about a confusion on the difference between a "scientific theory" and the misapplied term "theory" as in an idea.

Some on can lobby something as a scientific theory all they want but in the end, with proper testing and verification/falsification it will come out in the end if it is false.

A "scientific theory" has nothing to do with motivation or emotion, it just is.

Nibs

[Spock_the_Future]

HerNibs, on 01 February 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

If it's a scientific fact, I can test and verify it.
Nibs

Well then we can agree to disagree. You say "If it's a scientific fact, I can test and verify it." and I say "I'll say even a law is a theory when someone sitting in a lab(actually CERN, which as a science believer you would be able to verify is one of the best scientific labs in the whole world) is able to throw a faster then light particle then what is there to a proven law ?".

Speed of light used to be an undisputed, verified scientific fact. "Used to be" is the operative word here.

Anyway as we both would say in the end(so it seems). We still agree to disagree. Agree on this one ?  

[ninjadude]

Doug1o29, on 01 February 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

Evolution rests firmly on the Doctrine of Uniformity, which basically says that no forces operate in this universe that have not always operated in it.  In order for things like continental drift to occur, immense quantites of time are required.  But there is no way to prove deductively that such huge amounts of time have transpired.

Sure we do. Radioactive half life. And rock layers. Unless you're claiming that radioactive decay is not constant. Then we have much bigger problems. Of course that doesn't apply to biological specimens. But fossils are found in specific rock layers corresponding to specific time periods using stratigraphic principles and geochronology. The rocks are aged based on specific half life using Radiometric dating source

[FurthurBB]

Spock_the_Future, on 01 February 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

Well then we can agree to disagree. You say "If it's a scientific fact, I can test and verify it." and I say "I'll say even a law is a theory when someone sitting in a lab(actually CERN, which as a science believer you would be able to verify is one of the best scientific labs in the whole world) is able to throw a faster then light particle then what is there to a proven law ?".

Speed of light used to be an undisputed, verified scientific fact. "Used to be" is the operative word here.

Anyway as we both would say in the end(so it seems). We still agree to disagree. Agree on this one ?  

Maybe this will help a bit with your understanding http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm
Also, both of those papers you are talking about with the wine are clinical studies which are a lot different than laboratory experiments.  Also, red wine is good for you in a lot of ways, it helps keep your arteries clearer so you are less likely to build arterial plaques, it thins your blood which is good for high blood pressure and can ward off certain heart problems, and it is full of antioxidants which pick up free oxygen radicals that can lead to cancer and other cellular malfunctions.  Although, red wine contains alcohol which is bad for you because it causes liver and kidney damage, crosses the blood brain barrier, can complicate many illnesses and have dangerous interactions with prescription medications,causes dehydration, and if you drink enough can tie up your NAD+ and NADH+ stores which are essential electron carriers in many cellular processes.  So it is accurate to say that red wine is good for you, it is also accurate to say that red wine is bad for you.  It depends on the context as well as what is being studied.

[Spock_the_Future]

FurthurBB, on 01 February 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

Maybe this will help a bit with your understanding http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm
Also, both of those papers you are talking about with the wine are clinical studies which are a lot different than laboratory experiments.  Also, red wine is good for you in a lot of ways, it helps keep your arteries clearer so you are less likely to build arterial plaques, it thins your blood which is good for high blood pressure and can ward off certain heart problems, and it is full of antioxidants which pick up free oxygen radicals that can lead to cancer and other cellular malfunctions.  Although, red wine contains alcohol which is bad for you because it causes liver and kidney damage, crosses the blood brain barrier, can complicate many illnesses and have dangerous interactions with prescription medications,causes dehydration, and if you drink enough can tie up your NAD+ and NADH+ stores which are essential electron carriers in many cellular processes.  So it is accurate to say that red wine is good for you, it is also accurate to say that red wine is bad for you.  It depends on the context as well as what is being studied.

The link you provided I found this interesting "no exceptions have been found to a law.". A few centuries ago the law was that Earth was flat and we couldn't fly. I hope that you would agree that Laws change all the time (in between scores of years, although with much protestations from then and there established scientists).

Wine, Yes it's Good and Bad, It's a scientific study for now and then can you predict what they will say about the Human body and mind 150 years down the line ? Will today's law hold as the laws made 150 years later ? Will the laws not change ?

edit: forgot to add the word Wine   , well it is something isn't it, Wine I mean  

Edited by Spock_the_Future, 01 February 2012 - 11:39 PM.

[ninjadude]

Spock_the_Future, on 01 February 2012 - 11:37 PM, said:

The link you provided I found this interesting "no exceptions have been found to a law.". A few centuries ago the law was that Earth was flat and we couldn't fly. I hope that you would agree that Laws change all the time (in between scores of years, although with much protestations from then and there established scientists).

No. First of all it was never generally accepted that the earth was flat. That's just wrong. Second, it was never a scientific law. Third, there was never any law about not flying. Where do you get this stuff? SCientific laws do not change.

[Copasetic]

Spock_the_Future, on 01 February 2012 - 11:37 PM, said:

The link you provided I found this interesting "no exceptions have been found to a law.". A few centuries ago the law was that Earth was flat and we couldn't fly. I hope that you would agree that Laws change all the time (in between scores of years, although with much protestations from then and there established scientists).

Wine, Yes it's Good and Bad, It's a scientific study for now and then can you predict what they will say about the Human body and mind 150 years down the line ? Will today's law hold as the laws made 150 years later ? Will the laws not change ?

edit: forgot to add the word Wine   , well it is something isn't it, Wine I mean  

Spock, you are very confused about the terms you are using. I'd suggest reading some of the links provided in these two topics.  A law is a statistical phenomena observed to be true, in other words its an empirical observation. Described mathematically. A scientific law tells you what happens, not how or why--A scientific does the two latter.

[Magicjax]

The OP is about the fact the deprecate definitions of the word "theory". How many use the wrong definition when it comes to evolution. Some people say things like "I don't believe evolution because it's just a theory and no one has proved it". In this statement they are using the wrong definition of the word theory. They think the word implies that it's just an idea someone had and hasn't tested to varify the idea yet. But that's not the case. It has been tested, varified, used to to benefit other studies because it's predictable enough to be useful.

The definition of the word theory in this sentence:
"the theory of evolution"

Does not have the same meaning as it would if I was doing a card trick and said:
"I have a theory that you're thinking of the jack of clubs".

The two words, although spelled and pronounced the same, have different meanings.

So my question in the OP was, or maybe the point I wanted to make. Was that I wish they used two different words instead of the same word with different meanings. To late now but anyway. That's what it was about.

[Spock_the_Future]

Hi All,

Okay people I stand corrected   . Just so that I can say I understand your point, by what you are telling me, The speed of light is a proven fact (and as a law It is the maximum attainable speed) and if something is found to be faster than it (with the new tests and all that), then its another theory converted to law which will specify the new maximum attainable speed. Am I correct ?

[FurthurBB]

Spock_the_Future, on 01 February 2012 - 11:37 PM, said:

The link you provided I found this interesting "no exceptions have been found to a law.". A few centuries ago the law was that Earth was flat and we couldn't fly. I hope that you would agree that Laws change all the time (in between scores of years, although with much protestations from then and there established scientists).

Wine, Yes it's Good and Bad, It's a scientific study for now and then can you predict what they will say about the Human body and mind 150 years down the line ? Will today's law hold as the laws made 150 years later ? Will the laws not change ?

edit: forgot to add the word Wine   , well it is something isn't it, Wine I mean  

No, those were never laws.  Religious people thought the world was flat and people always thought we could fly.  Laws do not change.  There are no laws about wine and biology is pretty lawless all around, except when it comes to physics and chemicals.

[FurthurBB]

Spock_the_Future, on 02 February 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

Hi All,

Okay people I stand corrected   . Just so that I can say I understand your point, by what you are telling me, The speed of light is a proven fact (and as a law It is the maximum attainable speed) and if something is found to be faster than it (with the new tests and all that), then its another theory converted to law which will specify the new maximum attainable speed. Am I correct ?

Not really, theories do not become laws.  Also, the laws involved in special relativity would not necessarily need to be broken even if it is found that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light.  There are too many unanswered questions right now, including if the neutrinos actually traveled faster than the speed of light.

[Spock_the_Future]

FurthurBB, on 02 February 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

Not really, theories do not become laws.  

You are kidding me right ? Nothing can go faster then the speed of light is a theorized equation by Einstein, proven later on(I was not there with them when it was proven   , only saw the later studies), had a episode of Cosmos by Carl Sagan based on it and so on and so forth. I guess I really don't understand the point you people are trying me make. Too Naive of me    

Well can someone tell me where I am getting the definitions mixed up and getting it all wrong.

Edit: Spelling... Sorry !!  

Edited by Spock_the_Future, 02 February 2012 - 07:44 PM.

[Copasetic]

Spock_the_Future, on 02 February 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

You are kidding me right ? Nothing can go faster then the speed of light is a theorized equation by Einstein, proven later on(I was not there with them when it was proven   , only saw the later studies), had a episode of Cosmos by Carl Sagan based on it and so on and so forth. I guess I really don't understand the point you people are trying me make. Too Naive of me    

Well can someone tell me where I am getting the definitions mixed up and getting it all wrong.

Edit: Spelling... Sorry !!  

People have, you're not listening. The usage of the words "theory, law, hypothesis, fact" have been covered extensively in these two topics.

Theories in science don't sit around waiting to get "proved" and made into laws--Ever. Theories in science will always be theories and are more powerful than laws. They explain how and why. They are supported by lots of evidence from various lines of study.

Laws in science are statistical summations of the behavior of a system or phenomena. They are simply "observed to be true" whenever we observe the system or phenomena in question. We don't know necessarily why they are true, we just observe they are. Because of this they can normally be expressed mathematically. Laws tell you what is going to happen.

Please go back and read these two topics and follow some of the wonderful links that have been posted.

[HerNibs]

Scientific Law

Quote

A scientific law is a statement that explains what something does in science just like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning. As well, factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered to be too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing scientific laws from principles that arise merely accidentally because of the constant conjunction of one thing and another.[1]

Law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc.

Nibs