darkanhell, I respectfully disagree. If a hypothesis has been proven then it is done, if it can change with new data then it is not fact. Example , and I know this is simplistic, at one time the prevailing theory was that if you eat eggs then your cholesterol goes up and you die earlier, but now the theory is eggs aren't as bad. Theory is a fancy word the scientific community uses for "I'm guessing". Whereas a law such as the law of gravity is just that a law, a fact. It cannot change. It is in effect 100% of the time and it does not matter how much data is collected it is still the same.
11
deleted
· 8 years ago
No. A theory fits our world and can predict events. It just gets better with more data. It doesn't change, it gets more accurate.
Eating eggs was a hypothesis, not a theory.
It can get better, but if there is found to be a major flaw in one aspect of the theory, it will be replaced by a theory better fitting it, or it will be reworked to account for the new data.
A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. (Made with observations from the senses. (Means we can't blame ghosts or god or anything supernatural))
5
deleted
· 8 years ago
..and how does that defer from my description, exactly?
I am addressing the other guest, I also respectfully disagree with your assertion. Especially in the Evolutionary theory department. That particular theory has so many holes and inconsistencies in it that it really should not be taught. Marginal research will show the myriad of logical flaws in that theory and the only reason I can logically think that it is still being taught is that it is being propped up by people who are at the very least intellectually dishonest. That is part of the issue I have with the whole "scientific theory" story. A lot of theories that should have been thrown out ages ago keep on existing because of peoples agendas. If we are going to have scientific research let us have pure research without the emotional involvement.
^^ this!
Science should be updated immediately, with theories that are known to be wrong thrown out. Yet for some mysterious reason, this does not happen, I think mostly because of people's hidden agendas.
1
deleted
· 8 years ago
And i repeat: Scientifical theories are *not* hypothesis. A theory has evidence backing it up, a hypothesis is something you believe it could be, but is still yet to be confirmed.
THEORIES ARE BACKED BY DATA. THEY GET BETTER, THEY AREN'T MADE UP.
Jesus..(ha, ironically) (and inb4 "but faith is compatible with science, hur durr". Get the fucking joke).
To the other guest, on the whole I agree with you that these theories will do until something better comes along but my issue is primarily that egos get in the way and the better theories are buried.
Each of these theories are true (as far as we can observe today). But only if by "Evolution" they mean "micro-evolution". The other 5 types of evolution are not fact, just a world view. Define the type of evolution before labelling the whole overarching group as true. If Newton were wrong about a sigle part of his theory of gravity, for example, it would call into question the legitimacy of his whole theory. So why is "evolution" falsely labelled as undeniable fact when an enormous portion of it is just hypothesized faith? And even then, why is it called undeniable fact? Isn't it one of the major tools of science to come up with opposing theories that can disprove old ones? That advances our understanding. Ignorantly clinging to old theories does not.
All of these except evolution have been proven without flaws. Evolution has too many faults and can be disproven. Therefore, it is not a fact. You may believe it to be truth, but with evidence against it, there is no way that it can be a fact.
It cannot be proven because it is not observable, testable, repeatable or predictable, unlike the other three. Therefore it is a historical belief, which can be guessed as correct, based on scientific facts we can observe, like fossils. The guess may be wrong because it is not a scientific fact. I would say it is wrong, and that the Creation model fits the evidence much better than Evolution. But both are world views; based on faith.
The concept of the "Big Bang" can be disproven with just the knowledge that according to the laws of physics, all projectiles in an explosion spin the same direction. There are some planets that spin in the opposite direction. The "Big Bang" is a fallacy.
Not only that, the matter from the Big Bang must have travelled faster than the speed of light to account for the uniform background radiation we observe today. By definition, that is a supernatural event: it is not possible within the natural laws.
In science, theories can actually never really be proved to be true, although it is very likely that they are true because of repeated experimentation and data. A theory can really only be falsified and you can never be absolutely 100% certain that the something is the cause of something else. I'm not really disagreeing- it's just something to think about...
Look, I believe in Christ and science. I believe that he created these things the scientific way so we can discover these things and so he doesn't have to take constant care of the earth so he made things like trees which constantly produce the things we breath. But that wouldn't happen without the carbon dioxide we breath out.
No,no,no!! It is Quantum Theory!! The Evolutionary theory!! Theory is a theory, it is something postulated but not proven. That is why it is called the LAW of gravity not the theory of gravity.
▼
deleted
· 8 years ago
Nope. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that *has been proven*.
The main difference between a law and a theory is just that a law isn't supposed - or expected- to change with new data.
A theory on the other hand, while we know it is true, it's expected to change/refine itself with new data and evidence.
Prett much (yep, other guest here). Technically, a theory may not be "true", but it fits and predicts everything that has been observed in our world, so that we have no better conceivable tool to imagine the world.
The law of gravity is part of newtonian mechanics (or classical mechanics), a "theory" that has never failed to describe and predict the physical world, until we discovered that, at the atomic level, shit happens. Thus, quantum mechanics were derived, and they even explain why we never see their effects in our macroscopic world, ie why classical mechanics are still valid. To this day, nothing contradicts these theories.
In the same way, nothing contradicts the theory of evolution (I mean nothing we have observed or quantified, our opinions/faith are powerless here).
All theories cited here have never been proven wrong, not even "insufficient", by any scienfitic data. Maybe "reality" is more complex, but our theories perfectly fit everything we know about the Universe.
Just to, well, kind of conclude my point : "Is a given theory actually true?" can be a philosophical, even metaphysical, question. But the answer to "Has anyone even thought of a better explanation to what we know?" is no.
Are quantum mechanics a "fact"? We don't know. They most probably are the best tool human intelligence can create to describe and predict what we humans know of the world, but maybe we only perceive part of what exists, thus quantum mechanics are part of the "real" explanation. This is a huge metaphysical question, and scientists working on quantum mechanics and string theory have this question in mind, but out physical theories are the "truest explanations" we can give.
The theory of evolution, on the other hand, has probability zero to be wrong, because any other explanation for everything we know about living beings throughout history would be incredibly convoluted, more so than we can imagine, and perhaps not even coherent.
Eating eggs was a hypothesis, not a theory.
Science should be updated immediately, with theories that are known to be wrong thrown out. Yet for some mysterious reason, this does not happen, I think mostly because of people's hidden agendas.
THEORIES ARE BACKED BY DATA. THEY GET BETTER, THEY AREN'T MADE UP.
Jesus..(ha, ironically) (and inb4 "but faith is compatible with science, hur durr". Get the fucking joke).
The main difference between a law and a theory is just that a law isn't supposed - or expected- to change with new data.
A theory on the other hand, while we know it is true, it's expected to change/refine itself with new data and evidence.
The law of gravity is part of newtonian mechanics (or classical mechanics), a "theory" that has never failed to describe and predict the physical world, until we discovered that, at the atomic level, shit happens. Thus, quantum mechanics were derived, and they even explain why we never see their effects in our macroscopic world, ie why classical mechanics are still valid. To this day, nothing contradicts these theories.
In the same way, nothing contradicts the theory of evolution (I mean nothing we have observed or quantified, our opinions/faith are powerless here).
All theories cited here have never been proven wrong, not even "insufficient", by any scienfitic data. Maybe "reality" is more complex, but our theories perfectly fit everything we know about the Universe.
Are quantum mechanics a "fact"? We don't know. They most probably are the best tool human intelligence can create to describe and predict what we humans know of the world, but maybe we only perceive part of what exists, thus quantum mechanics are part of the "real" explanation. This is a huge metaphysical question, and scientists working on quantum mechanics and string theory have this question in mind, but out physical theories are the "truest explanations" we can give.
The theory of evolution, on the other hand, has probability zero to be wrong, because any other explanation for everything we know about living beings throughout history would be incredibly convoluted, more so than we can imagine, and perhaps not even coherent.