Evolution - a very bad joke...

[Magic Man]

There never is with faith based belief.

It's very simple. In science "theory" is used to describe one thing, and "law" is used to describe another thing. The difference between the two things is not the degree of certainty. Seriously, read a science book sometime.

 

[Meow Mix]

Because those are the uses of the scientific terms. There is no logical argument necessary. A scientific theory isn't just a law that has less evidence or is less certain; it's a different animal altogether. That's why gravity is a law and a theory.

There never is with faith based belief.

Revoltingest, you know I <3 you, but mball is right on how the terms are used in science currently :cover:

 

[Revoltingest]

Seriously, read a science book sometime.

So now you presume that you're right because of superior knowledge? Yet you fail to present a logical argument.
I'd wager that I've read far more than you have....but then I don't need to, since I'm not making an argument from authority.

 

[Revoltingest]

Revoltingest, you know I <3 you, but mball is right on how the terms are used in science currently :cover:

I was wondering when you'd weigh in & how. But note that I merely told him that there are more views than his.
Personally, I don't like the term "valid". I look at what is meaningful & useful. Popper's views are disputed by
some, & I cannot say his approach is the only "true" one....tis only that I find his views useful & illuminating.
I pose the same challenge to you: Construct a logical argument from indisputable premises that there is a single valid view.

On a related note, answer these riddles without resorting to google or any reference material:
Which weighs more?
1) An ounce of gold or an ounce of feathers
2) A pound of gold or a pound of feathers
3) A pound of bacon or a pound of feathers

 

[tumbleweed41]

Because those are the uses of the scientific terms. There is no logical argument necessary. A scientific theory isn't just a law that has less evidence or is less certain; it's a different animal altogether. That's why gravity is a law and a theory.

Indeed, for instance.
There is Law of Gravity that states mathematically the precise results of mass and gravity. And there is Gravitational Theory that is filled with Laws, confirmed hypothesis, direct observation, and facts.

Laws are generally immutable.
Theories are descriptive and can change as new objective evidence comes to light.

 

[Magic Man]

How does talking about a scientific unproved theory against a PROVED theory call ignorance in question? The theory of evolution is still not accepted or elevated to a fully accepted theory, though its sacred to some scientists as a belief, and they BELIEVE that evidences will come through, though the validity of those evidences are not established.

This is the ignorance I'm talking about. Science doesn't deal with proof; it deals with evidence. Evolution is a scientific theory concerning many observable facts, and is built on mountains of evidence. It is a fully accepted scientific theory by the entire science community that is associated with biology.

Again, as I said, it's usually good to learn about something before forming opinions. I don't mind someone being ignorant of something, since I'm ignorant of a lot of things, but I don't go around forming opinions on the things I'm ignorant about.

call me all ignorant that you want , of the hypothetically supported scientific derivations looking to be accepted as truths, but the ignorance surrounding evolution begs to be seen as an evasive athiestic driven disputation rather than anything.

I understand you want to believe evolution is all a conspiracy and such, but that's part of the ignorance. If you take the time to actually understand the theory, you'll realize all of your misconceptions, and you'll learn that the theory is fact.

 

[Meow Mix]

I was wondering when you'd weigh in & how. But note that I merely told him that there are more views than his. I'd pose the same challenge to you: Construct a logical argument from indisputable premises that there is a single valid view.

There can be more views for it, just like I can use the word "sock" to mean that thing that goes on my feet or I could use the word "sock" to mean a soaking wet rock.

One of those terms is accepted in common parlance, the other is not and would only sow confusion if I wasn't explicitely clear on what I meant by it.

This is entirely an authoritative thing, you're right, but it's not without purpose; it's just for the sake of clear communication based on a common definition.

For instance would you object if someone were to say "Gravity is just a theory" by pointing out that in science, "theory" means something more than just a guess?

If so, then you would have just made the same authoritative semantic argument that these terms have a specific meaning in the scientific community and that the person should be aware of them. Likewise, in the scientific community, theories are distinguished from laws not because of a disparity in evidence or efficacy but because they're fundamentally different things -- i.e., law of gravity and theory of gravity.

Edit: From your edit, you mentioned Popper -- I agree that there are alternative views, as I am a proponent of confirmation in addition to falsification, so I agree.

As for your riddles, they all weigh the same except for the bacon. It wins. Now gimme some!

 

[Meow Mix]

Indeed, for instance.
There is Law of Gravity that states mathematically the precise results of mass and gravity. And there is Gravitational Theory that is filled with Laws, confirmed hypothesis, direct observation, and facts.

Laws are generally immutable.
Theories are descriptive and can change as new objective evidence comes to light.

Pretty much, but laws aren't necessarily immutable (technically, "the law of gravity" changed when Einstein corrected it... even though socially we still refer to Newton's when we say "the law of gravity," you get what I mean).

Laws are generally mathematical models whereas theories are explanatory models that usually incorporate said laws (theories > laws).

 

[Magic Man]

I was wondering when you'd weigh in & how. But note that I merely told him that there are more views than his. Personally, I don't like the term "valid". I look at what is meaningful & useful. Popper's views are disputed by some, & I cannot say his approach is the only "true" one....tis only that I find his views useful & illuminating. I pose the same challenge to you: Construct a logical argument from indisputable premises that there is a single valid view.

I don't understand what's so hard about this. There is only one valid view because that's the way the terms are meant to be used. If you use them differently, you're using them incorrectly. It's like you're asking me to construct a logical argument that there is only one valid view of what the definition of "water" is. You can have a different view, but you'll be incorrect. If you want to say that water is defined as "a long piece of fabric used to cover the top of a couch", you'd be wrong. If you want to use the scientific terms, theory and law, differently than the real definitions, you'll be wrong.

 

[Meow Mix]

I don't understand what's so hard about this. There is only one valid view because that's the way the terms are meant to be used. If you use them differently, you're using them incorrectly. It's like you're asking me to construct a logical argument that there is only one valid view of what the definition of "water" is. You can have a different view, but you'll be incorrect. If you want to say that water is defined as "a long piece of fabric used to cover the top of a couch", you'd be wrong. If you want to use the scientific terms, theory and law, differently than the real definitions, you'll be wrong.

I wouldn't call it "incorrect" or "wrong" personally, just counterproductive and asinine. Semantics are arbitrary but pragmatism is not. Incidentally, in the "What is Faith" thread, did you happen to catch the post where I quoted Through the Looking Glass? That was epic!

 

[Revoltingest]

There can be more views for it, just like I can use the word "sock" to mean that thing that goes on my feet or I could use the word "sock" to mean a soaking wet rock.

Quibbling.

One of those terms is accepted in common parlance, the other is not and would only sow confusion if I wasn't explicitely clear on what I meant by it.

I agree with your approach.

This is entirely an authoritative thing, you're right, but it's not without purpose; it's just for the sake of clear communication based on a common definition.

Again, I agree.

For instance would you object if someone were to say "Gravity is just a theory" by pointing out that in science, "theory" means something more than just a guess?

I might or might not object, depending upon the intent behind the statement.

If so, then you would have just made the same authoritative semantic argument that these terms have a specific meaning in the scientific community and that the person should be aware of them. Likewise, in the scientific community, theories are distinguished from laws not because of a disparity in evidence or efficacy but because they're fundamentally different things -- i.e., law of gravity and theory of gravity.

I don't dispute your way of understanding the distinction between the 2 words. What I posted
to Mball was that there was another way to view it....a useful one, which is also popular.

I wouldn't call it "incorrect" or "wrong" personally, just counterproductive and asinine.

Must such language be used?

 

[David M]

Counter-examples:
Murphy's Law - it lacks an equation, yet it is a law.

Its not a scientific law.

Examples showing that there is more than one way to view the "law" vs "theory" issue:
Answers.com - In science when does a theory become a law
Who decides exactly that a scientific theory becomes a scientific law? - Yahoo! Answers

The first answer is just flat out wrong and the second does not support your contention.

Scientific Laws do not become Scientific Theories and vice versa.

Scientific Laws define what happens under a defined set of circumstances, Scientific Theories explain why Scientific Laws accurately reflect what happens under those defined set of circumstances.

 

[Magic Man]

I wouldn't call it "incorrect" or "wrong" personally, just counterproductive and asinine. Semantics are arbitrary but pragmatism is not.

Sure, maybe "wrong" isn't the best word for it. What is wrong is contending that the scientific community uses those words in a way other than what you and I have claimed here. If people want to use the words differently, more power to them, but they should at least realize that the scientific community uses them in a very specific way, and what that way is.

I feel like we're in the "faith" thread all over again.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't dispute your way of understanding the distinction between the 2 words. What I posted
to Mball was that there was another way to view it....a useful one, which is also popular.

And there's the rub. The other one is not really useful because it's based on a misunderstanding. I might be popular, but so is belief in God.

 

[Orias]

I don't understand what's so hard about this. There is only one valid view because that's the way the terms are meant to be used. If you use them differently, you're using them incorrectly. It's like you're asking me to construct a logical argument that there is only one valid view of what the definition of "water" is. You can have a different view, but you'll be incorrect. If you want to say that water is defined as "a long piece of fabric used to cover the top of a couch", you'd be wrong. If you want to use the scientific terms, theory and law, differently than the real definitions, you'll be wrong.

That's why there is connotative and dentative definitions of words.

They are labels, simply used to describe an existence, in some cases (not all), one word can describe a thousand thoughts, but it could also be the other way around.

The term perception plays a vital role in this.

You of all people should know this.

 

[Revoltingest]

Its not a scientific law.

It is whimsical in nature, but it is a law nonetheless....a very important law in design & failure mode analysis.

The first answer is just flat out wrong and the second does not support your contention.

Saying it's wrong is not an argument. Tis mere gainsaying.

Scientific Laws do not become Scientific Theories....

Never claimed this. I argue that at one point in history, the special theory of relativity was a theory, but not a law.
After a century or so, it behaves as a law, even though its name still includes the word "theory".

Scientific Laws define what happens under a defined set of circumstances, Scientific Theories explain why Scientific Laws accurately reflect what happens under those defined set of circumstances.

That is a useful definition. But I see no reason to prevent formation of a theory which describes
something & makes predictions without explaining the underlying phenomenon.

 

[Magic Man]

Incidentally, in the "What is Faith" thread, did you happen to catch the post where I quoted Through the Looking Glass? That was epic!

I did. It was fantastic! (I feel I have to mention that the new meanings of the word "epic" are pet peeves of mine. ) Upon reading it, though, I just knew there would be some people who liked it and agreed with it, sadly.

I loved the recent post blatantly doing exactly what we have been talking about all along.

 

[Revoltingest]

And there's the rub. The other one is not really useful because it's based on a misunderstanding. I might be popular, but so is belief in God.

You're very quick to presume that an understanding different from yours is a "misunderstanding".
I would also argue that belief in God is another way to view the universe. Are you arguing that this too is invalid?

 

[Magic Man]

It is whimsical in nature, but it is a law nonetheless....a very important law in design & failure mode analysis.

Wait, you're actually being serious? Wow...

Never claimed this.

What you claimed was the "vice versa".

I argue that at one point in history, the special theory of relativity was a theory, but not a law.
After a century or so, it behaves as a law, even though its name still includes the word "theory".

And that argument is incorrect.

That is a useful definition. But I see no reason to prevent formation of a theory which describes something & makes predictions without explaining the underlying phenomenon.

Only as long as you're not talking about a scientific theory. A scientific theory's whole purpose is to explain the phenomenon.

 

[Revoltingest]

Will no one tell me the "correct" answer for these....

On a related note, answer these riddles without resorting to google or any reference material:
Which weighs more?
1) An ounce of gold or an ounce of feathers
2) A pound of gold or a pound of feathers
3) A pound of bacon or a pound of feathers