Well, it's obvious that you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Therefore, I refer you to
Is Gravity a Theory or a Law? | The Happy Scientist , which explains the difference between a theory and a law.
By the definition in that article, then, the 'theory' of general relativity should be the 'law' of general relativity. it is a mathematical description of how things work.
And the point is that the distinction between 'law' and 'theory' is a false one. Newton's 'law' of gravity was found to be wrong in detail and was replaced by a better description. That better description is called the 'Theory of general relativity'. But, the new description is also mathematical in nature. It is general and allows for detailed predictions of what will happen.
Well, that sounds great in a textbook, but it doesn't actually work in the real world. A simple look at history shows that there were a lot of back and forth experiments about whether light was a wave or a particle. First one experiment "proved" that it was a wave. Then another experiment "proved" that it was a particle. Now science has given up and admits that they have no idea what light is but that it has elements of both forms.
This is an incorrect description. What we now know is that light is BOTH a wave and a particle. But it is neither a *classical* wave nor a *classical* particle.
Second, it's always possible for a popular theory to avoid falsification by adopting
ad hoc hypotheses to avoid falsification. We need look no further than
Peahens do not prefer peacocks with the best tails which shows that peahens (the female of a peacock) do not prefer peacocks with more elaborate tails. Has Darwin been refuted? Of course not—scientists just theorize that peahens
used to like long tails but now they like masculine throaty growls that are associated with higher testosterone levels. No need to change the theory, or even rethink it really. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and move on.
Which is why predictions should be made *before* the data is collected.
Finally, there's the philosophical problem of underdetermination. Fundamentally, there will always be multiple theories that can explain any dataset. In fact, an infinite number of graphs can be constructed with any given data set. No matter how many you rule out with a new data point, there will still be an infinite number staring you in the face.
Yes. But there are two citeria to be used in this situation: 1. Testability. and 2. Simplicity. We consider any two explanations that give the same predicted observations as being equivalent. And, while philosophers like to go round and round about the iea of 'grue', it turns out that isn't at all how scientists actually work. Again, you miss the logic involved completely.
I doubt that! But let's try it: Show one scientific achievement that was accomplished without the use of math. That ought to be good.
I said it has more justification than your philosophical position. You switched the goalpost.
What you have just said is a positive existential claim. Please provide proof for it.
No, actually, it is not. I did not claim that anything existed.
While you're at it, please provide proof for the claim "Science can explain all natural phenomena, observed and unobserved, past, present and future, without ever having to say 'God did it.'"
Tall order.
As long as it doesn't need to use that hypothesis, there is no reason to consider that hypothesis. I make no claims about future theories.
Yes, but you're forgetting
pessimistic induction. Aristotle had some ideas. They were wrong. Then Newton had some ideas. They were wrong. Now Einstein has some ideas. If history is a good guide, then Einstein's ideas are wrong too.
And they probably are wrong *in detail*. But they still work to a certain level of precision. And that makes them useful. Furthermore, the level of precision keeps getting better. While Newton's ideas worked to a certain level of accuracy, Einstein's work to a much higher level of accuracy. Even if they are wrong, they still work to that level of accuracy in those domains where they have been tested.
So what you're basically saying is that wrong ideas can still be useful. But two minutes later someone's going to say, "Our theory is so useful that it must be correct!"
No, someone will say that we have a great deal of confidence in them in those domains where they have been tested.
So, for example, I could ask whether the number pi is 3.141592653589793. If I am working for NASA, the answer is that it is close enough for all possible uses I will encounter. In that sense, it is correct. But, if I am talking to a mathematician, the answer is incorrect because pi is an irrational number and I gave a rational number.
Nothing in science claims to be *absolutely* correct. Nothing. But it *can* be correct to a certain level of accuracy. So, it *is* correct to say, even for a mathematician, that pi is 3.141592653589793 to 15 decimal places of accuracy. And, if you are doing work that only requires 4 decimal places of accuracy, then it is a perfectly good, even excessive, value to use for your calculations.
So, when someone says that a scientific result is correct, they mean it is correct to a certain level of accuracy, usually to the degree we have been able to test so far. That doesn't mean absolutel correctness.
You can't have it both ways, mate.
See above.
You're mixing your metaphors, mate. Are you about verification or falsification?
Falsification to eliminate wrong ideas and verification to delineate the degree of confidence in areas of applicability. Both are required and good to have.
Sure. Science has 0 known true theories and large numbers of known false theories. What does that say about science's track record?
Science is getting more and more accurate over time. What does that say about its track record?
Well, no, you know nothing of the sort, but let's assume (for the sake of argument) that you did. What would that imply? Certainly far less than you think. I see posts all that time that run something like this: Bacteria X could not synthesize tryptophan. It was placed in a tryptophan-poor environment. It developed a method of synthesizing tryptophan. Conclusion: Since bacteria can learn to synthesize tryptophan, fish can learn to walk on land and breathe.
Nope. What is shows is that beneficial mutations are possible. Since there is a claim that they are impossible among creationists, the demonstration of beneficial mutations is a relevant point.
That fish can learn to walk and breathe is better dealt with via the fossil record, actual examples of fish today, and other methods.
Isn't that kind of a leap? Experiments with bacteria X might (or might not) tell you things about bacteria X. These experiments are not necessarily even transferable to bacteria Y much less to fish. Yet I am constantly forced to endure inane logic such as this. It tends to exasperate.
And yes, further testing is required concerning how things work in fish. I am not claiming otherwise. But, when different organisms use similar processes in their genetics, that *does* increase the confidence level that transfer from one species to another is possible. Over time, we even learn *which* things are transferable by more extensive testing.
Okay, first of all, the Earth does not go around the Sun. This is a convenient fiction invented by your high school teacher to simplify the actual movement of the Sun and the Earth. In reality, no one knows what goes around what. Only relative motion can be described. Additionally, all items in the solar system are theorized to go around the
barycenter of the solar system, but even this is ridiculous because the Sun is moving around the barycenter of the Milky Way Galaxy at such an incredible speed that describing movement inside the solar system as though it were an inertial frame of reference is laughable. And that doesn't include the idea that our galaxy is zooming away from other galaxies (or maybe they are zooming away from us) at such a rate of speed that light (apparently) can't even keep up.
And yet, the position that everything goes around the Earth has been falsified. What you have described are modifications of the basic heliocentric system, not negations of it. Nobody is going to go back to the geocentric model. Nor, for that matter, will they go back to the model proposed by Copernicus.
Furthermore, the solar system *does* provide an inertial reference frame to a very high degree of accuracy. It isn't the *velocity* around the center of our galaxy that is relevant for whether the frame is inertial, it is the *acceleration*. And, while the velocity is moderate, the acceleration is quite low. So, unless you want a great deal of accuracy, using the solar system as an inertial frame is good enough.
