Science, Metaphysics, and "God of the Gaps" Arguments

[leibowde84]

a theory is an explanation
renote my signature

Yes, but a "scientific theory" (what we are actually talking about) is an explanation that has been confirmed through repeated experimentation and observation.

 

[Thief]

Yes, but a "scientific theory" (what we are actually talking about) is an explanation that has been confirmed through repeated experimentation and observation.

I played this discussion to a fellow toolmaker.....last night....
He may not meet your standard....whatever that is....

but he did understand what I was saying...
and he understands what you are saying...

and he agreed with me.

it's all a good guess until you are sure
then it's a fact....it's a law....

when I quoted wiki it was to point out the same thing you do....theory and fact are the same thing
theory is good until you disprove it.
that puts the burden to the wrong side of the fence.

my fellow skilled laborman is not fooled by this.

and you are

 

[leibowde84]

I played this discussion to a fellow toolmaker.....last night....
He may not meet your standard....whatever that is....

but he did understand what I was saying...
and he understands what you are saying...

and he agreed with me.

it's all a good guess until you are sure
then it's a fact....it's a law....

when I quoted wiki it was to point out the same thing you do....theory and fact are the same thing
theory is good until you disprove it.
that puts the burden to the wrong side of the fence.

my fellow skilled laborman is not fooled by this.

and you are

Can you try to be a bit more clear and rewrite this. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Can you just explain what you mean rather than being so vague? I need specifics as to what you are trying to say here.

 

[leibowde84]

I played this discussion to a fellow toolmaker.....last night....
He may not meet your standard....whatever that is....

but he did understand what I was saying...
and he understands what you are saying...

and he agreed with me.

it's all a good guess until you are sure
then it's a fact....it's a law....

when I quoted wiki it was to point out the same thing you do....theory and fact are the same thing
theory is good until you disprove it.
that puts the burden to the wrong side of the fence.

my fellow skilled laborman is not fooled by this.

and you are

"Confirmed" does not mean "surety". Is that where you are getting held up? Just because a thoery is confirmed through repeated experimentation and observation doesn't mean that it is certain.

And, how do you keep on forgetting the section of the wiki article you cited where it says that theories remain theories, and never become "laws", no matter how sure we are about them.

Also, why would the opinion of a laborman be relevant when we are discussing a scientific term and how it is used in the scientific community?

 

[leibowde84]

I played this discussion to a fellow toolmaker.....last night....
He may not meet your standard....whatever that is....

but he did understand what I was saying...
and he understands what you are saying...

and he agreed with me.

it's all a good guess until you are sure
then it's a fact....it's a law....

when I quoted wiki it was to point out the same thing you do....theory and fact are the same thing
theory is good until you disprove it.
that puts the burden to the wrong side of the fence.

my fellow skilled laborman is not fooled by this.

and you are

And, one more thing. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but, at this point, I don't think you deserve it. Did you really discuss the wrong term "theory" with your friend rather than discussing the actual term in question, "scientific theory"? Because that would be just about the most frustratingly stupid thing in the world, after the extent that so many people on RF have repeatedly showed you taht "theory" and "scientific theory" are two different terms with two different meanings.

So, which term did you discuss with your friend? "Theory" or "scientific theory"?

 

[Thief]

And, one more thing. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but, at this point, I don't think you deserve it. Did you really discuss the wrong term "theory" with your friend rather than discussing the actual term in question, "scientific theory"? Because that would be just about the most frustratingly stupid thing in the world, after the extent that so many people on RF have repeatedly showed you taht "theory" and "scientific theory" are two different terms with two different meanings.

So, which term did you discuss with your friend? "Theory" or "scientific theory"?

as we have done here....the comparison was made.
he understood

 

[leibowde84]

as we have done here....the comparison was made.
he understood

Can you just answer the question directly, please? I have no idea what this means. What term did you discuss? I ask because I have no issue with your definition of the word "theory", as used in common language. My point this whole time is that you don't seem to understand what the term "scientific theory" means. So, which term did you discuss with your friend?

 

[Thief]

Can you just answer the question directly, please? I have no idea what this means. What term did you discuss? I ask because I have no issue with your definition of the word "theory", as used in common language. My point this whole time is that you don't seem to understand what the term "scientific theory" means. So, which term did you discuss with your friend?

as we have done here....terms as we have used here.....

I have a firm discipline in argument.
I made your point to him....as you have done here.

he agreed with me.

ALL of theory is just explanation
supporting an explanation with an experiment is fine.

if you do so sufficiently the guess work is gone.
the known cause is then associated to a known effect.

then it is no longer a theory

 

[leibowde84]

as we have done here....terms as we have used here.....

I have a firm discipline in argument.
I made your point to him....as you have done here.

he agreed with me.

ALL of theory is just explanation
supporting an explanation with an experiment is fine.

if you do so sufficiently the guess work is gone.
the known cause is then associated to a known effect.

then it is no longer a theory

So, are the scientific theories of relativity (general and special) not a theories, as they have been confirmed to such a high degree?

 

[leibowde84]

as we have done here....terms as we have used here.....

I have a firm discipline in argument.
I made your point to him....as you have done here.

he agreed with me.

ALL of theory is just explanation
supporting an explanation with an experiment is fine.

if you do so sufficiently the guess work is gone.
the known cause is then associated to a known effect.

then it is no longer a theory

Or, what about these? https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/top-10-revolutionary-scientific-theories

 

[Thief]

all through this I have been hoping to resolve....
people simply keep using the term....after the fact......literally

 

[leibowde84]

all through this I have been hoping to resolve....
people simply keep using the term....after the fact......literally

Not sure what this means either. Can you rephrase?

 

[Thief]

Not sure what this means either. Can you rephrase?

I can quote a source....
evolution is a theory and a fact

it is a common source.
and for cause of it's extensive use....the words are becoming 'inappropriate'
and you would think intelligent people would spot the misuse.

facts are proven.
theories can be proven....and when they are....they become fact.

knowing a fact without experiment?....yes you can
Albert likely KNEW his 'theory' to be a fact
I don't think he did ANY experiment before making pronouncement.

decades went by .....and then a repeatable experiment was done

at that point the Theory of Relativity should have graduated to the LAW of Relativity.

but people like their word games

 

[Skwim]

So do want to hear a more logical and reasonable explanation for the universe,,,and even imho more scientific?

Sure. Shoot!

If it came out of something then "God" is one of many possibilities, most of which we haven't even thought of yet.

Yup, but for obvious reasons god is one of the possibilities that doesn't interest science, .

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sure. Shoot!

There was never a beginning... By proposing a beginning....science is left with the need to theorize a miracle of creation in order to explain where all this energy and matter came from... However if energy and matter are theorized to be really real in the sense of being indestructible as science actually knows it to be in fact, then it has been around forever being recycled... In fact there are a growing number of scientists proposing a multiverse or some such that presupposes preexisting material and thus avoids the need for a miracle creation that pops into existence for no known reason and by no known mechanism...

 

[Skwim]

There was never a beginning... By proposing a beginning....science is left with the need to theorize a miracle of creation in order to explain where all this energy and matter came from... However if energy and matter are theorized to be really real in the sense of being indestructible as science actually knows it to be in fact, then it has been around forever being recycled... In fact there are a growing number of scientists proposing a multiverse or some such that presupposes preexisting material and thus avoids the need for a miracle creation that pops into existence for no known reason and by no known mechanism...

Nice, but all the evidence points to everything in the universe, spacetime and matter, having come from a single spot, a spot so small it's called a singularity. That it cannot be explained does not mean science is going to throw in the towel and call it a miracle. What science does is to continue to go wherever the evidence takes them. And if, for some inexplicable reason, it leads them away from the singularity and toward something on the order you suggest then so be it. However, as of now it does not. So, while alternative explanations may sound inviting, the evidence of their possible viability just isn't there, which is why they're not pursued. As for the possibility of multiverses, yes it has been suggested, just as quantum mechanical formulas employing up to 24 dimensions have been suggested to create a Grand Unified Theory. However, science is nowhere near adopting either. Much, much more work, a lot of it mathematical, needs to be done.

So, yeah, science is struggling, struggling a lot, particularly with all the new subatomic particles popping up, but it is learning, and maybe we will never now much at all about the singularity, but if that's the case then that's the case. Science isn't about to settle for any feel-good solution that isn't based on reasonable evidence. It would much rather say: We don't know.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nice, but all the evidence points to everything in the universe, spacetime and matter, having come from a single spot, a spot so small it's called a singularity. That it cannot be explained does not mean science is going to throw in the towel and call it a miracle. What science does is to continue to go wherever the evidence takes them. And if, for some inexplicable reason, it leads them away from the singularity and toward something on the order you suggest then so be it. However, as of now it does not. So, while alternative explanations may sound inviting, the evidence of their possible viability just isn't there, which is why they're not pursued. As for the possibility of multiverses, yes it has been suggested, just as quantum mechanical formulas employing up to 24 dimensions have been suggested to create a Grand Unified Theory. However, science is nowhere near adopting either. Much, much more work, a lot of it mathematical, needs to be done.

So, yeah, science is struggling, struggling a lot, particularly with all the new subatomic particles popping up, but it is learning, and maybe we will never now much at all about the singularity, but if that's the case then that's the case. Science isn't about to settle for any feel-good solution that isn't based on reasonable evidence. It would much rather say: We don't know.

But the singularity pops up into existence for no known reason....of course science won't admit to this as being a miracle...they just say there is no way of ever knowing.....but to me it fits the definition of a miracle.... I was not saying anything about the conditions, cycles, or anything else about an eternal universe...just that it logically must be eternal....

 

[Skwim]

But the singularity pops up into existence for no known reason

Don't know that it popped into existence at all. The singularity may have existed for trillions of billions of years and then for whatever reason, Big Banged.

....of course science won't admit to this as being a miracle...they just say there is no way of ever knowing.

No they don't say there is no way of ever knowing. What they say is, We don't know now, and perhaps never will.

....but to me it fits the definition of a miracle.... I was not saying anything about the conditions, cycles, or anything else about an eternal universe...just that it logically must be eternal....

Okay, if that's what your logic tells you, so be it.

 

[McBell]

Okay, if that's what your logic tells you, so be it.

I agree it can be considered a miracle:

miracle
1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
3 Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law​

.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Don't know that it popped into existence at all. The singularity may have existed for trillions of billions of years and then for whatever reason, Big Banged.

No they don't say there is no way of ever knowing. What they say is, We don't know now, and perhaps never will.

Okay, if that's what your logic tells you, so be it.

Wait...how did this singularity that may have existed for trillions of years come to exist in the first place? Shoving it further back in time does not solve the problem of the creation epoch. It has to pop into existence at some point....unless of course you and science consider the singularity as eternal and thus does not have a beginning...