Theory....again

[Thief]

Mainly because you clearly do not understand, and yet seem unable to figure it out.

Evolution (for example) is a fact. It can be and has been observed.

Theories explain the facts, they explain what has been proven and demonstrated.

Theory is superior to fact, it is how the facts are explained. Theories do not need to be proven, they explain what has been proven.

Explanations are never superior to fact.

You can explain all you want.
Sooner or later someone will say....prove it.

 

[idav]

I've always heard of it as the law of gravity.

I do believe in evolution.....just have no proof to offer.
Neither do you.

I do say...God is behind it.
Don't have proof for that either.

Yeah law is well established but the newtonian version wasnt enough.

Proof for evolution? There are enough facts to justify the belief. Not sure what it takes in science to make it a law. May as well be a law, there is no other explanation to give it any competition. Theories are falsifiable and evolution cannot be falsified since it came out. Thats a law, there is nothing even to hint that such a law can be violated and us humans have great imaginations we should be able to think of something to falsify it, or its just facts.

 

[Bunyip]

Explanations are never superior to fact.

You can explain all you want.
Sooner or later someone will say....prove it.

Wrong. In science theory is the ultimate graduation point of a body of knowledge, there is nothing higher. And yes, I realise that you could have that explained to you forever and never grasp such a simple concept. Your mind slams shut.

That Theif is a fantastic example of religion damaging the mind and acting as an impermeable barrier to learning.

 

[Thief]

Wrong. In science theory is the ultimate graduation point of a body of knowledge, there is nothing higher. And yes, I realise that you could have that explained to you forever and never grasp such a simple concept. Your mind slams shut.

That Theif is a fantastic example of religion damaging the mind and acting as an impermeable barrier to learning.

Wrong.

Try a quick search.
Read the first item you find.
Try Webster's.

Do something.

 

[Bunyip]

Wrong.

Try a quick search.
Read the first item you find.
Try Webster's.

Do something.

I hate to think how many times you have bee told this, but take your own advice buddy and look up 'scientific theory', you are wrong.

Theory is the highest status possible for a body of knowledge in science. Evolution is an observable fact, the ToE explains the facts.

 

[Thief]

Yeah law is well established but the newtonian version wasnt enough.

Proof for evolution? There are enough facts to justify the belief. Not sure what it takes in science to make it a law. May as well be a law, there is no other explanation to give it any competition. Theories are falsifiable and evolution cannot be falsified since it came out. Thats a law, there is nothing even to hint that such a law can be violated and us humans have great imaginations we should be able to think of something to falsify it, or its just facts.

A good explanation will hold ground and become popular.
without proof.

I don't mind that.

What this thread is about is the definition.

Theory is speculation.....not proof.
Theory is conjecture....not proof.
Theory is anything OTHER THAN proof.

It's good stuff....but never a trump card.

 

[Bunyip]

A good explanation will hold ground and become popular.
without proof.

I don't mind that.

What this thread is about is the definition.

Theory is speculation.....not proof.
Theory is conjecture....not proof.
Theory is anything OTHER THAN proof.

It's good stuff....but never a trump card.

Now look up 'SCIENTIFIC THEORY'. It is not conjecture or speculation and explains what has been proven.

(And dont fret - both you and I know perfectly well the difference between the common english meaning of 'theory' and the meaning of 'scientific theory', I understand that your faith obliges you to pretend otherwise.)

 

[idav]

A good explanation will hold ground and become popular.
without proof.

I don't mind that.

What this thread is about is the definition.

Theory is speculation.....not proof.
Theory is conjecture....not proof.
Theory is anything OTHER THAN proof.

It's good stuff....but never a trump card.

You illuminated what its about. You want evolution to be called a hypothesis. Its more than that. Call it what you want, context is your friend.

 

[Thief]

Now look up 'SCIENTIFIC THEORY'. It is not conjecture or speculation and explains what has been proven.

(And dont fret - both you and I know perfectly well the difference between the common english meaning of 'theory' and the meaning of 'scientific theory', I understand that your faith obliges you to pretend otherwise.)

We are in a religious debate forum.

I'm not fretting one bit.

 

[Bunyip]

We are in a religious debate forum.

I'm not fretting one bit.

That much is clear.

Now look up 'scientific theory'.

 

[idav]

There is a reason theory and hypothesis are different words. There are similarities but to harp on whats similar and ignore whats different is pure bias.

Theory vs. hypothesis
A theory is an explanation. The validity of a theory rests upon its ability to explain phenomena. Theories may be supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence. Gravitational theory, for example, attempts to explain the nature of gravity. Cell theory explains the workings of cells. Evolutionary theory explains the history of life on Earth.

A hypothesis is a testable idea. Scientists do not set out to “prove” hypotheses, but to test them. Often multiple hypotheses are posed to explain phenomena and the goal of research is to eliminate the incorrect ones. Hypotheses come and go by the thousands, but theories often remain to be tested and modified for decades or centuries. In science, theories are never hunches or guesses and to describe evolution as “just a theory” is inappropriate.

Using Appropriate Terminology

 

[s2a]

There is a reason theory and hypothesis are different words. There are similarities but to harp on whats similar and ignore whats different is pure bias.

Thank you for reminding most here that an "hypothesis" is a question that may deserve further examination and testing, and that a scientific "theory" is not some "guess", but an "hypothesis " that is confirmed over MANY years of rigorous and independent testing that leads to an inevitable, logical conclusion.

"God did it" IS, in fact, pure speculation, or a wishful guess at best. That's OK, but it offers neither a "theory" nor an even philosophical inquiry that can ever be tested.

 

[Thief]

That much is clear.

Now look up 'scientific theory'.

Now look where you are posting.

 

[Thief]

Thank you for reminding most here that an "hypothesis" is a question that may deserve further examination and testing, and that a scientific "theory" is not some "guess", but an "hypothesis " that is confirmed over MANY years of rigorous and independent testing that leads to an inevitable, logical conclusion.

"God did it" IS, in fact, pure speculation, or a wishful guess at best. That's OK, but it offers neither a "theory" nor an even philosophical inquiry that can ever be tested.

Yeah to the lack of proof.
Never a photo, fingerprint, equation, or experiment.

But as reason works we can lean strongly to the speculation......
God did it.

 

[idav]

Yeah to the lack of proof.
Never a photo, fingerprint, equation, or experiment.

But as reason works we can lean strongly to the speculation......
God did it.

Jeez man.

There iskno reason god should be so out of natural reach that he doesn't bleave any natural evidence. Unless your saying god doesnt exist. Anything that happens is evidence of god, with lots of residual evidence to show for it.

Stop hiding in gaps of knowledge. Why assume it can never be known, unless you prefer a god that is deistic then god leaves traces.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Now look where you are posting.

Do you mean, in a thread specifically made to talk about the term " theory"

Explain how this is not an appropriate place, again?

Perhaps if you didn't want to talk about theory, a poor way to show that is by starting a thread about that very subject.
So, why are you complaining?

 

[Thief]

Do you mean, in a thread specifically made to talk about the term " theory"

Explain how this is not an appropriate place, again?

Perhaps if you didn't want to talk about theory, a poor way to show that is by starting a thread about that very subject.
So, why are you complaining?

There are several people..(some here)..
That boast an explanation as a trump argument.

Never.

The proving is needed for the final nod.

That an explanation is accepted on a large scale never means it is the final argument.
People tend to let the 'know it all's lead the way.

That's fine.
As long as we bear in mind.....even proven notions fall to correction.

 

[Willamena]

There are several people..(some here)..
That boast an explanation as a trump argument.

Never.

The proving is needed for the final nod.

But what if it's a good explanation?

That an explanation is accepted on a large scale never means it is the final argument.
People tend to let the 'know it all's lead the way.

That's fine.
As long as we bear in mind.....even proven notions fall to correction.

I agree, popularity takes a second seat to it being a good explanation.

 

[Thief]

Jeez man.

There iskno reason god should be so out of natural reach that he doesn't bleave any natural evidence. Unless your saying god doesnt exist. Anything that happens is evidence of god, with lots of residual evidence to show for it.

Stop hiding in gaps of knowledge. Why assume it can never be known, unless you prefer a god that is deistic then god leaves traces.

I believe in cause and effect....a basic tool of science.
Go back to the singularity......God did it!

 

[Thief]

But what if it's a good explanation?


I agree, popularity takes a second seat to it being a good explanation.

I was speaking of theory AS the popular belief.