Theory....again

[Willamena]

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

Cause and effect isn't a tool of science at all, it's a tool of consciousness. It is a trick of awareness, and memory.

 

[Willamena]

I was speaking of theory AS the popular belief.

We popularly believe that things are true. Is that what you meant?

 

[Thief]

Was it Aristotle?...or Socrates?....

Mice are spontaneous when wheat is stored!
Such was the explanation.

That held until someone did an experiment with flies and meat!
Only a couple of centuries ago!

Somehow all the centuries of time went by and no one had seen a mouse give birth!
The explanation held til evidence showed otherwise.

The Earth is the center of the universe!
Held for a long time.

Malaria is nothing but 'bad air'!

Theory is fine and good.
I accept some things as truth without proving.

God did it.

 

[Thief]

Cause and effect isn't a tool of science at all, it's a tool of consciousness. It is a trick of awareness, and memory.

Nay.
The repeatable experiment is required for proving.

Scientists don't trust what they see....hence the experiment.

You MUST associate the cause to the effect.
The experiment is a fail without that association.

 

[Willamena]

Nay.
The repeatable experiment is required for proving.

Scientists don't trust what they see....hence the experiment.

You MUST associate the cause to the effect.
The experiment is a fail without that association.

The repeatable, or repeatability of, experiment isn't cause and effect. It's just empiricism.

You're indulging a category error.

 

[Thief]

The repeatable, or repeatability of, experiment isn't cause and effect. It's just empiricism.

That rather blows science out of the discussion.

Not that I mind.

Science can take us TO the singularity.
It cannot then issue equation or experiment.

God did it.
We can only think about it.
Make explanation (theory).

 

[Willamena]

That rather blows science out of the discussion.

Not that I mind.

Science can take us TO the singularity.
It cannot then issue equation or experiment.

God did it.
We can only think about it.
Make explanation (theory).

"God did it," blows rationality out of the discussion.

 

[Thief]

"God did it," blows rationality out of the discussion.

Naw......at some 'point'..... 'in the beginning'....

We have to consider Spirit....and which came first.

We can make theory in every direction but ultimately....regardless of explanation....we must choose.

Spirit first?....or substance?

Theory is fine and good.
But the proving won't be there.
You just have to think about it.

The experiment won't fit in the petri dish.

 

[Willamena]

Naw......at some 'point'..... 'in the beginning'....

...there was nothing (void).

Still is.

We have to consider Spirit....and which came first.

Neither had to have come first. They may have brought each other into existence by their very nature.

It's a relation of dependency, not causality. Contrary to how you seem to think, causality does not rule all.

We can make theory in every direction but ultimately....regardless of explanation....we must choose.

That's called relativity.

Spirit first?....or substance?

Theory is fine and good.
But the proving won't be there.
You just have to think about it.

The experiment won't fit in the petri dish.

There is no proving point if you don't accept that causality does not rule.

 

[Willamena]

Once upon a time, there was a lad named David Hume...

 

[Bunyip]

I was speaking of theory AS the popular belief.

Yes, and you are well aware of the fact that this thread is about the meaning of theory in scientific terms, so why be dishonest?

 

[Bunyip]

Now look where you are posting.

I am posting on thread that discusses the meaning of 'theory' in science.

Where do YOU think we are?

 

[Willamena]

Was it Aristotle?...or Socrates?....

Mice are spontaneous when wheat is stored!

Excellent metaphor! Whichever said it...

Such was the explanation.

That held until someone did an experiment with flies and meat!
Only a couple of centuries ago!

Um, okay... lost the metaphor.

Somehow all the centuries of time went by and no one had seen a mouse give birth!
The explanation held til evidence showed otherwise.

Unless the "explanation" was metaphor? I have no idea what we're talking about anymore. I liked the metaphor better.

The Earth is the center of the universe!

In a sense, yes, it is. In the sense that it's a metaphor.

Theory is fine and good.
I accept some things as truth without proving.

God did it.

Theory is not guessing. And it's not metaphor.

"Mice are spontaneous when wheat is stored."

The metaphor is clear, and the rhetoric clever. Where something that "mice" consume is stored, the same "mice" will spontaneously react.

It's not an "explanation," just an expression of desire.

 

[McBell]

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

round and round and round...until your god enters the picture.
then cause and effect are tossed out the window like yesterdays garbage...

 

[Ouroboros]

A definition again:

In popular usage, a theory is just a vague and fuzzy sort of fact and a hypothesis is often used as a fancy synonym to `guess'. But to a scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones. For instance, suppose you see the Sun rise. This is an existing observation which is explained by the theory of gravity proposed by Newton. This theory, in addition to explaining why we see the Sun move across the sky, also explains many other phenomena such as the path followed by the Sun as it moves (as seen from Earth) across the sky, the phases of the Moon, the phases of Venus, the tides, just to mention a few. You can today make a calculation and predict the position of the Sun, the phases of the Moon and Venus, the hour of maximal tide, all 200 years from now. The same theory is used to guide spacecraft all over the Solar System.

A hypothesis is a working assumption. Typically, a scientist devises a hypothesis and then sees if it ``holds water'' by testing it against available data (obtained from previous experiments and observations). If the hypothesis does hold water, the scientist declares it to be a theory.

From here: What is the difference between a fact, a theory and a hypothesis?

 

[idav]

God did it.
We can only think about it.
Make explanation (theory).

God did it is not a theory in any testable scientific sense, especially when you say there cannot be evidence that god did it. It isn't even a decent hypothesis. Misusing words to sound scientific doesnt help the theists case, you may as well just call it speculation and unsubstatiated imagination.

 

[Thief]

God did it is not a theory in any testable scientific sense, especially when you say there cannot be evidence that god did it. It isn't even a decent hypothesis. Misusing words to sound scientific doesnt help the theists case, you may as well just call it speculation and unsubstatiated imagination.

Wrong application.

Science can take you TO the singularity.
It cannot go further.
Any decision after that 'point' is yours to make.

I do not fault the association of cause and effect.
It essential to science.
It is also essential to common sense and logic.

Stand at the 'point' of singularity and decide.
Spirit first?......or substance.

The choice made leads to other decisions.

Substance first....and all of this is no more than a complex accident and terminal.
Man is then mystery with no purpose or resolve.

Spirit first....then the puzzle pieces begin to fit.

 

[Thief]

"Mice are spontaneous when wheat is stored."

No really....saw it on a science documentary.

Life was considered spontaneous to conditions.

That is not altogether wrong.
But the observation was incorrect.

Make a pile of grain and mice will appear.

Strange as it may seem....many people did not associate procreation to all things.

Observation is important but the experiment still needs to be done.
Speculation is important but the experiment still needs to be done.

Theory stands as explanation until the experiment is done.

 

[idav]

Wrong application.

Science can take you TO the singularity.
It cannot go further.
Any decision after that 'point' is yours to make.

I do not fault the association of cause and effect.
It essential to science.
It is also essential to common sense and logic.

Stand at the 'point' of singularity and decide.
Spirit first?......or substance.

The choice made leads to other decisions.

Substance first....and all of this is no more than a complex accident and terminal.
Man is then mystery with no purpose or resolve.

Spirit first....then the puzzle pieces begin to fit.

Spirit is substance. There is no separating our spirit from the matter and energy that is everything. The purest energy that was the singularity and became the big bang is essentially eternal. At the point of the singularity there is no beginning, there is no where in space or when in time.

 

[Thief]

Spirit is substance. There is no separating our spirit from the matter and energy that is everything. The purest energy that was the singularity and became the big bang is essentially eternal. At the point of the singularity there is no beginning, there is no where in space or when in time.

I can agree that time does not exist......it does not.
Space is real enough.

In the scheme of regression there is a beginning.
In the scheme of regression Someone had to be first in mind and heart.

Substance is dead.
The dead cannot beget the living.