Theory....again

[Thief]

Theory....

rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice.

speculation: abstract thought or contemplation.

idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture.

(someone asked me to have a look.....this is what I found)
(hope he is reading this)

 

[technomage]

rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice.

Are you referring to scientific theory, or to the more casual "informal" use of the term?

 

[outhouse]

There is nothing to debate here.


Only those that refuse to accept the facts surrounding a specific theory.



Would you like to argue the theory of gravity?



Do you understand that there are facts regarding gravity even though we don't fully understand it?

 

[McBell]

Theory....

rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice.

speculation: abstract thought or contemplation.

idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture.

(someone asked me to have a look.....this is what I found)
(hope he is reading this)

Congratulations.
You have shown your ability to ratify your beliefs.

Can you impress the forum members with your ability to do research?

To help get you started:

Scientific Theory​

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2]

As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive — that is, they seek to supply strong evidence for but not absolute proof of the truth of the conclusion—and they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

Typically, before a scientific theory can be created, a hypothesis must be developed which is a supposition or proposed explanation that is formed on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. If a substantial amount of evidence is gathered that consistently suggests the validity of a hypothesis, the hypothesis can be converted into a theory.​

 

[Thief]

Congratulations.
You have shown your ability to ratify your beliefs.

Can you impress the forum members with your ability to do research?

To help get you started:

Scientific Theory
​

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2]

As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive — that is, they seek to supply strong evidence for but not absolute proof of the truth of the conclusion—and they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

Typically, before a scientific theory can be created, a hypothesis must be developed which is a supposition or proposed explanation that is formed on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. If a substantial amount of evidence is gathered that consistently suggests the validity of a hypothesis, the hypothesis can be converted into a theory.
​

I lke that part about.....NOT absolute proof.

And the discussion forms solid AFTER theory is PROVEN.....then we are discussing FACT.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I lke that part about.....NOT absolute proof.

But you almost certainly do not understand it.

And the discussion forms solid AFTER theory is PROVEN.....then we are discussing FACT.

Is this suppose to be a coherent sentence?

If you need to bolster yourself or your arguments by distorting and diluting the notion of scientific theory that is entirely your issue, but you need to know that it does little for your credibility.

 

[Thief]

But you almost certainly do not understand it.

Is this suppose to be a coherent sentence?

If you need to bolster yourself or your arguments by distorting and diluting the notion of scientific theory that is entirely your issue, but you need to know that it does little for your credibility.

Even in grade school my academics were ranked as superior.
(nation wide comparison test)

I don't have a problem with science.

 

[LuisDantas]

Even in grade school my academics were ranked as superior.
(nation wide comparison test)

I don't have a problem with science.

That is certainly nice to know.

 

[Willamena]

Theory....

rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice.

speculation: abstract thought or contemplation.

idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture.

(someone asked me to have a look.....this is what I found)
(hope he is reading this)

Yes: those are the three most popular contexts. The scientific would be another.

 

[Willamena]

As I understand it, the scientific take on the popular use of the word allows for speculation only in so far as it can lead to a useful hypothesis, else the idea is not any use to science. Bigfoot is speculative, black holes are not.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Even in grade school my academics were ranked as superior.
(nation wide comparison test)

Indeed, many people's intellectual development becomes stunted when they decide to rest on their grade school laurels.

 

[Wandered Off]

Even in grade school my academics were ranked as superior.

I still have your lunch money.

 

[Hawkins]

Theory....

rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice.

speculation: abstract thought or contemplation.

idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture.

(someone asked me to have a look.....this is what I found)
(hope he is reading this)

Humans usually apply fallacious concepts without their own awareness.

Science usually goes through 3 stages to determine a scientific truth,
1) observation
Science is basically dealing with a set of rules behind a repeating pattern. Observation is achievable basically because the pattern itself can be repeated infinitively. Say, you can observe how the earth revolving around the sun because the number of times the earth revolving the sun is infinitive.

2) formulation
Through the possibly infinitive observations, you can develop theories about how it repeats. You can then try to quantitatively describe how it repeats, say, using a formula.

3) prediction
This is to put your quantitative descriptions (formulated rules) into tests. If they predict correctly, the set of rules discovered/formulated by you is considered a truth (a formal scientific truth). If the prediction fails or fails to be within an acceptable variance (say, due to equipment capability limit), the set of rules you developed is considered falsified.

To simply put a set of rules behind a repeating pattern is considered "proven" when the prediction of the pattern using this set of rules doesn't fail.

For an example, water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen. This holds true no matter what. That is, you make a prediction (that water must dissolve into H2 and O2) before each and every experiment and that your prediction will never fail. You deserve a Nobel Prize shall your this prediction actually fails.

A human brain thus realize/recognize that it is a truth as predictions never fails.

This is the nature (predictability and falsifiability) of what science is.

 

[metis]

I still have your lunch money.

I'm not sure you're aware of this, but the "snow" on your t.v. when the antenna is disconnected is actually background radiation that was emitted almost 14 billion years ago from the Big Bang that's still reverberating throughout the universe.

 

[outhouse]

I lke that part about.....NOT absolute proof.

There is much you can like. But will you actually debate it is the question, you seem to avoid it.


What about the multiple facts it takes to make a theory ? you want to talk about those or just ignore everything when you all cornered up?

 

[Thief]

Indeed, many people's intellectual development becomes stunted when they decide to rest on their grade school laurels.

It's a reference point with witnesses....
I got a lot better over the years!

Up to an iq of 125 for now.....

How are YOU doing?!

back to topic.....
No photos, no equations, no fingerprints,.....no repeatable experiments.
Science can go only so far.

Here in religious debates.....science can take you to the 'point'....
but it cannot proceed beyond that point.

The experiment won't fit in the petri dish.

When it comes down to belief!!!!!.....observe....speculate.....decide.....

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I got a lot better over the years!

Up to an iq of 125 for now.....

How are YOU doing?!

 

[Thief]

Not so good....I see.

 

[LuisDantas]

Whichever your past or your IQ, there is such a thing as a proper scientific definition of Theory. You can't in good faith blame others for your choice of ignoring it.

 

[McBell]

back to topic.....
No photos, no equations, no fingerprints,.....no repeatable experiments.
Science can go only so far.

Here in religious debates.....science can take you to the 'point'....
but it cannot proceed beyond that point.

The experiment won't fit in the petri dish.

When it comes down to belief!!!!!.....observe....speculate.....decide.....

Ah, a bait and switch thread brought to you by Thief...