What is a 'theory' ?

[Iasion]

Gday,

I can see, reading through the messages, that this board has a few participants that are really emotional about their anti-religious views, so emotional that they jump to all sorts of conclusions about anyone who disagrees even the slightest bit with their pronouncements.

I posted about facts and theories etc..
Why won't you answer my posts and facts and observations and theories ?

This is not healthy. I don't believe in God or gods, etc.,

You DON'T ?!

Then why did you write things like this :


Personally I find the idea of God more believable as a possible unproved first principle than most of the other things you list: it makes some aspects of the universe we find ourselves in a lot more comfortable. As a working theory God makes more sense, at least on the surface, than a no-God theory. To me atheism takes a deeper understanding; theism comes easily and intuitively.

That there is evidence of God should not be doubted -- assertions otherwise are almost ludicrous. The issue is not whether or not there is evidence for God, but whether or not the evidence is convincing. I think the person who asserts there is no God has just as much burden to provide convincing evidence as does the person who asserts He exists.

from which I conclude that God is not so separate from the rest of us after all.

Frank -
YOU claimed there is evidence for God.
So, why didn't you cite any ?

Why are you now claiming NOT to believe, after insisting there was actually EVIDENCE for God ?

One thing a scientist (or any seeker for understanding) needs to do is to avoid dogmatism, and asserting that anything is a "fact" is dogmatism.

Wow.
So Frank really believes there are NO facts at all !
What a load of old cobblers !
There ARE facts, and everybody knows it.

Unless they're arguing against evolution, and then the argument seems to be :

* there are NO facts
* therefore everything could be wrong
* therefore evolution IS wrong
* therefore my beliefs are right

Does Frank make a fuss about gravity? electricity? germs?
No.
Just evolution.

These are the clear signs of a creationist :
* evolution is just a "theory"
* there are no facts
* there is evidence for God


Iasion

 

[Copernicus]

I avoid the word "fact" in dealing with scientific matters; even direct measurements can be subject to revision -- in other words, we can only have degrees of assurance we are right about any scientific understanding (although often it gets so close to certainty that I suppose it is nit-picking to insist on a difference).

What you say is technically true, but your word-mincing approach puts you on a very slippery epistemological slope. If carried far enough, you will find that there really are no facts, so we should all stop using that word to talk about anything. Is it a "fact" that the sun has a larger diameter than the Earth? Nope. It's just a theory. Let's change all the astronomy texts to make sure that we don't give anyone the impression that we are absolutists about about the size of the sun relative to the Earth.

In the case of creationism, since there is a significant population of adherents to this alternative view (creationism is not a theory, however, as it brings no understanding), I think that even though one's confidence in evolutionary theory is close to 100%, it is best to avoid dogmatic words like "fact." Doing otherwise makes it easy for the creationists to jump to the conclusion that evolutionists are just like themselves, adherents of a doctrine or of a faith.

Heaven forfend that a creationist should jump to a wrong conclusion! This isn't about convincing creationists. It is about not dumbing down our science textbooks for all children just to give the false impression that the conclusions creationists have jumped to are reasonable ones. When we have "close to 100%" agreement that a scientific principal is true, it does no damage to anyone's psyche to call it a "fact". If people want to quibble over its status as a fact, then let them. If they are right to quibble, make them prove it. Those fools have gone to court and lost repeatedly. They make fools of themselves by doing so, and we make fools of ourselves by pretending to be open-minded about subjects that we have close to 100% certainty on.

I would quibble with the view that natural selection causes evolution: it is one of the causes, almost certainly the main cause, but other phenomena enter into matters...

Frank, are you a philosopher? Someone who doesn't take common sense for an answer? I did not say that no factors other than natural selection come into play. Many years ago, I wrote a dissertation on the expression of causation in natural language, so I have a pretty good grasp of the concept of multiple causation. Stop quibbling. As Darwin and Wallace pointed out in excruciating detail, natural selection causes the effects that we observe in natural evolution, just as the behavior of a human animal breeder causes changes by selectively breeding animals. That does not mean that the breeder is the sole cause of the changes. Obviously, the existence of genes in those animals has something to do with what happens.

Also, there is the issue of the meaning of the word "cause." The real cause of evolutionary change is the introduction of character variation, and this stems mainly from genetic mutation. This is the effective cause, while things like natural selection are more of a directive force.

No, genetic mutation is not always the "real cause" of evolutionary change, but that whole issue is a red herring. You know perfectly well what I was saying and that we have no substantive disagreement. So why do you think it so important to mince words here? Are you trying to make yourself sound more reasonable to people with wacky beliefs? Those aren't the ones we should be concerned about. We should be concerned about children who are trying to figure out what it is scientists believe and why they believe it. They do not need all the minced words to get the picture.

I can see, reading through the messages, that this board has a few participants that are really emotional about their anti-religious views, so emotional that they jump to all sorts of conclusions about anyone who disagrees even the slightest bit with their pronouncements.

You seem to fit in well here.

This is not healthy. I don't believe in God or gods, etc., but I am quite able to handle my emotions when I talk with those who do. The same applies when I talk about evolution.

What!?! We're being too emotional to handle the truth? When you say things like that, it just makes me so angry!

Don't be condescending, Frank. :slap:

One thing a scientist (or any seeker for understanding) needs to do is to avoid dogmatism, and asserting that anything is a "fact" is dogmatism.

So that we can appear reasonable to less dogmatic folks like creationists? :thud:

 

[Thief]

In what way "God is the source of them all".

Creator.

 

[gnostic]

Facts...facts.... facts....
and God is the source of them all.

In what way "God is the source of them all".

Creator.

Yes, but where are the evidences?

You can't have fact, if you don't have evidences that can be observed, measured or tested. The more evidences that supported God creating anything, the better the possibility of your faith becoming more "factual". And such evidences would be there, regardless of whether we believe in God's existence or not.

So far, I have seen no God involvement in creating anything.

Should I have sex with some women, she could conceive, the fertilise egg would become a foteus, and eventually the child would be born, through normal childbirth (or through Cesarean procedure). A natural phenomena of reproduction. Life exist through such cycle with 2 parents and with no god's involvement. That is evidence that God is not in any way involved in the natural process.

Similarly, I could dig a shallow hole, plant a seed, water it daily or it could rain, and perhaps put fertilizer on the soil. Eventual the plant would sprouted out of ground and grow to whatever that seed was meant to be. All this a natural processing phenomena, evidence that life can exist without God's intervention.

Where is your CREATOR in all this?

 

[Frank Merton]

If it's "a waste of time", why are you here doing it ?

Ah, let me respond to this, by way of explaining why I am not otherwise responding to you. You are in a mental state that prevents your being fair to others you perceive as enemies. The board I am on is not the board designed for creationist debates but the board designed for discussion of the relationship between science and religion.

If you would pay attention and not distort what I say, and tone down the rhetoric, maybe we could talk. As it is, I think discussion with you would be as much a waste of time as discussion with a creationist.

 

[Frank Merton]

What you say is technically true, but your word-mincing approach puts you on a very slippery epistemological slope. If carried far enough, you will find that there really are no facts, so we should all stop using that word to talk about anything. Is it a "fact" that the sun has a larger diameter than the Earth? Nope. It's just a theory. Let's change all the astronomy texts to make sure that we don't give anyone the impression that we are absolutists about about the size of the sun relative to the Earth.

Yes, it is best, when talking about scientific matters, to avoid the word "fact." If you want to use such terms in day-to-day speech, the looseness of the word is understood. In science, the day-to-day meaning is as a synonym for an observation or measurement. Theories are not referred to as facts. Theories are a human invention to allow us the psychological feeling that we understand how the facts (data) relate.

Philosophically, it is true that there are no "facts." Besides, as I see the word being used on this board, it is propaganda, not science.

Heaven forfend that a creationist should jump to a wrong conclusion! This isn't about convincing creationists. It is about not dumbing down our science textbooks for all children just to give the false impression that the conclusions creationists have jumped to are reasonable ones.

The cliche is true, "two wrongs don't make a right." The creationist typically believes what he believes out of wishful thinking. Why on Earth do you reinforce this?

Frank, are you a philosopher? Someone who doesn't take common sense for an answer?

I don't believe in "common sense." Common sense tells me the Earth is flat, that people at the antipodes should fall off.

While it is true that the Darwinian argument of change directed by natural selection appeals to my "common sense," I could say as much about social Darwinism, and we know it is false. The reason we accept evolutionary theory (yes--"evolutionary theory"--following the pattern of "atomic theory," or "quantum theory") is because of the data--geology, biogeography, fossils, genetics, DNA mapping, embryology, etc.

 

[Thief]

Yes, but where are the evidences?

You can't have fact, if you don't have evidences that can be observed, measured or tested. The more evidences that supported God creating anything, the better the possibility of your faith becoming more "factual". And such evidences would be there, regardless of whether we believe in God's existence or not.

So far, I have seen no God involvement in creating anything.

Should I have sex with some women, she could conceive, the fertilise egg would become a foteus, and eventually the child would be born, through normal childbirth (or through Cesarean procedure). A natural phenomena of reproduction. Life exist through such cycle with 2 parents and with no god's involvement. That is evidence that God is not in any way involved in the natural process.

Similarly, I could dig a shallow hole, plant a seed, water it daily or it could rain, and perhaps put fertilizer on the soil. Eventual the plant would sprouted out of ground and grow to whatever that seed was meant to be. All this a natural processing phenomena, evidence that life can exist without God's intervention.

Where is your CREATOR in all this?

I see you're still waiting for that photograph and fingerprint.

I told someone else recently....
what ever you decide about God....
it is not likely to have equations or lab results.

And it would probably help to see God as creator.
Rather than an object that must prove itself to you.

Greater than God are you?
You are your own handiwork?
Something more than dust?

 

[Frank Merton]

I see you're still waiting for that photograph and fingerprint.

I told someone else recently....
what ever you decide about God....
it is not likely to have equations or lab results.

And it would probably help to see God as creator.
Rather than an object that must prove itself to you.

Greater than God are you?
You are your own handiwork?
Something more than dust?

Wonderful: I will laugh most of this evening -- not at what you said -- it was beautiful, but at how you prove the futility of arguing about something like God with a Believer.

 

[Copernicus]

Yes, it is best, when talking about scientific matters, to avoid the word "fact." If you want to use such terms in day-to-day speech, the looseness of the word is understood. In science, the day-to-day meaning is as a synonym for an observation or measurement. Theories are not referred to as facts. Theories are a human invention to allow us the psychological feeling that we understand how the facts (data) relate.

Bear in mind that we are not scientists here, and we are using day-to-day meaning. Furthermore, "scientific fact" is perfectly well understood to mean "what is considered factual by scientists". People here have tried to be a bit more precise by distinguishing between the "fact of evolution" and the theory that explains it, i.e. the one that can be characterized as "common descent by natural selection". Creationists are usually ignorant of most of the evidence for evolution, and they have a misguided tendency to think that the evidence is primarily from the fossil record.

Philosophically, it is true that there are no "facts." Besides, as I see the word being used on this board, it is propaganda, not science.The cliche is true, "two wrongs don't make a right." The creationist typically believes what he believes out of wishful thinking. Why on Earth do you reinforce this?

We disagree on what "reinforces" creationist dogma. You think that we must avoid imprecise language. I think that everyday language is precise enough to argue rationally. The OP does a good job of explaining the difference between a scientific theory and the non-scientific conjectural sense of theory. Richard Dawkins, an actual scientist, does an even better job of making the same point in The Greatest Show on Earth.

I don't believe in "common sense." Common sense tells me the Earth is flat, that people at the antipodes should fall off.

It hasn't been telling most of us that for a very long time now. You need to bring yourself up to date.

While it is true that the Darwinian argument of change directed by natural selection appeals to my "common sense," I could say as much about social Darwinism, and we know it is false...

You could, but that would be a total red herring in this discussion. The remark about "common sense" was an old joke about philosophers. It has nothing to do with why we should accept evolution as factual.

The reason we accept evolutionary theory (yes--"evolutionary theory"--following the pattern of "atomic theory," or "quantum theory") is because of the data--geology, biogeography, fossils, genetics, DNA mapping, embryology, etc.

Yes, and the evidence is so overwhelming, and so easy to disprove if it were not true, that scientists consider evolution theory even less controversial than "quantum theory". It really does qualify for the sense of "theory" that is equivalent to established fact in the eyes of science. If we do not make this point, and make it repeatedly, then we deserve exactly what we have been getting--dumbed-down science textbooks and an adult population over 40% of which rejects the science of biology (in many cases without even knowing it).

 

[Copernicus]

I told someone else recently....
what ever you decide about God....
it is not likely to have equations or lab results.

How very right you are. The nonexistence of God explains that fact very neatly. If you believe in God's existence, then you have some explaining to do.

And it would probably help to see God as creator.
Rather than an object that must prove itself to you.

This is not a question of what God MUST do. It is a question of whether he does anything at all that we can detect. Apparently not, or you would be falling all over yourself to present it here. Since you have no reasonable evidence to support your claim that God exists, you have been feigning indifference to the lack of evidence. It would help if you could give us a plausible reason for the lack of evidence. The traditional "free will" explanation for Divine Silence is really weak, but it is all that believers can come up with to hang their faith on.

 

[Thief]

How very right you are. The nonexistence of God explains that fact very neatly. If you believe in God's existence, then you have some explaining to do.


This is not a question of what God MUST do. It is a question of whether he does anything at all that we can detect. Apparently not, or you would be falling all over yourself to present it here. Since you have no reasonable evidence to support your claim that God exists, you have been feigning indifference to the lack of evidence. It would help if you could give us a plausible reason for the lack of evidence. The traditional "free will" explanation for Divine Silence is really weak, but it is all that believers can come up with to hang their faith on.

I present my view all over this forum.

Spirit first.

Then the universe.

If you insist other wise....
you are the sum of your chemistry, and when it fails so do you.
Dust you are.

 

[Copernicus]

you are the sum of your chemistry, and when it fails so do you.
Dust you are.

Well, your metaphor fails pretty badly, since my "chemistry" is nothing like a set of numbers. We are all configurations of physical stuff. When we die, our stuff gets incorporated into other stuff. That is true for you no less than me.

 

[Thief]

Well, your metaphor fails pretty badly, since my "chemistry" is nothing like a set of numbers. We are all configurations of physical stuff. When we die, our stuff gets incorporated into other stuff. That is true for you no less than me.

No metaphor.

I believe in life after death.

 

[Copernicus]

Your metaphor had to do with characterizing me as the "sum of your chemistry". I know that you believe in the oxymoronic idea of life after death.

 

[gnostic]

I see you're still waiting for that photograph and fingerprint.

I told someone else recently....
what ever you decide about God....
it is not likely to have equations or lab results.

What do you think fact is?

Fact requires evidences. The more there are, the better the chance that your claim to be factual.

Evidences that can be observed, measured or tested. Evidence should be concrete, and supported by other evidences. Photograph or fingerprint alone are not enough, but it's a start.

Faith is not fact. Belief is not fact. Scriptural text with fables and myths, parables and metaphors, is not fact.

You speak of fact, but you don't know what fact is or mean.

And it would probably help to see God as creator.
Rather than an object that must prove itself to you.

Greater than God are you?
You are your own handiwork?
Something more than dust?

Gee, you talk such rubbish.

What does my wanting know, would suggest that I am GREATER than God? Or greater than you?

It has nothing to do with greatness.

Only a fool will believe in something without verifying it is true. That's what you called blind faith.

I rather to be able verify for myself if something to be true, regardless of what I believe or "wishes to be true". Certainty and knowledge before belief is my motto.

Then let me ask you this question:

If God did create you and everyone else, did he give you a mind but does that mean you don't use your brain? Did God create to be an adoring slave, who don't know how to think for yourself?

If this is true, then I seriously don't want no part of God.

 

[Frank Merton]

Bear in mind that we are not scientists here, and we are using day-to-day meaning. Furthermore, "scientific fact" is perfectly well understood to mean "what is considered factual by scientists".

First, I have to tell you that I am glad you happened to be on this board; otherwise I would have written it off as an utter waste of time. You seem to differ from the others here; even though you don't agree with me, you are willing to make the effort to understand the points I feel strongly about.

I can't control the tactics you adopt in your battle to keep evolution out of the schools, but I have to say I am uneasy indeed about sloppy language in scientific discussion. I must admit that even many scientists aren't much better, until they go to be published.

 

[Thief]

What do you think fact is?

Fact requires evidences. The more there are, the better the chance that your claim to be factual.

Evidences that can be observed, measured or tested. Evidence should be concrete, and supported by other evidences. Photograph or fingerprint alone are not enough, but it's a start.

Faith is not fact. Belief is not fact. Scriptural text with fables and myths, parables and metaphors, is not fact.

You speak of fact, but you don't know what fact is or mean.



Gee, you talk such rubbish.

What does my wanting know, would suggest that I am GREATER than God? Or greater than you?

It has nothing to do with greatness.

Only a fool will believe in something without verifying it is true. That's what you called blind faith.

I rather to be able verify for myself if something to be true, regardless of what I believe or "wishes to be true". Certainty and knowledge before belief is my motto.

Then let me ask you this question:

If God did create you and everyone else, did he give you a mind but does that mean you don't use your brain? Did God create to be an adoring slave, who don't know how to think for yourself?

If this is true, then I seriously don't want no part of God.

There is no mystery to life.
You are here to learn all that you can....then go back to God.

If you have a stubborn and shallow mind...too bad for you.

If you DO have freewill and the discretion to exercise it....
then greater things might come your way.

Not believing won't help.

 

[Frank Merton]

There is no mystery to life.
You are here to learn all that you can....then go back to God.

If we are to go back to God, why do we need to learn things here?

 

[gnostic]

There is no mystery to life.
You are here to learn all that you can....then go back to God.

If you have a stubborn and shallow mind...too bad for you.

If you DO have freewill and the discretion to exercise it....
then greater things might come your way.

Not believing won't help.

to learn what?

If we go to heaven then what we learn on earth is totally meaningless.

 

[gnostic]

I can't control the tactics you adopt in your battle to keep evolution out of the schools, but I have to say I am uneasy indeed about sloppy language in scientific discussion. I must admit that even many scientists aren't much better, until they go to be published.

I don't think Copernicus wants to keep evolution out of school. Why do you think he do?

If there is anything that I'd want to keep out of the classroom, it would be keeping all theological matters out of the science classroom, and this mean creationism because creationism is not scientific.