What is a 'theory' ?

[Iasion]

Gday,

... but I have to say I am uneasy indeed about sloppy language in scientific discussion.

Really?
So what about the sloppy and incorrect claims YOU made, Frank?

First you barged in here, admitting you haven't even READ the thread, and incrediby you then claimed everyone on the thread had it wrong - without even READING my OP ! How sloppy.

Then you claimed a theory is NOT a law or a fact - when NO-ONE said it WAS in the first place ! How sloppy.

Then you claimed evolution is NOT a fact - when it IS a fact of nature ! How wrong.

Then you insisted there WAS evidence for God (on a science thread about the meaning of the word "theory" mind you!), but when asked to cite it - you ran away.

You completely FAILED to address the subject of this thread - which was the TWO MEANINGS of the word "theory" - not once have you actually addressed the TOPIC of this thread.

Then, when your errors were pointed out to you, you simply ran away and refused to admit your errors.

Great work there, Frank.

I have no problems with you as person, I don't even know you - I just have problems with your arrogant and ignorant posts here.

Will you EVER address the subject of the OP, Frank ?
The TWO MEANINGS of the word "theory" ?


Iasion

 

[Copernicus]

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.

Thanks for the compliment, Frank.

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.

Obviously, we both share the goal of keeping creationism out of science classes and preventing the dumbed-down approach to evolution that has crept into our schools, despite the fact that there is no scientific controversy over its correctness. The difference between us is that we advocate different tactics, and we each see the other as reinforcing the decline of science education that has been in progress for some years now.

We now seem to be repeating ourselves, so I don't think that it will help much for me to just repeat that I think you've missed the entire point of the OP. Since you keep raising "sloppy language" as an issue, let me assure you that I do not dismiss your objection lightly. I am a professional linguist who has somewhat specialized in the question of how to clarify technical language. So I have more than an amateur's eye when I look at this issue. I am acutely aware of the nature of ambiguity in technical communities and the problems that it can cause. That is why I keep pointing people to Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth, which does a much more thorough job of teasing apart the equivocation on the word "theory" that has allowed anti-evolutionists to get away with their shenanigans. In fact, Dawkins coined the word "theorum" (intentional misspelling) to describe the concept of "scientific theory", since the scientists' use of that word is so easily confused with the alternative "conjectural" sense.

Let me just close by saying that the tactic of trying to insist that people use language more precisely as a means of improving communication never works. In this case, anti-evolutionists (whom Dawkins calls 'history-deniers') have no real interest in improving communication. They only care about achieving their goal of inserting their religious dogma into public school classrooms. Their use of the word "theory" in its conjectural sense is completely legitimate and normal. What is not legitimate is to call evolution "just a theory", because it is not a "theory" in the conjectural sense. It is the type of "theory" that scientists universally accept as factual in nature--close enough to "100% certain" to qualify as a "fact" in the ordinary language usage of that term.

 

[Thief]

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

This linear experience insures you will be an individual.

 

[Frank Merton]

Obviously, we both share the goal of keeping creationism out of science classes and preventing the dumbed-down approach to evolution that has crept into our schools.

I would like to make a couple of comments on this issue: no doubt it will get certain others around here upset, but I think you are able to look at these things more objectively.

The teaching of "creationism" in schools strikes me as a waste of precious class time, but lord knows class time is generally wasted anyway (if nothing else just listening to the principle drone on the intercom system with announcements that belong on a bulletin board). Other than that, it does not strike me as a terrible thing, just as a bad thing. The amount of misinformation of all sorts that kids are fed (sit in English class some day and listen to all the tripe about predicate nominatives), and the horrible dumbing-down that is imposed by peers, makes creationism a secondary issue in my eyes.

Now, as I already said in an earlier message, two wrongs don't make a right, so I agree that teaching creationism should be opposed. It becomes a matter of how one goes about it, and the amount of heat one brings to the subject. Public schools curricula are a matter mainly of politics (with some legal involvement), and politics requires compromises. Intelligent compromise often ends up with the desired end far more often than ideological purity and lawsuits. It also usually leaves a better public impression -- that one is not trying to censor the teacher.

It is a simple fact that evolution is not taught in many public schools, especially in rural areas. Biology teachers skip the evolution chapters in the textbook, and textbook publishers cooperate with that by avoiding the subject throughout the rest of the text (take a close look at one some time -- it should incorporate evolution into the entire course, not just treat it as a side-subject).

In other words, the real problem is that evolution is not being taught, not that creationism might be taught. I don't even worry about that overmuch, except that the fact that the masses are ignorant has a bad effect on public policy. Other than that, it doesn't much matter that most people remain ignorant -- so long as the elite are informed, and they get it in college.

 

[Frank Merton]

This linear experience insures you will be an individual.

That is a fascinating idea. So being with God is to be non-linear: could you elaborate on what that means?

Also, what is so desirable about being an individual? Our alone-ness has always struck me as a sad state of affairs.

 

[David M]

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.

Ah the good old tactic of pretending that other members are not worthy of interacting with the great mind of the poster when the truth is that the poster is just incapable of rebutting the posts that demolish their garbage.

A dose of fantasy mixed in with a pinch of hubris and a big measure of arrogance.

 

[Frank Merton]

Ah the good old tactic of pretending that other members are not worthy of interacting with the great mind of the poster when the truth is that the poster is just incapable of rebutting the posts that demolish their garbage.

A dose of fantasy mixed in with a pinch of hubris and a big measure of arrogance.

You have a remarkable point of view: you say that someone you disagree with is "just incapable of rebutting posts that demolish their garbage" and then you accuse me of hubris and arrogance.

 

[Thief]

That is a fascinating idea. So being with God is to be non-linear: could you elaborate on what that means?

Also, what is so desirable about being an individual? Our alone-ness has always struck me as a sad state of affairs.

Click my call name...find 'statistics'....and then find 'all topics started by Thief'.

There you will see....

A Line Drawn.

It deals with the linear existence of God.

As for being alone....here it is from another thread.
I quote myself.

"Picture yourself as God....yes you can.
Look in the 'mirror'.
Your reflection is perfect....but there is no conversation.
Each question you would ask, would have the perfect answer.

You are alone.

There is the universe...the creation...and though it responds to your touch...
it does not really respond.

Man is that part of creation that is unique.
Your linear existence insures it.
Your lack of knowing all things...creates 'the' question.

Would you like to question God?
Go ahead.
It's what He has been waiting for."

 

[Copernicus]

In other words, the real problem is that evolution is not being taught, not that creationism might be taught. I don't even worry about that overmuch, except that the fact that the masses are ignorant has a bad effect on public policy. Other than that, it doesn't much matter that most people remain ignorant -- so long as the elite are informed, and they get it in college.

I think that your position is a bit confused. Evolution is not being taught because of the attack on it by anti-evolutionist creationists, not because of the resistance to their dogma. It does not make evolution any more likely to be taught when you give in to the temptation to appease people with wacky ideas of what evolution is about. The textbooks have been watered down precisely because people have made those compromises. You aren't making any sensible proposals to change the status quo, only not to rock the boat so hard.

 

[Frank Merton]

You aren't making any sensible proposals to change the status quo, only not to rock the boat so hard.

There is no "sensible proposal" to be made; it is a political matter dealt with on a school by school, case by case, textbook by textbook basis. My point is one of emphasis -- emphasize that evolution must be taught; if you must include some creationism (as part of a compromise), be sure it is presented in the form of point-counterpoint (to uncommitted students this makes creationism's problems stand out; to religiously committed students, it raises doubts). Just banning the mention of creationist views achieves nothing and raises suspicions that inappropriate censorship is going on (some censorship of course is necessary for public schools).

There are legal problems with the approach I mention, since religion unfortunately is completely banned from public schools. (I say "unfortunately" because I think this distorts the curriculum by excluding part of the culture and because I think it is an excessive application of the First Amendment, but these are different arguments).

One should keep in mind that the creationists pushing their agenda believe they are right just as much as you believe you are right. We sometimes have a tendency to think of "them" as somehow lacking -- evil or at least stupid. They are not, and they must in a democracy be given a hearing and everything done that is legally possible and in the interest of the students to meet the desires of all points of view, minority and otherwise (and in large swathes of America the creationists are the majority).

My experience is oftentimes, when dogmatists are heard out and not met with counter-dogmatism, that a cooperative spirit can be generated. Not with everyone, of course, but these groups are composed of many individuals, and some of them can be approached.

 

[Frank Merton]

Click my call name...find 'statistics'....and then find 'all topics started by Thief'.

You have to realize that on a message board you often have to repeat yourself: people (including me) are not going to go back an read everything you have posted in the past. What if everyone made such demands?

Picture yourself as God....yes you can.
Look in the 'mirror'.
Your reflection is perfect....but there is no conversation.
Each question you would ask, would have the perfect answer.

Two beings, both of omniscient nature, would be no different from one being, since each would instantly and completely know all the thoughts of the other. I understand that ok. What I don't see is how it would be possible for something to be "other" than such a being in the presence of such a being.

You seem to start with imagining what God must be like and then to draw your theology from this. Am I correct?

Would you like to question God?
Go ahead.
It's what He has been waiting for.

That is problematic; what would "waiting" mean to a God like that? Why should He wait? How would it be possible for someone to avoid God's message if He, being omnipotent, wants it heard?

 

[Thief]

You have to realize that on a message board you often have to repeat yourself: people (including me) are not going to go back an read everything you have posted in the past. What if everyone made such demands?

Not a demand.
And if more people did so then retyping the same stuff over several threads would not be needed.

Two beings, both of omniscient nature, would be no different from one being, since each would instantly and completely know all the thoughts of the other. I understand that ok. What I don't see is how it would be possible for something to be "other" than such a being in the presence of such a being.

You seem to start with imagining what God must be like and then to draw your theology from this. Am I correct?
That is problematic; what would "waiting" mean to a God like that? Why should He wait? How would it be possible for someone to avoid God's message if He, being omnipotent, wants it heard?

I see you failed to shift your perspective.

If all of your reflections are identical.....
You will see only yourself in all directions...
and hear nothing but your own words in echo.

You are an individual.... by design.

 

[Copernicus]

There is no "sensible proposal" to be made; it is a political matter dealt with on a school by school, case by case, textbook by textbook basis. My point is one of emphasis -- emphasize that evolution must be taught; if you must include some creationism (as part of a compromise), be sure it is presented in the form of point-counterpoint (to uncommitted students this makes creationism's problems stand out; to religiously committed students, it raises doubts). Just banning the mention of creationist views achieves nothing and raises suspicions that inappropriate censorship is going on (some censorship of course is necessary for public schools).

I think that your position is counter-productive. The attitude that this is a subject of political negotiation has led to the sad state of affairs that science classes have become compromised. As Dawkins has pointed out, letting creationism into a biology class is equivalent to derailing a Latin class on the subject of whether or not the Roman Empire ever existed. You can debate the point all you like, but the purpose of the class is to teach Latin. And the irony here is that you are acting as if anti-evolutionism were the norm. It only becomes the norm when people take it seriously. Compromise is the poison here, not the cure.

There are legal problems with the approach I mention, since religion unfortunately is completely banned from public schools. (I say "unfortunately" because I think this distorts the curriculum by excluding part of the culture and because I think it is an excessive application of the First Amendment, but these are different arguments).

Religion is not banned from public schools. It is a proper subject in an English literature or social studies class. It cannot be part of the science curriculum, because it isn't science. The point I'm making here is not rocket science. You are getting dangerously close to supporting the view that the government should be in the business of promoting religious viewpoints. In the American tradition, at least, that goes against our cultural and legal norms.

One should keep in mind that the creationists pushing their agenda believe they are right just as much as you believe you are right. We sometimes have a tendency to think of "them" as somehow lacking -- evil or at least stupid. They are not, and they must in a democracy be given a hearing and everything done that is legally possible and in the interest of the students to meet the desires of all points of view, minority and otherwise (and in large swathes of America the creationists are the majority).

We must live on different planets. Nobody is denying creationists their legal right to spout nonsense in public. They can and do show up on street corners waving their pamphlets and carrying signs. They have taken over school boards. They have gone to court many times and lost. That is their right, and they have exercised it.

What you are arguing for here is the inclusion of anti-scientific nonsense in the science curriculum. You will certainly get support from that vocal minority that you think we need to make peace with. That vocal minority that you ignore--those who oppose teaching religious doctrine as if it were equivalent to science--they will be raising the holy hell that you seek to avoid by appeasing creationists.

My experience is oftentimes, when dogmatists are heard out and not met with counter-dogmatism, that a cooperative spirit can be generated. Not with everyone, of course, but these groups are composed of many individuals, and some of them can be approached.

It is pretty easy to accuse people of dogmatism. You hold strong opinions--your own dogma--about how one ought to go about restructuring the science curriculum to accommodate a vocal minority. When you jump into the fray by calling people on "your side" dogmatic and then asking for compromise, I take you for someone who ought not to be conducting negotiations. Your language is designed more to provoke than to bring people to compromise. You must first learn to compromise with those who are on the right side of this issue. And there is a "right side". People have a legitimate right to be heard, but that does not mean that we have to act on what they say.

 

[Frank Merton]

I think that your position is counter-productive.

Well, compromise is the essence of democracy.

What you have now is that creationism is kept out of the books, and teachers generally avoid the issue entirely -- except for the minority who continue to teach creationism.

In other words, the masses remain uninformed about evolution and about the evidence, except largely from what they get from the pulpit. I just can't see how your unwillingness to entertain compromise has achieved or will achieve anything.

 

[Frank Merton]

I see you failed to shift your perspective.

Don't you think that is a bit too judgmental on your part?

If all of your reflections are identical.....
You will see only yourself in all directions...
and hear nothing but your own words in echo.

Your response is disappointing. It sounds profound, but really profound things are more than sounds.

 

[blackout]

Gday,



I thought I made it clear :

There are FACTS, and there are theories that explain those facts.
Theories EXPLAIN facts.

However - there ARE still 2 meanings to the word :
1. speculation
2. explanation

Bear in mind that THEORIES (of both types) can still be WRONG.
Speculation can be wrong of course.
An explanation can be wrong.

Consider these two theories which attempt to explain the
CAUSE of DISEASE :

A. the DEMON theory of disease
B. the GERM theory of disease.

Disease is a fact - both theories attempt to explain how disease is caused.

One theory is correct.
One theory is wrong.
So - a theory is not a fact, and a theory can be wrong.


Iasion

Is there some reason you need to yell?

It makes your posts hard to read.

 

[blackout]

LuisDantes makes an important point.

That a scientific theory must be falsifiable (at least in principle) distinguishes it from those theories that are "true" by definition, such as music theory.

Permit me to offer some basic information in case it is unfamiliar to some readers:

Scientific theories are based upon a foundation of facts, via actual empirical observation and testing. Statements of fact are classified as "a posteriori" truths, i.e., knowledge known after experience (observation). In contrast, theories which are NOT based on empirical observation, are classified as "a priori" truths, i.e., knowledge known before (without) experience or observation. These so-called truths are commonly referred to as trivial truths, since they are made up, so to speak.

Here are examples of the two classifications of statements:
1) "The Earth is round" is a fact. It is, solely based on empirical observation and testing. It's truth is known a posteriori. It is subject to falsification providing that future observation and testing reveal it is not true.
2 )"A circle is round" is not a fact. It is not based on any empirical observation or testing. It cannot be falsified ever, not even in principle. Its "truth" is indeed trivial because it is true by its own definition. It is circular (no pun intended, really.) Think of how many trivial truths sound like knowledge, but are only circular definitions. "1+1 = 2", and "Ghosts are spirits of the dead", and (dare I?) "God is the creator of heaven and Earth".

That these a prori truths are said to be trivial, does not entail that they are necessarily without value. Indeed, theories comprised entirely of a priori truths can rival scientific theories in their power to ascertain and predict facts about our universe.

I see no reason why music theory could not be falsifiable (in principle) through emperical observation and testing.

While you might say that the construction of a Major Scale-
Root, whole (step), whole, half (step), whole, whole, whole, half/Root
is a "given" or a "priori truth" (as constructed by "mans' ear" in this case),
the tendencies of those scale tones,
both melodically and harmonically
are explained by music theory through emperical observation and testing.
(and then expressed, in terms of music theory--
as opposed to mathematical terms, for example)

Harmonic/Melodic theory really explains the observable tendencies of pitches/posteriori,
within a Set/priori system, which is laid out as the initial foundation, or "given" of said theory.

I do not usually (lol, ever) speak in such terms as "priori" and "posteriori" truths,
but I'm quite sure (if I'm understanding these terms properly)
that music theory (music explination) is a combination of both.
Posteriori as an outgrowth of studying/observing the priori.
Especially in the case of harmonic theory,
I would say far more "posteriori" explination than "priori".
Harmony is all about tendencies and relationships.
Which are clearly observable and falsifiable.



k. this was a new jaunt for me.
(I'm kind of hoping someone will go down this music theory road with me.
It's probably my best chance of ever internalizing
all these other terminologies.)

 

[Thief]

Don't you think that is a bit too judgmental on your part?

Your response is disappointing. It sounds profound, but really profound things are more than sounds.

I like the word 'profound'.
It goes with ideas like....
Eternal darkness is physically real.

That you failed to see how profound my previous post may be.....
good luck ....for all else.

 

[PolyHedral]

Well, compromise is the essence of democracy.

Excuse me for pointing out the relatively obvious, but science isn't a democracy.

 

[Frank Merton]

Excuse me for pointing out the relatively obvious, but science isn't a democracy.

Your slogan is beside the point.

A little tale: There is a debate over whether or not it should be mentioned in American history textbooks that Thomas Jefferson had a slave mistress (his wife was dead and he treated his mistress well but she still was a slave, and in today's milieu that is a form of rape -- we have no way of knowing what she thought).

Now for college students studying the Founding Fathers, this is probably something that should be brought out, but what about grade-schoolers? Indeed, what about high-schoolers? Isn't that Jefferson's private business (although at the time the rumors about the subject were scandalous)?

The case can be made: they should be taught the Truth. Who can argue with such a high-sounding moral principle. Tell the Truth, the Whole Truth, even though this renders one of America's Founders a cad and rapist. I think that this particular Truth in fact distorts the real Truth about Jefferson.

I come down in favor of teaching this information to students -- at least high-schoolers -- but accompanying it with full information about Jefferson's life, and the cultural and moral milieu of the day, so that the students can put it into some context. The matter should neither be skipped nor should it be taught in such a way that many will condemn him (although some still will, and I can't blame them).

The point here of my little morality tale is that teaching "Truth" is a complex business, and sometimes Truth misleads.

"We must teach the Truth and not allow lies in the classroom" is the slogan of BOTH sides of the creationism in schools debate. I think that in a democracy both sides are entitled to a hearing, even in the schools, so long as it is presented in an objective way. I further think that this sort of situation would be vastly better than what has developed -- the situation we have now where in many schools evolution is avoided entirely, meaning that students tend to remain ignorant of the evidence, and therefore dependent on other sources (very often fundamentalist preachers) for the evidence.