What is a 'theory' ?

[andys]

lasion,
You correctly acknowledge the two meanings of the word "theory":
1) an explanation [whose status is unrefuted knowledge of the highest order in science]
2) a speculation [whose status is mere conjecture, e.g., "What if there is a god?"]

Then you proceed to offer a speculation of your own, namely, that there is yet a third meaning of the word "theory" which is a combination of explanation and speculation. How novel.

You even offer your own example of such a beast:

""...sometimes a theory can even have both meanings - by being a speculative explanation - such as the "Demonic Theory of Disease"". [My underscoring]

In the very next sentence you contradict your own example, asserting that the Demonic Theory of Disease is purely speculative and NOT an explanation:

"This particular explanation (theory) for disease is completely speculative (there is no actual evidence for demons)..."

Ah, so now you are saying that this "Demon theory" is NOT both speculative and an explanation.
Well if that is now the case, why do you proceed to contradict your contradiction, and assert that the "Demon theory" is an explanation?

Your words:

"...it is a WRONG explanation."
So, now the theory is an explanation (albeit a wrong one). Whew.

Look, I think you do grasp the meaning of "theory" as having two applications, as 1) hypothesis, e.g., "I wonder if x is the case" and 2) a comprehensive, fully tested explanation, e.g., "I know that x is the case". But it is unclear whether you appreciate that they are related, but forever distinct. A hypothesis can become elevated to a theory, having gained inconclusive evidence to support it, but it is, then, no longer a hypothesis.

Never the twain shall meet.

 

[newhope101]

Gday,
Thanks Copernicus

Here is my attempt to give a full picture of how 'theory' applies to evolution.

Two common uses of the word theory can be boiled down to :
1. explanation
2. speculation

A speculation theory can be right or wrong.
An explanation theory can also be right or wrong.
Yep..but a fact stays the same
It is not always black and white - sometimes a theory can even have both meanings - by being a speculative explanation - such as the "Demonic Theory of Disease".

The Demonic Theory of Disease speculates that disease is explained by demons. This particular explanation (theory) for disease is completely speculative (there is no actual evidence for demons), and - it is a WRONG explanation.

But consider the more modern competing explanation for disease - the "Germ Theory of Disease". This particular explanation (theory) of disease is NOT speculation - it is based on observation. It's a fact.

The Demonic Theory (explanation) of Disease was speculation - and it was wrong. Demons were just a theory, and the theory turned out to be wrong.

The Germ Theory (explanation) of Disease started out as speculation e.g. when Lister hypothesized germs were causing sepsis. He was spectacularly right - his theory (speculation) was correct. Now we have direct evidence for germs and their cause of disease, and so the Germ Theory (explanation) for Disease is considered a fact.
..and the Israelites were told to wash their hands before eating, and to bury their faeces. Why? because God new about germs before Lister. God also knew about radar before us as he installed it in bats. So what?
Typically such speculation early in the scientific process is refered to as a 'hypothesis', sometimes a 'conjecture'. Then the hypothesis is tested with a experiments. Lister tested his hypothesis by performing surgery under a fine spray of anti-septic (1867.)

Such tests will support or disprove the hypothesis - but strictly speaking never 'prove'. After directly observing germs causing disease in practice, our evidence for germs is so solid it's a fact(*). When we refer to the Germ Theory of Disease no-one says "aha! so germs are still just a THEORY!"
You observed humans arose from knucklewalkers which was incorrect, but my apple still falls to the ground and 1 + 1 still equals 2.
(*) Strictly speaking all facts are provisional, but once something has vast overwhelmign evidence, it's just called a 'fact'.

Toe was more convincing 10 years ago before they found more real evidence
Now - evolution.

Sure enough Darwin started by proposing a speculative claim - a hypothesis, a conjecture.

Boiled down to the nubbin his hypothesis, his speculation, his conjecture was this :

Natural selection (descent with modification) explains the origin of all species on earth

So Darwin's theory (or explanation) was indeed speculation in his time - it had not been fully supported by evidence, not accepted by science. (Of course the actual facts of nature were true before science understood them.)

So - Darwin's explanation of evolution was originally speculation.

But quite quickly the evidence to support Darwin's hypothesis began to accumulate. Not just that but prior observations and experiments were put into sharp relief by Darwin's hypothetical explanation.

It became clear that Darwin was right - very very clear and obvious. Eventually the evidence was so great than Darwin's explanation was no longer considered speculation - it was considered a fact.

So it is indeed true that Darwin's hypothetical explanation started as speculation - is now considered as a factual explanation - because the evidence is so strong.

His hypothesis was confirmed as correct. The evidence is SO solid, it is as strong a fact as anything in biology. His hypothesis became accepted as a fact.
No it hasn't. There's much more to it that adaptation. If adaptation is all there is too it your toe is out the window.
Nonetheless it is still a formal scientific explanation, it can still be called a THEORY - an explanation. In the same way that gravity can be called a theory - actually TWO theories, so scientists often talk about Newton's Theory of gravity and Einstein's Theory of gravity.
No actually you are confusing science in the here and now that has validity with thoreticasl assumptions of ancestry and the past.
Generally - biologists don't refer to the "Theory of Evolution" unless they want to emphasize the theoretical aspect - usually it's just refered to as "evolution". Same as physicists refer to "gravity" or "electricity".
Did Darwin invisage the selection of deleterious mutations, genetic drift, accelerated evolution? No Darwin was into gradualism and was wrong about heaps.
But creationists sieze on this word "theory" and spin out on word games about "speculation".


No creationists seize the word theory because they change like flavour of the month. Indeed the ONLY thing that has remained constant is that humans evolved from something. The something has changed from a chimp to something similar to a chimp to something that does not look like a chimp at all.

Iasion

Each time evolutionists have asserted solid theoretical evidence for the status quo. Creationists that said your evidence is flawed were the ones that were correct then and they will be in the future.

Some how & some where are also still up for grabs and theoretical. That is what evolutionary theory is about as opposed to real science.

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

Wow - Andy actually claims that I say the DTD is "NOT an explanation" :

lasion, In the very next sentence you contradict your own example, asserting that the Demonic Theory of Disease is purely speculative and NOT an explanation:

But my actual words clearly say the opposite :

"This particular explanation (theory) for disease is completely speculative (there is no actual evidence for demons)..."

See the word "explanation" right there in my text?
I specifically said this explanation was speculation (an explanation CAN also be speculation, as it is in this case - it's NOT a 3rd defintion at all, it's simply using both meanings at one time - not uncommon in English.)

See Andy's words :
"... [Iasion] assert that the Demonic Theory of Disease is purely speculative and NOT an explanation"

Sadly -
Andy lied outright about a simple claim right there in the text, a lie that anyone can see for themselves.

I'm sure readers will understand why I ignore such a shocking liar.


Iasion

 

[The Neo Nerd]

..and it's been a while since I've spoken to peope that hope humans can still breed with chimps. Go figure..there are some fairly unstable people around here..granted.

So throwing up real science in the here and now is the best example you can scratch up for backing up your evolutionary theories.

There is definitely real science going on out there. The evolutionary sciences are not some of them.

That's why an apple always falls to the ground but knuclewalking ancestry is in the garbge bin. Get it?

Wait a minute are you a flat earther?

because that would be cool.

 

[LuisDantas]

Each time evolutionists have asserted solid theoretical evidence for the status quo. Creationists that said your evidence is flawed were the ones that were correct then and they will be in the future.

Is this some kind of lying game that you are playing? Because surely you must know that what you just said is nothing but lies.

Also - is there any reason why you don't use quotes?

 

[newhope101]

Loiusdantas it is not me being the liar here. I quote to the point that I have been ridiculed for backing up my info. Look to the replies to me to see just who provides evidence as oppsoed to woffle and their most unvaluable opinion

...and here is some more for you to get tied up in knots over. Enjoy!


New Scientist: Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life
2009 - Editorial:
The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened. The tree also helped carry the day for evolution. Darwin argued successfully that the tree of life was a fact of nature, plain for all to see though in need of explanation.

The explanation he came up with was evolution by natural selection. Ever since Darwin the tree has been the unifying principle for understanding the history of life on Earth. At its base is LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all living things, and out of LUCA grows a trunk, which splits again and again to create a vast, bifurcating tree. Each branch represents a single species; branching points are where one species becomes two. Most branches eventually come to a dead end as species go extinct, but some reach right to the top--these are living species. The tree is thus a record of how every species that ever lived is related to all others right back to the origin of life.

Editorial: Uprooting Darwin's tree http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126923.000-editorial-uprooting-darwins-tree.html?full=true&print=true * 21 January 2009 "THERE is nothing new to be discovered in physics." So said Lord Kelvin in 1900, shortly before the intellectual firestorm ignited by relativity and quantum mechanics proved him comprehensively wrong. If anyone now thinks that biology is sorted, they are going to be proved wrong too. The more that genomics, bioinformatics and many other newer disciplines reveal about life, the more obvious it becomes that our present understanding is not up to the job. We now gaze on a biological world of mind-boggling complexity that exposes the shortcomings of familiar, tidy concepts such as species, gene and organism.

A particularly pertinent example is provided in this week's cover story--the uprooting of the tree of life which Darwin used as an organising principle and which has been a central tenet of biology ever since (see "Axing Darwin's tree"). Most biologists now accept that the tree is not a fact of nature--it is something we impose on nature in an attempt to make the task of understanding it more tractable. Other important bits of biology--notably development, ageing and sex--are similarly turning out to be much more involved than we ever imagined. As evolutionary biologist Michael Rose at the University of California, Irvine, told us: "The complexity of biology is comparable to quantum mechanics." It is now accepted that the tree of life is something we impose on nature in an attempt to make the task of understanding it more tractable

It started well. The first molecules to be sequenced were RNAs found in ribosomes, the cell's protein-making machines. In the 1970s, by comparing RNA sequences from various plants, animals and microorganisms, molecular biologists began to sketch the outlines of a tree. This led to, among other successes, the unexpected discovery of a previously unknown major branch of the tree of life, the unicellular archaea, which were previously thought to be bacteria. By the mid-1980s there was great optimism that molecular techniques would finally reveal the universal tree of life in all its glory. Ironically, the opposite happened.

The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes rather than just RNA. Everybody expected these DNA sequences to confirm the RNA tree, and sometimes they did but, crucially, sometimes they did not. RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse. Which was correct? Paradoxically, both--but only if the main premise underpinning Darwin's tree was incorrect. Darwin assumed that descent was exclusively "vertical", with organisms passing traits down to their offspring. But what if species also routinely swapped genetic material with other species, or hybridised with them? Then that neat branching pattern would quickly degenerate into an impenetrable thicket of interrelatedness, with species being closely related in some respects but not others. We now know that this is exactly what happens.
As more and more genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were routinely swapping genetic material with other species--often across huge taxonomic distances--in a process called horizontal gene transfer (HGT). At first HGT was assumed to be a minor player, transferring only "optional extra" functions such as antibiotic resistance. Core biological functions such as DNA replication and protein synthesis were still thought to be passed on vertically. For a while, this allowed evolutionary biologists to accept HGT without jeopardising their precious tree of life; HGT was merely noise blurring its edges. We now know that view is wrong.
　
　
Hence there is no LUCA. Evos are grabbing at straws, Darwin was wrong and still this theory lives on in the minds and hearts of many. The theory of evolution is inconsistent, flawed, changeable, and unlike what Darwin expected in many ways. Furthermore, many of the examples of evidence ended up being not evidence at all and tossed into the garbage bin of delusionary evidence past. How can you be sure today's theoretical evidence is even close to the truth? You don't.

 

[newhope101]

Wait a minute are you a flat earther?

because that would be cool.

No actually. The bible stated the earth was circular when the know alls of the day though it was flat. So the Isrealites and Jews had the correct info, the others did not. The bible also stated that first life was created in the sea with the finall creation being mankind.

I think that your researchers are copy cats.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

No actually. The bible stated the earth was circular when the know alls of the day though it was flat.

I thought the bible said the world was flat? Which verses state that it is spherical?

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

No actually. The bible stated the earth was circular when the know alls of the day though it was flat.

Yes - round like plate,
but NOT round like a ball.

The Bible has a word for a sphere, like a ball, even used in Isaiah ("toss you like a ball into a far country".)

The bible has another word for something round and flat like a plate or a disk.

And when describing the earth, the bible uses the word for round like a disk or plate. Round and FLAT like a disk or plate.

The bible does NOT use the word for round like a sphere when it COULD have.
Clearly the bible writers saw the world as round and FLAT.

But apologists deliberately conufuse this issue.

So the Isrealites and Jews had the correct info, the others did not.

In fact the Israelites had it just as wrong as everyone else.


Iasion

 

[Copernicus]

Copernicus,
While your credentials are impressive, your claim that "like I said" is grammatically correct, is certainly disputable.

Andys, everything is disputable, and you can find lots of conflicting advice on the internet. I recommend that you look up the word "like" in a reputable dictionary such as Merriam-Websters. You will find that this word can be either a preposition or a subordinating conjunction. Look at the usage note on the page my link goes to:

Usage Discussion of LIKE

Like has been used as a conjunction since the 14th century. In the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries it was used in serious literature, but not often; in the 17th and 18th centuries it grew more frequent but less literary. It became markedly more frequent in literary use again in the 19th century. By mid-century it was coming under critical fire, but not from grammarians, oddly enough, who were wrangling over whether it could be called a preposition or not. There is no doubt that, after 600 years of use, conjunctive like is firmly established. It has been used by many prestigious literary figures of the past, though perhaps not in their most elevated works; in modern use it may be found in literature, journalism, and scholarly writing. While the present objection to it is perhaps more heated than rational, someone writing in a formal prose style may well prefer to use as, as if, such as, or an entirely different construction instead

 

[LuisDantas]

Loiusdantas it is not me being the liar here.

I sincerely hope you are saying that in jest.

I quote to the point that I have been ridiculed for backing up my info.

Oh no, not for that reason. For the quality of your attempts at same, actually. More often than not they in fact disprove your claims, and that is funny.

You have still to master the syntax of the quote tags. I figure that is why you resort so often to the less satisfactory use of the color red inside a main quote block.

 

[andys]

newhope101,
You have everything so twisted I suspect you are a contortionist, not a creationist.

Let's take each of your ill informed replies to me, one at a time.

"Yep, you wish you had real evidence, as opposed to theoretical evidence,,but you haven't,"

Sigh, "real" evidence is NOT theoretical. It is "empirical" (a new word for you?).
Empirical evidence is evidence induced by direct observation in a replicable or repeatable manner. Theoretical "evidence" is, by contrast, deduced solely on the basis of what has already been defined to be "true", not what is empirically verified to be true. For example, "1+1 = 2" has no "evidence" other than the circular rules that define it to be true. Mathematics can, however, provide important legitimacy to a scientific theory, but it is no substitute for the empirical data required to establish what is factual opposed to that which is theoretical (i.e., true only in principle). This is not my opinion, it is a fact.

"How about showing us creationists what evidence you do have that does not involve the use of assumptions? The reason why you haven't is because apart from your forever disputed fossils, you have none."

In case you missed the memo, evolution is an established fact, and the explanation for it is a scientific theory, no less. Translation: all the evidence you could ever want in your wildest dreams has been painstakingly obtained and is available for everyone to examine. There are no assumptions, no speculations involved. That, itself, is another fact, you seem painfully unaware of and ought to learn to avoid embarrassing yourself further.

Ignorance of these facts explains why you persist in demanding evidence from me. It is you who is guilty of advancing a creation-by-god "theory" (i.e., pure nonsense speculation) without providing the slightest scrap of empirical evidence to support it.

How absurd (and contrary to the burden-of-proof rule) that you should expect me to provide evidence for an established scientific theory as though it were a feeble hypothesis! More than enough conclusive evidence has already been provided. Wake up. Evolution is an established fact and its explanation, the Theory of Evolution enjoys the highest mark of certainty that is possible.

Next, you paste an enormous landfill of text from an unidentified Wiki source, and hope I will take issue with its content. Believe it or not, I am familiar with this "issue" and will debate it with you if you really wish.

But it is an irrelevant matter which involves taxonomy and the classification of species by certain specialists whose job is to shuffle species to and fro, often arbitrarily, to the chagrin of many evolutionary scientists. All of which has no impact on the fact of evolution.

I think a more interesting question is this: What would motivate such a person as yourself, a person of faith - not science - to be so preoccupied with one particular scientific theory? The noble pursuit for truth and knowledge, perhaps? Far from it. The answer comes as no surprise.

When Quaxotic asked you (above) if believers, like yourself, ever question any other scientific theories, you answered:

"Nope. Because gravity doesn't challenge fundamental Christian beliefs."

In other words, evolution had better be wrong, because it threatens your precious religious beliefs. The truth isn't important. Your superstitious dogma is all that matters. When truth threatens your beliefs you fundamentalists unite like antibodies to destroy the foreign invader. No amount of evidence can, or will, ever prove you wrong, so help you god. That's the only reason you want to - you need to - condemn it.

Of course, if you do have any shred of empirical evidence that may cast doubt on the fact of evolution, or topple the grand Theory of Evolution, why waste time on our little forum?

The scientific community is all ears! Unlike the religious community, the scientific community is impartial and never feels threatened by new evidence that may challenge its current body of facts, laws or even theories. Science wants to grow, not stagnate; it embraces new evidence.

So, if you have anything to offer in the way of an alternative theory, which is supported by laws or facts, don't be shy. You'd be the talk of the town. Your face would be plastered on the covers of Time and National Geographic.

Best of all...I'd admit you were right all along!

 

[gnostic]

Now - evolution.

Sure enough Darwin started by proposing a speculative claim - a hypothesis, a conjecture.

Boiled down to the nubbin his hypothesis, his speculation, his conjecture was this :

Natural selection (descent with modification) explains the origin of all species on earth

So Darwin's theory (or explanation) was indeed speculation in his time - it had not been fully supported by evidence, not accepted by science. (Of course the actual facts of nature were true before science understood them.)

So - Darwin's explanation of evolution was originally speculation.

But quite quickly the evidence to support Darwin's hypothesis began to accumulate. Not just that but prior observations and experiments were put into sharp relief by Darwin's hypothetical explanation.

It became clear that Darwin was right - very very clear and obvious. Eventually the evidence was so great than Darwin's explanation was no longer considered speculation - it was considered a fact.

So it is indeed true that Darwin's hypothetical explanation started as speculation - is now considered as a factual explanation - because the evidence is so strong.

His hypothesis was confirmed as correct. The evidence is SO solid, it is as strong a fact as anything in biology. His hypothesis became accepted as a fact.

Nonetheless it is still a formal scientific explanation, it can still be called a THEORY - an explanation. In the same way that gravity can be called a theory - actually TWO theories, so scientists often talk about Newton's Theory of gravity and Einstein's Theory of gravity.

Generally - biologists don't refer to the "Theory of Evolution" unless they want to emphasize the theoretical aspect - usually it's just refered to as "evolution". Same as physicists refer to "gravity" or "electricity".

But creationists sieze on this word "theory" and spin out on word games about "speculation".

Actually, I would dispute your claim that Darwin began with merely speculations.

There were far more evidences for Darwin's theory on evolution, by the time he published his works (1859), then when Einstein published General Theory of Relativity (1915).

Other than his theory, Einstein had no evidences, other than his equation and his maths. The evidences didn't come until after his publication.

It was completely different with Darwin.

The real story of Darwin began with his voyage on the Beagle (1831-1836), which is 23 years prior to his publication on the Origin. The evidences were there, but his formation of the idea of natural selection (that the branches of species have common root) didn't actually form until 1838. Other than his trip on the Beagle, Darwin had other evidences which he could observe and study, from vast number of specimens (including fossils) collected by other people.

I'd agree that science didn't accept Darwin's natural selection (1838), until it was finally published in 1859.

Einstein didn't have so much evidences to work with, prior to his publication on general relativity.

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

Actually, I would dispute your claim that Darwin began with merely speculations.

Well,
I meant speculation in the sense of still being a hypothesis - a hypothesis that explained some observations. (I don't mean speculation = wild guess after a night at the pub

I was specifically focussing on the stage of the scientific method referred to as the hypothesis - which is speculation in the sense of not yet being formally accepted.



Iasion

 

[gnostic]

I meant speculation in the sense of still being a hypothesis - a hypothesis that explained some observations. (I don't mean speculation = wild guess after a night at the pub

I was specifically focussing on the stage of the scientific method referred to as the hypothesis - which is speculation in the sense of not yet being formally accepted.

Well, there were no actual governing science body back then, Iasion, to formally accept or reject his theory. A large part of science classroom in Britain, was still taught and dictated by the church. It was T.H. Huxley, using Darwin's theory to overthrow the clergymen from the science classrooms.

Given that his theory on natural selection wasn't generally known until the publication of On the Origin of the Species. Upon the publication of his book, a number of scientists in 1859, as well as even some liberal clerics accepted his book.

So how do you determine when hypothesis become a formally accepted theory? When he was awarded Copley Medal (1864)? Or when he died?

 

[andys]

Iasion,
I don''t need to resort to lies in order to refute your illogical assertions.
However, when my opponent resorts to name-calling, that is a sign they fear they are fighting a losing battle. So I'll be gentle with you.

I trust you don't think that logic lies, so let's put it in charge and I'll step away.

First, to refresh your memory, you acknowledged the two very different meanings of the word "theory":
"Two common uses of the word theory can be boiled down to :
1. explanation
2. speculation"

Yes, these are indeed the two different meanings of "theory".
1) Explanation refers to a scientific theory, which is an air tight explanation of a hypothesis built upon a solid foundation of established facts and laws. A scientific theory is as certain as scientific knowledge can be.
2) Specutlation, by contrast, is pure speculation; it's a guess. There is NO explanation involved.
(In science this is referred to as a hypothesis, which is more involved than a mere guess.)

So, let's be clear. You do acknowledge that the two meanings of "theory" are distinct.

But look at your assertion (a direct quote):

"This particular explanation (theory) for disease is completely speculative (there is no actual evidence for demons)..."

Are you are saying:
The theory of demons is 100% speculative (since there is no evidence, i.e., NO explanation?)
If so, I agree. Using demons to explain disease is just as "speculative" (stupid) as using a god to explain the origin life.

If not, the only other way to interpret your assertion is this:
The explanation is 100% speculative. (1. explanation = 2. speculation)

That is a blatant contradiction, my dear fellow. It contradicts your earlier definition of "theory" as having two distinct meanings
1. explanation (scientific knowledge)
2. speculation = (hypothesis)

Whichever interpretation is the one you meant, you're up the creek, old boy.

In fact, you chose the latter. Your words:

"I specifically said...an explanation CAN also be speculation, as it is in this case...it's simply using both meanings at one time..."

In other words, a square CAN be a circle, a dog CAN be a parrot, X can by Y.

I have nothing more to add.

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

Iasion:
"This particular explanation (theory) for disease is completely speculative (there is no actual evidence for demons)..."

Are you are saying:
The theory of demons is 100% speculative (since there is no evidence, i.e., NO explanation?)

That's exactly what I said - the explanation is speculation because demons are speculative.

Are you are saying:
If so, I agree. Using demons to explain disease is just as "speculative" (stupid) as using a god to explain the origin life.
Yes.

Like I said -
the explanation is speculative - it's speculation - because demons are speculation.

Are you are saying:
If not, the only other way to interpret your assertion is this:
The explanation is 100% speculative. (1. explanation = 2. speculation)

It means the same thing - the explanation is speculation.
Demons are speculative, the explanation is speculation.

That is a blatant contradiction, my dear fellow. It contradicts your earlier definition of "theory" as having two distinct meanings

No it doesn't.
It shows the explanation is speculation. You made up a distinction that makes no differenece. Just to avoid admitting error. BOTH demons, and the explanation, are speculations - how could it be OTHERWISE?

Could it be :
* demons are REAL, but the Demon Theory of Disease is only speculation ?
(does sandy really believe in demons?)

Or could it be :
* demons are speculation, but the Demon Theory of Disease is TRUE ? !
(how COULD that be ?!)

Of course not.

But now sandy is pretending that only ONE can be speculation (therefore one must be true!)
And then he insists I have contradicted myself by claiming both are true! What incredible nonsense - of course BOTH demons AND the explanation that they cause disaese - are speculation. All to avoid admittig he was wrong.

In fact, you chose the latter. Your words:
"I specifically said...an explanation CAN also be speculation, as it is in this case...it's simply using both meanings at one time..."

Yes,
Like I said all along, like you agreed - the explanation is speculation.

In other words, a square CAN be a circle, a dog CAN be a parrot, X can by Y.

Wrong.
An explanation CAN be speculative - such as demons - they are speculation, the explanatoon that they cause disease is speculation.

Like I said all along.

A square CAN be a polyon AND a square.
A parrot can be a pet and a show-bird.

You just cannot admit error - so now you play stupid words game to avoid it. Pathetic.

I have nothing more to add.

Fantastic!
Keep your ignorant lies and abuse out of my thread.


Iasion

 

[Thief]

I still haven't seen one post to overrule Webster's.

It's all word play so far.

speculation...explanation...conceptual ....whatever....

'Proof' is not part of the definition for cause and reason.

I do believe in evolution.
It's a good explanation.

The experiments so far demonstrate...good.... probable....explanation.

And there's plenty of demo to convince anyone.
I'm convinced.
I believe....but not for the proof. There isn't any.

We don't have proof and I don't see the need for it.

Evolution is a practical....explanation.

 

[Copernicus]

I still haven't seen one post to overrule Webster's.

I agree, but, technically speaking, there is no unique "Websters Dictionary". That is just a name that lots of dictionary makers use because it sells dictionaries.

It is a good idea to look at the word senses in the Merriam-Webster dictionary that is put out by Encyclopedia Britannica. Pay particular attention to senses 5 (explanation sense) and 6 (conjecture sense):

5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>


These are very close to the distinction that Iaison originally made and that Richard Dawkins wrote about in his recent book The Greatest Show on Earth. It is a very good explanation of how creationists have equivocated on the word theory in order to promote the false idea that evolution is considered a mere hypothesis that has yet to be proved to the satisfaction of all. Evolution theory is not just a conjecture. It is regarded as a scientific fact in the same sense that the theory of the heliocentric solar system is regarded as fact.

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

I still haven't seen one post to overrule Webster's.

What a bizarre comment.
I am not attempting to over-rule Webster's.
No-one else here is trying that either - at least I don't think so - but some odd things have been said

It's an attempt to explain and clarify the various meanings of a word - a word found in Webster's, and other dictionaries.

Webster's agrees with me.
The word 'theory' has two (main) meanings - like I said.

It's all word play so far.
speculation...explanation...conceptual ....whatever....
'Proof' is not part of the definition for cause and reason.
I do believe in evolution.
It's a good explanation.
The experiments so far demonstrate...good.... probable....explanation.
And there's plenty of demo to convince anyone.
I'm convinced.
I believe....but not for the proof. There isn't any.
We don't have proof and I don't see the need for it.
Evolution is a practical....explanation.

I didn't say anything about 'proof'. Science deals with evidence, not 'proof' - please pay attention in future.
This is a bizarre mish-mash of random words. If there is a point there, I can't see it.


Iasion