outhouse
Atheistically
so even when people lie and they are caught red handed we cant call them on it.??
well thanks for the heads up ill have to re-phrase my statements regarding the plagiarism and purposely put false statements
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is a 'theory' ?
- Thread starter Iasion
- Start date
so even when people lie and they are caught red handed we cant call them on it.??
well thanks for the heads up ill have to re-phrase my statements regarding the plagiarism and purposely put false statements
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
I assure you that scientists use both word senses, but in different contexts. Both senses are quite legitimate. Dawkins even wanted to do away with the more technical sense and replace it with his (coined spelling) "theorum".
As the two word senses were spelled out in the OP, that still hasn't added much of substance to the discussion, but my remark was directed more at your use of the term "metaphysical", which also has more than one word sense. What you did was to use the term in a loose sense to criticize Iasion:
I do not agree that this is what Iasion has been doing. The word "theory" in its hypothetical or conjectural sense may well be a testable hypothesis that simply has not been tested. For example, one could very well call "string theory" that kind of hypothesis, since there are doubts (by some physicists, anyway) that it is anything more than an untestable conjecture. It is hardly the kind of "theory" that evolution by natural selection is.
Look, there are lots of very knowledgeable people on both sides of that question. I would refer you to physicist Victor J. Stenger's book God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.
Well, just speaking about the expression "metaphysical speculation", you could start by giving us the definition metaphysical that you referred to but never actually stated.
Actually, I subscribe to the position that Dawkins outlined in his book The God Delusion and, of course, Stenger's book. I think that they did a pretty good job of making the case that such claims are empirical claims that are quite often subject to scientific investigation. There is, however, a very strong social and cultural taboo against exploring that territory. Gould's position of Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) provides most scientists and scholars with a good smokescreen to avoid that emotionally-charged controversy.
I quite disagree with you. They are speculations that are intended to explain physical events in the real world. If they were not, then people would not get so emotional about them.
As you wish.
No, I actually meant "less meaningless" (or "more meaningful"), since they were working with an extremely impoverished concept of linguistic meaning. (Forgive my play on words there.
) A lot has happened since the heyday of logical positivism, so I am hoping that you are not an aficionado of that very flawed approach to the language of philosophers. Wittgenstein rejected that side of linguistic philosophy for very good reasons, not that Ideal Language philosophers didn't go on to do some very good work on the nature of formal languages. They were just mistaken about its applicability to natural language. Ordinary Language philosophers such as Austin and Grice went on to make far greater contributions to our basic understanding of the nature of language.
Last edited:
Copernicus,
After you came to Iasion's rescue, I have enjoyed our lively debates concerning the meaning and definition of various words.
But the issue between Iasion and me is no less unresolved. To his credit, Iasion appears to recognize the same distinction that Dawkins observes regarding the two opposing meanings of the word "theory". Both he and Dawkins suggest two words to be used for each of these different meanings.
Dawkins, as you noted, proposes the novel word "theorum" to represent the scientists' use of "theory", meaning:
(1) a confirmed hypothesis that is an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena.
Next, Dawkins proposes the word "hypothesis" to represent the layman's use of "theory", meaning:
(2) a conjecture, notion or guess proposed as an explanation
(I am paraphrasing from my copy of The Greatest Show on Earth. p.9)
Thus far, we're all one happy family.
However, only Iasion ventures forth to propose his curious view that a hypothesis, which both he and Dawkins defined as mere conjecture, can enjoy a theorum's attribute of explanation.
This is a very basic (silly) issue. There is no confusion involving linguistics, unclear meanings or misinterpretations involved.
Iasion is conspicuously inconsistent to say "theory" has two opposite meanings and then change the rules and suggest the two meanings are not opposite, but quite compatible, thank you!
There is no middle ground between (1) a confirmed hypothesis that (therefore) provides an explanation vs (2) an unconfirmed hypothesis that (therefore) cannot provide an explanation.
This is Iasion's assertion and he's a big boy. Let him come out of hiding to defend himself.
After you came to Iasion's rescue, I have enjoyed our lively debates concerning the meaning and definition of various words.
But the issue between Iasion and me is no less unresolved. To his credit, Iasion appears to recognize the same distinction that Dawkins observes regarding the two opposing meanings of the word "theory". Both he and Dawkins suggest two words to be used for each of these different meanings.
Dawkins, as you noted, proposes the novel word "theorum" to represent the scientists' use of "theory", meaning:
(1) a confirmed hypothesis that is an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena.
Next, Dawkins proposes the word "hypothesis" to represent the layman's use of "theory", meaning:
(2) a conjecture, notion or guess proposed as an explanation
(I am paraphrasing from my copy of The Greatest Show on Earth. p.9)
Thus far, we're all one happy family.
However, only Iasion ventures forth to propose his curious view that a hypothesis, which both he and Dawkins defined as mere conjecture, can enjoy a theorum's attribute of explanation.
This is a very basic (silly) issue. There is no confusion involving linguistics, unclear meanings or misinterpretations involved.
Iasion is conspicuously inconsistent to say "theory" has two opposite meanings and then change the rules and suggest the two meanings are not opposite, but quite compatible, thank you!
There is no middle ground between (1) a confirmed hypothesis that (therefore) provides an explanation vs (2) an unconfirmed hypothesis that (therefore) cannot provide an explanation.
This is Iasion's assertion and he's a big boy. Let him come out of hiding to defend himself.
Last edited:
David M
Well-Known Member
You can't say that they personally have lied.
You can say they have plagiarised and you can say a statement is false.
David M
Well-Known Member
I'll propose that view as well, in scientific terms a hypothesis also provides an explanation. But that explanation is a proposed explanation and until tested is considered provisional but still an explanation, all that is required is that it be testable and falsifiable.
(1) a confirmed hypothesis that (therefore) provides an explanation that has been tested and not yet falsified
vs
(2) an unconfirmed hypothesis that (therefore) provides an proposed explanation that may be falsified by testing.
An explanation does not need to be confirmed to be an explanation.
What justifies your leap to the false conclusion that a hypothesis, without confirmation, is an explanation? And that all it needs is to be testable and falsifiable? I'll tell you what it needs: it needs evidence to confirm that it is indeed an explanation!
It truly puzzles me how you fail to realize the marked difference between an empty hypothesis and a fully supported one. Only the latter can be said to be an explanation; the former is a guess. Can't you see that a "proposed explanation" - or call it a "provisional explanation" - is just another way of saying "a hypothesis that doesn't explain a damn thing...not now, perhaps never"?
Suppose you were being tried for a murder that you did not commit. The prosecution suggests a method you used to dispose of the body. Is such a hypothesis to be considered a valid explanation of how you got rid of the body? Or isn't it worthless conjecture, since it is without any confirmation?
Do you still honestly think:
If you do, I hope you never serve on a jury.
Last edited:
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
To Iasion's credit, he came up with the same distinction independently of Dawkins. Dawkins did a much better job, but that is to be expected. Dawkins is a great and experienced teacher.
As I said earlier, I don't think that "explanation" is necessarily the best word to use here. Scientific theories make predictions, but not all putative explanations succeed at making coherent predictions. What is missing in this discussion is a coherent definition of "explanation" that we can all agree on.
I think that you may be reading too much into the concept of "explanation". I'm not at all sure what you think counts as one. I do think that you may be too wedded to the kind of verificationalist approach that the Vienna School favored.
Copernicus,
Oh please! At length, Iasion describes precisely what he means by "explanation". Let me refresh your memory:
If there is still any doubt in your mind as to what "explanation" means in this discourse, I suggest you ask Iasion (not me) for clarification, since it was he, not I, who started this thread, and it was he, not I who introduced the term in that first post.
Oh please! At length, Iasion describes precisely what he means by "explanation". Let me refresh your memory:
Now tell me who's the one who is "wedded to the kind of verificationalist approach that the Vienna School" advocates.
If there is still any doubt in your mind as to what "explanation" means in this discourse, I suggest you ask Iasion (not me) for clarification, since it was he, not I, who started this thread, and it was he, not I who introduced the term in that first post.
Last edited:
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Andys, what I said was that a definition of "explanation" was missing here, and there was nothing in that long passage that provided a clear definition. It was just a passage that attempted to distinguish between the concepts of "fact" and "theory". It used the term "explanation" for that purpose. I think that you have seized upon what you saw as an inconsistent or imprecise use of the term. Quite honestly, I do not believe that you have exposed any significant problem in his argument, which you and I seem largely to agree with. Iasion could probably have used different words or been more precise in his language, but is the point you raise significant enough to change the basic point of the OP?
The problem, of course, is that theism is a type of explanation. It is used to explain all sorts of things about the nature of reality. The problem is that it is a really bad explanation. It is so bad that one could really call it a "failed explanation" or "no explanation at all". Nevertheless, it does seem to stand as a satisfactory explanation of our reality for billions of people in the world. There are certainly some evolutionists who believe that the "fact of evolution" is best explained by the Darwinian theory plus the thumb of God on the scales of nature. Darwin didn't see a need for God in the process, but there have been a lot of evolutionists who have not wanted to abandon their religious biases in describing how it is that we came into being.
Last edited:
David M
Well-Known Member
What leap of faith? Almost every definition of hypothesis states that it is indeed an explanation, e.g.
- a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations
- a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in .
If a hypothesis does not even attempt to explain anything it cannot even classed as a scientific hypothesis.
It truly puzzles me how you cannot realise that explanation does not have to be fully supported to be an explanation. Especially when the definitions of a scientific hypothesis repeatedly state that it is an explanation.
And you are moving the goalposts here, a "empty hypothesis" is different to a untested hypothesis. Its true that the null hypothesis is not an explanation but it is completely different to an untested hypothesis.
No its not. Because the hypothesis does explain something, we just don't know whether the explanation is the correct one until the hypothesis can be confirmed or falsified by testing.
Whether an explanation is correct or not is not what defines it as being an explanation. Some explanations are shown to be wrong and some are shown to be correct (and in science they are overwhelmingly still only tentatively correct).
Moving the goalposts again (as well as going to an unscientific area), nowhere did myself or Iasion state that an untested hypothesis is a valid explanation, but it is still an explanation. Just by qualifying it as a valid explanation you are admitting that there are invalid explanations and thus these are still explanations.
The method proposed by the prosecution does not magically transform itself into an explanation just because it is supported by evidence, it becomes a valid explanation whereas before it was a proposed explanation.
I'll do fine on a jury because I can diferentiate between an explanation that is valid and an explanation that may be valid (or may not).
Last edited:
Here was my question to you:
"Can't you see that a 'proposed explanation' - or call it a 'provisional explanation' - is just another way of saying 'a hypothesis that doesn't explain a damn thing...not now, perhaps never'?"
You answer me with an uncited cut and paste:
Your definitions were most helpful.
"Can't you see that a 'proposed explanation' - or call it a 'provisional explanation' - is just another way of saying 'a hypothesis that doesn't explain a damn thing...not now, perhaps never'?"
You answer me with an uncited cut and paste:
Your questionable definitions only confirm my position, that a hypothesis is only an intended explanation - not a real one, and that it would/could only be an explanation if it is true. Once confirmed, the hypothesis is a true explanation - a theory.
Your definitions were most helpful.
David M
Well-Known Member
No, because that's not what the words mean.
An explanation does not have to be true to be an explanation. You are admitting it is an explanation every time you qualify it. But if you want to have your own personal definitions for words thats fine, just don't expect other people to agree with you.
The definition was from WordNet Search - 3.0
Knock yourself out trying to find a definition of scientific hypothesis that says its not an explanation
Last edited:
That was your reply to my assertion: "a hypothesis is only an intended explanation - not a real one, and that it would/could only be an explanation if it were true. Once confirmed, the hypothesis is a true explanation - a theory."
You then provide the following definition to support your interpretation of "hypothesis, but fail to recognize that it rebuts you, and serves only to support my understanding of "hypothesis:
There you have it. A hypothesis must be true to explain. (Thank you David M.)
This has been my point all along. But you need not to resort to hunting for definitions to validate this information; it ought to be self-evident. Can you imagine a world in which wild guesses and unverified speculations were considered explanations! School textbooks would be fairy tales; newspapers would be lies (like the National Enquirer); newscasts would be nonsense. Removing truth from explanation would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Once a hypothesis gains sufficient evidence to demonstrate the truth of what it supposes, it reaches puberty and grows from a supposition (what if?) into to an explanation (what is): it is now called a scientific theory - the best explanation science can offer.
Poor Iasion did not understand his own definition of hypothesis either:
But we are still forgetting an important point that, on its own, is enough to refute this crazy idea that creationism is a hypothesis, that is an explanation:
A hypothesis must be empirically testable and falsifiable.
That is a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Religious claims which assert the existence of angels, demons and gods, can not satisfy this requirement, since they are neither testable nor falsifiable. They are, by definition, beyond this physical world of ours (metaphysical).
Therefore, even if a hypothesis could be explanatory, as you contend, it could not provide an explanation to support the existence of a god - certainly not his miaculous creations. For that is clearly an unverifiable, unfalsifiable speculation, which excludes it from being expressed in the form of a hypothesis.
Thus, it is not possible that a hypothesis can explain creationism.
Have you heard of the missing link? That is the part of the theory of evolution that just makes it a theory and not a fact. There is no evidence to support the fact that we and all life evolved from a single organism. The part that is fact is the observation that an organism does evolve within it's own specie. Like how an organism adapts to its changing environment. But there has never been any evidence to support that fact that one specie changes to a different specie. Just like man there is this missing link to our specie. What evidence is there shows how humans themselves have evolved within the specie. The missing link is the change from ape to man. And it's still missing.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Vansdad, what do you mean "missing"? The concept of a missing link never existed in the scientific literature, only popular literature. The preferred term is "transitional fossil", and the history of archaeology has led to an ever-increasing number of them to the point where no scientist questions that the "dots" are "connected". We now have an enormous amount of fossil evidence to support evolution. The irony is that the fossil record is not even the strongest evidence for evolution. It has been observed repeatedly in nature and carefully-constructed experimental tests. DNA supports it. Animal and plant breeding experiments support it (because they use the same natural genetic mechanisms that natural selection manipulates). The fossil record is unnecessary evidence, but it strongly corroborates what we already know. If there were no fossilized remains of life forms, evolution would still be considered a scientific fact.
There is no evidence to support the theory of one specie changing to another, like ape to man. If there really is evidence then show it. That piece of evidence has been referred to as the missing link. If it happens to go by different names it still means the same thing.
Gday,
There is vast amount of evidence.
Read about it here:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent
When you have read that page, get back to us...
Iasion
There is vast amount of evidence.
Read about it here:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent
When you have read that page, get back to us...
Iasion
Gday,
Wrong.
Firstly - the "missing link" is merely a silly phrase frequently brought up by creationists.
And do you REALLY believe that this ONE magical thing called "the missing link" is ALL that stands between evolution being theory and fact? Really? So once the missing link IS found, then evolution will graduate from "theory" to "fact" ?
What nonsense. In fact many "missing links" have been found - did that make ANY difference to creationists claims? Nope.
Secondly - evolution is a observed fact of nature - it is observed happening every day. Millions of experiments, tests and observations by thousands of scientists in dozens of countries for over a century - ALL support evolution.
But ZERO disprove it.
If there was even ONE experiment that disproved evolution we would never hear the end of it from creationists - but instead we NEVER do. Instead we get ignorant word games.
Because -
the theory of evolution simply EXPLAINS the facts of evolution - as the OP said - if only you had read it, Vansdad.
Just like Electromagmetic Theory explains electricity - it does NOT mean electricity is merely a speculation.
Just like Germ Theory explains how germs cause disease - it does NOT mean germs are merely speculation.
Just like Gravitational Theories explains how gravity works - it does NOT mean gravity is merely speculation.
But unfortunately creationists don't understand this simple concept, and insist on using the phrase "theory of evolution" over and over - as if the phrase itself actually means evolution is merely speculation which has never graduated to "fact" - which is completely and utterly wrong.
Do they keep using the phrase "theory of electricity" to try and pretend electricity is "merely a theory" ?
Do they keep using the phrase "theory of gravity" to try and pretend gravity is "merely a theory" ?
Do they keep using the phrase "germ theory of disease" to try and pretend germs are "merely a theory" ?
Nope.
But we can be sure creationists will never stop pretending that repeating the mere PHRASE "theory of evolution" shows that evolution is untested speculation.
Even though all it really shows is that they don't understand how science works in general, nor the specifics of evolution, nor what the word "theory" means in science.
Iasion
Wrong.
Firstly - the "missing link" is merely a silly phrase frequently brought up by creationists.
And do you REALLY believe that this ONE magical thing called "the missing link" is ALL that stands between evolution being theory and fact? Really? So once the missing link IS found, then evolution will graduate from "theory" to "fact" ?
What nonsense. In fact many "missing links" have been found - did that make ANY difference to creationists claims? Nope.
Secondly - evolution is a observed fact of nature - it is observed happening every day. Millions of experiments, tests and observations by thousands of scientists in dozens of countries for over a century - ALL support evolution.
But ZERO disprove it.
If there was even ONE experiment that disproved evolution we would never hear the end of it from creationists - but instead we NEVER do. Instead we get ignorant word games.
Because -
the theory of evolution simply EXPLAINS the facts of evolution - as the OP said - if only you had read it, Vansdad.
Just like Electromagmetic Theory explains electricity - it does NOT mean electricity is merely a speculation.
Just like Germ Theory explains how germs cause disease - it does NOT mean germs are merely speculation.
Just like Gravitational Theories explains how gravity works - it does NOT mean gravity is merely speculation.
But unfortunately creationists don't understand this simple concept, and insist on using the phrase "theory of evolution" over and over - as if the phrase itself actually means evolution is merely speculation which has never graduated to "fact" - which is completely and utterly wrong.
Do they keep using the phrase "theory of electricity" to try and pretend electricity is "merely a theory" ?
Do they keep using the phrase "theory of gravity" to try and pretend gravity is "merely a theory" ?
Do they keep using the phrase "germ theory of disease" to try and pretend germs are "merely a theory" ?
Nope.
But we can be sure creationists will never stop pretending that repeating the mere PHRASE "theory of evolution" shows that evolution is untested speculation.
Even though all it really shows is that they don't understand how science works in general, nor the specifics of evolution, nor what the word "theory" means in science.
Iasion
Nois Forme
Member
What is implied here is a very common misconception about the terms theory vs. law in the realm of science. Scientific theories do not 'become laws' when they garner enough support, evidence, etc. Laws and theories are quite different entities that coexist (there is, for example, both a theory of gravity, and a law of gravity).
Simply put, laws do not tell us 'why' - this is the function of the theory.
"Hypothesis: ...an educated guess based upon observation. ...Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation. "
"Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true."
"Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation."
"The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena."
(Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories - The Scientific Method)
"Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'."
(Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions)