Scientific Theory vs Facts.

[ranma1/2]

So what is the difference in science and which is valued more?

From my understanding theory is better.

facts just are that, facts. The tree is red, mutations occur, things fall ect...

Theories try to explain why.
They are completly different things in science.

The theory of gravity is still just a theory.

Does that means its held to be lesser in science than.

an apple fell off a tree and hit the ground?

[barney]

Gravity is a law. Its a law because its mesuarable , recreatable and provable. Theres zero gravity in space, theres greater gravity if your in a Gazelle Scout Helicopter plunging down through a Kosovan valley.
A Theory is something thats not been proven or measured, and although there may be evidence circumstantial or otherwise, in effect it is a act of faith. Faith in the science .

[Tornado]

Gravity is a law. Its a law because its mesuarable , recreatable and provable. Theres zero gravity in space, theres greater gravity if your in a Gazelle Scout Helicopter plunging down through a Kosovan valley.
A Theory is something thats not been proven or measured, and although there may be evidence circumstantial or otherwise, in effect it is a act of faith. Faith in the science .

Sarcasm? A scientific theory is very solid and holds until it is unproven. Theory > Facts because that's what we are ultimately interested in.

[root]

Science does not deal with facts, other than what is contained in "Data", the raw materialistic value that theories explain supported by the data.

If you guys think the THEORY of general relativity is any stronger or weaker a postion as the THEORY of evolution then you need a wake up call.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Abdul Fattah]

Science does not deal with facts, other than what is contained in "Data", the raw materialistic value that theories explain supported by the data.

If you guys think the THEORY of general relativity is any stronger or weaker a postion as the THEORY of evolution then you need a wake up call.

We've been down that road before root, and I showed you why this is wrong, and why the theory of evolution is weaker then the theory of general relativity. In the end I believe you were unable to refute my points, so a small refreshment of our previous debate:
1. Strenght of theory is measured by testability and falsifiability.
2. Evolution is a group name for several sub-theories. Some are testable, some are not, some are falsifiable, some are not.

Some extra criteria that I find helpfull:
Karl Popper described the characteristics of a scientific theory as follows:
1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later describe such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem").

If we use those criteria to check some of the subtheories:
Micro evolution: well established, testable, falsifiable and provable.
Macro evolution: still some lose ends but testable, falsifiable and provable.
Common descent: completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable. In fact not even within the realms of science since it doesn't discus physical laws but rather a historical theory that speculates on what happened in the past.

When not judging sub theories but judging the whole group of "evolution" together; the logical thing would be to judge the group by it's weakest link. Anyway, do we really need to do this comparison of gravity to evolution again point by point? We already know from the past where that ends doesn't it? So unless you have some new material that you failed to present before, I suggest you admit defeat and safe us both some time.

[Azy]

Common descent: completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable. In fact not even within the realms of science since it doesn't discus physical laws but rather a historical theory that speculates on what happened in the past.

Interesting point

[root]

I disagree Steve, just look at what you did.

You created multiple theories within the theory. If you apply that to the theory of general relativity the same things happen?

Would you jump off a highbuilding on the basis that the clash between general relativity and quantum theory means there are serious problems with our theory of gravity? It makes no more sense to question the reality of evolution because scientists are still debating about some of its finer aspects than it does to question the existence of gravity for the same reason. There are still plenty of details to fill in but, as surely as dropped objects fall, life has and continues to evolve.

I fully undertstand that you accept micro-evolution, and remain unconvinced with common descent & macro-evolution. To this end you know too I disregard the seperation of micro/macro as a convenience to yourself.

The whole point remains, science does not deal with facts hence this thread is a non-starter......

Cheers

[root]

Interesting point

That's an interesting link. Me and Abdul (AKA - Steve) went down the road on ERV evidence in common descent, interesting this article you posted a link for:

I invite any separate creationist who denies that apes, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens share a common ancestor, and is willing to identify him/herself, to make in the comments of this post (anonymous comments will be rejected), the alternative testable, falsifiable, risky, prediction that the same: 1) endogenous retroviral sequences (ERVS) found in apes and Homo sapiens; and 2) vitamin C pseudogene found in primates (including monkeys, apes and Homo sapiens) will not also be found in Neanderthal nuclear DNA, when those sections of its genome are sequenced.

Perhaps Steve should take up this challenge since he is so convinced common descent is a non-starter?

[ranma1/2]

intersting link. just quickly looked at it but he believes in common decent but not evolutoin? thats weird.

[barney]

Sarcasm? A scientific theory is very solid and holds until it is unproven. Theory > Facts because that's what we are ultimately interested in.

Nope Tornado, Hai 2 U BTW, and welcome to the boards.
theories are solid only on the evidences presented.
There was a Theory that the World was flat, there was a Theory that objects of different mass fell at different rates. Both were proved wrong.
Some theories are very solid, like evolution or Big Bang, some are less so, like the theory of Mossad carrying out 9/11 or String Theory.

Until a theory is a law or a fact, its an subject of evidenced faith.

[Tornado]

Nope Tornado, Hai 2 U BTW, and welcome to the boards.
theories are solid only on the evidences presented.
There was a Theory that the World was flat, there was a Theory that objects of different mass fell at different rates. Both were proved wrong.
Some theories are very solid, like evolution or Big Bang, some are less so, like the theory of Mossad carrying out 9/11 or String Theory.

Until a theory is a law or a fact, its an subject of evidenced faith.

As I understand it, laws are theories that have stood the test of time. Newton's Law for example breaks down at high speeds.

[ranma1/2]

No laws are not theories. They are just descriptions.

Heres what wiki says..
A scientific law, is a law-like statement that generalizes across a set of conditions. To be accorded law-like status a wide variety of these conditions should be known, i.e. the law has a well documented history of successful replication and extension to new conditions. Ideally boundary conditions, where the law fails, should also be known.

A scientific law concerns the physical world. It therefore must have empirical content and consequently be capable of testing and potentially of disproof. Analytic statements that are true or false by logic alone are not scientific laws, though may feature as part of scientific theories.

The concept of a scientific law is closely related to the concept of a scientific theory. A scientific law attempts to describe an observation in nature while a scientific theory attempts to explain it.

The term "scientific law" is traditionally associated with the natural sciences and hence the term is used interchangeably with the term physical laws. The biological sciences also have scientific laws, such as Mendelian inheritance and the Hardy-Weinberg principle found in genetics. The social sciences also contain scientific laws [1].

[barney]

Cheers Ran.
Newtons law theoretically breaks down at high speed!

[Science101]

Much like a "Law" that states a fact which is easy to describe as a math formula or in several sentences, a "Theory" is the best possible explanation for something harder to explain and theory contains a number of facts.

Theories MUST be based upon facts. In the case of evolutionary theory numerous sciences provide facts such as how mutations happen, the fossils that were found and how they form a series where (regardless of so called gaps) never once was there not something to have evolved from.

Theories are not the facts, theories describe the facts that are in them. But it is generally accepted that it is a fact that we evolved. What makes the theory hard to consider a fact is that they change as more facts are added. They are still true, but not remaining exactly the same over time (become more detailed) it would be wrong to say that the theory is a fact as if it will then never change, because it does change when more facts are added, without the theory becoming wrong by adding more detail.

With the way the logic works, it can get confusing. But I hope that helps!

[Abdul Fattah]

hi Azy
May I suggest you bring up evolution in the designated evolution thread, as this one is about methodology of science, and not about evolution specifically. BTW, I quickly went over that link, and found nothing there that shakes my views.

Hi root

I disagree Steve, just look at what you did.
You created multiple theories within the theory. If you apply that to the theory of general relativity the same things happen?
Would you jump off a highbuilding on the basis that the clash between general relativity and quantum theory means there are serious problems with our theory of gravity?

First of all I did not "create" subtheories or divided myself. The theory of evolution of species is by default a group theory that relies on several subtheories. And as for your analogy, it is inapt. If I would divide relativity; I would divide it into: special relativity and general relativity. If only one of those to would have been proven, tested and falsifiable; then yes, I would question the other. And in the past, before special relativity was tested and proven, and shown falsifiable, science was skeptic about it. That's exactly the double standard I'm trying to point out here! For common descent the scientific community seems to have a sort of unprecedented goodwill which is inappropriate to science.

The whole point remains, science does not deal with facts hence this thread is a non-starter......

That's a completely different point then the one I commented on:

If you guys think the THEORY of general relativity is any stronger or weaker a postion as the THEORY of evolution then you need a wake up call.

[aamirsaab]

Cheers Ran.
Newtons law theoretically breaks down at high speed!

His law on gravity also breaks down on an atomic leveld, too. Found out about it in a documentary: Steven Hawkins, master of the universe. It had nothing to do with He-man though, so I was a tiny little bit dissapointed :( Still, it did mention a theory, which I thought was cool, on how the universe began. Black hole, anyone?

Edit: Science uses theories first, If these theories are proven true then they become fact. Though, not every fact was once a theory; we've always been made up of atoms!

[ranma1/2]

...
Edit: Science uses theories first, If these theories are proven true then they become fact. Though, not every fact was once a theory; we've always been made up of atoms!

??? where do you get this???

fact: things fall to the ground.
fact: im human
fact: mutations occur and can be selected in or out of a gene pool

theory: gravity (well its not longer called that but for basics sake)
theory: evolutoin
theory: string

[Keltoi]

Science usually works in progression. Copernicus, Kepler, Gallileo, etc, each added an element to the puzzle that was eventually tied together in Newton's work. Much has been added to Newton's understanding, and much more will be added in the future. That is why science works with theories, because they can be measured and proven right or wrong depending upon the observable data used to support the theory. Until there is complete knowledge, which I assume will never happen, everything remains a theory or observable data which supports a theory.

[aamirsaab]

??? where do you get this???

I meant that scientists work on the theories. If they prove a theory true then their findings can be called a fact. E.g. ''this ball falls to the ground. Is there a force pulling this down? Let us test it. Oh ball 2 and ball 3 have also fallen down. Thus, my theory about the force pulling the balls down is correct. Therefore, balls are pulled to the ground and that is a fact.''

p.s; yes I know my example is rather crude but you get the picture.

[Trumble]

I meant that scientists work on the theories. If they prove a theory true then their findings can be called a fact. E.g. ''this ball falls to the ground. Is there a force pulling this down? Let us test it. Oh ball 2 and ball 3 have also fallen down. Thus, my theory about the force pulling the balls down is correct. Therefore, balls are pulled to the ground and that is a fact.''

p.s; yes I know my example is rather crude but you get the picture.

Not really. All you have shown is a tendency of balls to fall to the ground (which you knew before you started), not any sort of reason why. The reason is in the form of a theory. A scientific theory can never be proven to be correct, it can only be proven not to be correct.

[جوري]

^^ glad someone knows how the null hypothesis works for a change!

peace

[barney]

Arr!
We theorise that their is a force that pulls the ball down, we theorise that it is due to the amount of cheesecake sold in Quiksave in Corby on Friday nights.
we take a ball drop it on a friday night and compare it to Quicksaves sales records.
The ball dropped at 1m/s.
Next friday we repeat the experiment. The ball drops at 1m/s and the cheesecake sales have slumped. We repeat several times and we can now discard the cheesecake/fall rate corelation.

[fsmdude]

[جوري]

LOL-- that was deep.. love that atheist wonted candor-- I can tell much intellections went into that schematic diagram...

cheers

[Abdul Fattah]

Nice try, but really shows that whoever made this chart has absolutely no idea what faith means and why people believe. How about this chart:

BTW, no evidence has been found so far that rejects faith...
I guess I pwnd you with that one and accept your apologies... ^_^

[fsmdude]

Abdul Fattah : Hahahahaha!!! Your «reply» is so going in the Richard Dawkins forum! If, as you say, that's a «muslim pwnage», well, :exhausted hahaha

1: «Faith be improved to fit the evidence». WTF? Dude, faith is, by definition, exempt of facts and evidence. Facts and evidence are what make the difference between knowledge and faith. Knowledge= facts, faith=doesn't give a **** about facts.

2: «Use faith to better understand the universe» Faith is used to understand your universe, the one in your head. It has nothing to do with reality (real reality, not the one you made up in your head).

3: «Reject faith»: never seen someone do that. Faith cannot be rejected (except if you think criticaly), because it's based on nothing (absence of facts). If someone has faith than the earth is plane, no matter what evidence you show him (pictures, mathematical explanation), he'll just say: That's my faith and I believe it. Everything you showed me was made by the devil, trying to turn me away from god.

«BTW, no evidence has been found so far that rejects faith...»: Err, yes. Homeopathy, reflexology, religion (Adam and Eve, impossible stuff. It's genetically impossible to start with only 2 individuals. But when you say that to the religious nuts, they say the same thing than the plane earth guy.

[fsmdude]

I always find funny when religious people try to prove their faith with facts, whitout realising that they're destroying it. It's, like, a self-destruction. You don't need an atheist or an agnostic to get a religious personn pwed, they can do the job by themself.

[جوري]

I love the 'wahahaha's' of an atheist who could barely put a grammatic/ sensical conviction together, yet has such a grip on every scientific discipline!

Sob7an Allah.. but I suppose there is where one comes for their daily comic relief!

:w:

[fsmdude]

«I love the 'wahahaha's' of an atheist who could barely put a grammatic/ sensical conviction together, yet has such a grip on every scientific discipline!»

Ben tu m'en reparlera quand ta langue natale sera le français, mon grand. Et non, j'avoue que je ne maîtrise pas toutes les disciplines scientifiques (et j'ai jamais dit ca).

[جوري]

Ben tu m'en reparlera quand ta langue natale sera le français, mon grand. Et non, j'avoue que je ne maîtrise pas toutes les disciplines scientifiques (et j'ai jamais dit ca).

al'3iloom layes laha 3ilawa bilogha, wa'daleel 3la zhalik katheraan min al'senyoon wa'yabanyoon, la yath7adathou ay lougha ajnabyea be'labawa wa ma3a zhalik ajado fi'il3iloom wa naj7ao be'tawfoq fi teb, wal'handasa. Na3am a3raf anaka la toujeed ay 3ilm wa'lakana tat7adath be' alsentihim. izh kan alkalam min fidaha fa'sikoot min zha'hab!

J'éspére que cela aide!

cheers shmo

[Trumble]

How about this chart:

I AM a religious person, if not a theist. However for some reason I find

"can the faith be improved to fit the new evidence"

very worrying. It just seems to be a ticket for corrupting whatever faith it happens to be in order to 'fit' the new evidence, the most visible manifestations I can think of being the constant outbreaks of Qur'anic sciento-gibberish from Harun Yahya and the like. Although I will admit my own religion isn't immune either, with 'parallels' to quantum physics and such. Most Buddhists, though, think it a complete waste of time, and wisely so IMHO. The Buddha knew nothing about quantum physics and certainly wasn't talking about or describing it.

[Abdul Fattah]

Abdul Fattah : Hahahahaha!!! Your «reply» is so going in the Richard Dawkins forum! If, as you say, that's a «muslim pwnage», well, :exhausted hahaha

1: «Faith be improved to fit the evidence». WTF? Dude, faith is, by definition, exempt of facts and evidence. Facts and evidence are what make the difference between knowledge and faith. Knowledge= facts, faith=doesn't give a **** about facts.

2: «Use faith to better understand the universe» Faith is used to understand your universe, the one in your head. It has nothing to do with reality (real reality, not the one you made up in your head).

3: «Reject faith»: never seen someone do that. Faith cannot be rejected (except if you think criticaly), because it's based on nothing (absence of facts). If someone has faith than the earth is plane, no matter what evidence you show him (pictures, mathematical explanation), he'll just say: That's my faith and I believe it. Everything you showed me was made by the devil, trying to turn me away from god.

«BTW, no evidence has been found so far that rejects faith...»: Err, yes. Homeopathy, reflexology, religion (Adam and Eve, impossible stuff. It's genetically impossible to start with only 2 individuals. But when you say that to the religious nuts, they say the same thing than the plane earth guy.

I never said my faith was scientific or proven, I'm just saying you're representation is gravely inaccurate. If you come here to mock people I suggest you leave as quickly as you came. We have no need for stuck up self righteous know it alls. And if you think that you as an atheist is going to explain me, a theist what faith you're really mistaken. Congrats, you're the first person ever on this forum that I'm going to add to my ignore list.

[Abdul Fattah]

I AM a religious person, if not a theist. However for some reason I find

very worrying. It just seems to be a ticket for corrupting whatever faith it happens to be in order to 'fit' the new evidence, the most visible manifestations I can think of being the constant outbreaks of Qur'anic sciento-gibberish from Harun Yahya and the like. Although I will admit my own religion isn't immune either, with 'parallels' to quantum physics and such. Most Buddhists, though, think it a complete waste of time, and wisely so IMHO. The Buddha knew nothing about quantum physics and certainly wasn't talking about or describing it.

Yeah perhaps I shouldn't have put "improve" but rather specify...