Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
718 online now:
Parasomnium, Phat, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (4 members, 714 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,299 Year: 6,411/6,534 Month: 604/650 Week: 142/232 Day: 27/54 Hour: 0/12

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory
Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

Message 71 of 264 (675604)
10-12-2012 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by zi ko
10-12-2012 11:37 PM

Ufortunaly in science there are theories,not proved, but just accepted by its followers as true

You need a refresher course on what a theory is in science, vs. "proof:"

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!


But if you read these definitions, you will find that a theory in science is in essence the single best explanation for a particular set of facts.

Any proposed hypothesis or hypotheses has to explain things better than the existing theory, make predictions, and withstand a lot of tests.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by zi ko, posted 10-12-2012 11:37 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by zi ko, posted 10-14-2012 6:05 AM Coyote has not replied

Member (Idle past 1427 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

Message 120 of 264 (676154)
10-19-2012 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by zi ko
10-19-2012 11:07 PM

Re: Please explain
At least as relevant to this topic as what you're posting, and much more readable:

A Man Said to the Universe
By Stephen Crane

A man said to the universe:
“Sir, I exist!"
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
“A sense of obligation.”

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by zi ko, posted 10-19-2012 11:07 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by zi ko, posted 10-20-2012 5:05 AM Coyote has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022