What is a Theory?

This is the first honest and sensible thing you have said in your thirty-five posts;

quote:

---

The reason why I am interested in the limitations of science, is because science is often used to attack religion. Especially, the typical statement that says "Religion is scientifically unproven and therefore false." bothers me.

---

Basically, you are upset because religion doesn't get the same particular kind of respect paid to its claims as science does (even despite the fact that religion is typically shown a great deal of respect, often unmerited). This is why you are so keen to torture logic until, kicking and screaming, it briefly appears to support your world view. This is a fundamentally dishonest approach.Why not get on with your religion of choice and let the scientific community define it's own terms, eh?Mutate and SurvivePS: When taking part in an internet debate board, it is usually considered unwise to address the forum director as an idiot. Just a hint.Edited by Granny Magda, : Couldn't resist the PS.

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Yes, really!In a nutshell, mathematical theories can be proved, scientific theories can't and thus, are always tentative.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

And what exactly is the axiomatic reduction of, say, the germ theory? Or the theory of evolution? There is, of course no such reduction, no mathematical proof. What I told you is perfectly correct. Scientific theories cannot be proved in the same sense that mathematical theories are proved.This difference is also the reason why your misappropriation of Incompleteness is so wrong. Science attempts to describe reality, and reality is not based upon axioms.

quote:

---

For example, "the sum of all angles in a triangle is 180 degrees" is infinitely falsifiable and therefore presumably false.

---

This is the point where you completely disappear up your own arse.

quote:

---

Nobody has managed to prove it, however.

---

That's because nobody's willing to climb in there after you.You have descended into a world of self-indulgent solipsism. How dreary. Does this form of evangelism usually win many converts? Or are you simply some species of troll, trying to make theists look silly? If the latter, I'd say you're doing a pretty good job.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi Prophet,

quote:

---

So to, does it seem science uses its own definitions at its will. This in no way validate them, but rather detracts from their own veracity. It is not good to impart obstructions in language to impair others.

---

Science does not use it's terminology to obfuscate. In fact, the reverse is true. Science involves a lot of specialised terminology because science is a very complex business. Scientists are very particular in the way that they use such terms, not because they want to confuse anyone, but because they want to make sure that they are all talking about the same thing.An example is Latin taxonomy in naming species. It may be a little intimidating, but using the Latin name as a universal standard way of naming a creature does away with the confusion that could be caused by differing use of common names around the world.When scientists use the term "theory" to describe a body of knowledge, they are not using it in the same way that you or I might use it to describe an idea or hunch.Let's be certain that we all understand each other here. The only way to achieve this is to agree on terminology, otherwise we will get nowhere.

quote:

---

Either my dictionary is in error, or your dictionary is in error.

---

I don't see any error. Look; That is a brief potted version of what scientists mean by theory. It is certainly not the last word on the subject, but it is a start.Too often, when creationists say something like "Evolution is only a theory.", they seem to be comparing the ToE to definition 2 from the Wiki; That is most certainly not the sense employed in the phrase "Theory of Evolution". To conflate these two distinct meanings of the word "theory" is misleading. It is essentially a dishonest tactic. I hope that you will prove yourself to be above such behaviour.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade