Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What evidence is needed to change a creationist
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 117 of 144 (467973)
05-26-2008 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Hawkins
05-26-2008 1:30 AM


Theory
Hello "scientists", now tell me what a scientific theory is.
Try these on for size:
    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.
Perhaps if you understood science better you could see some of the errors in your post. There are a lot.
By the way, is it the latest creationist talking point to try to differentiate "science" and "evolution"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Hawkins, posted 05-26-2008 1:30 AM Hawkins has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 127 of 144 (469519)
06-05-2008 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Dave101
06-05-2008 10:33 PM


Re: Why would we want to?
Step one... you have an idea....
Step two... you hypothesize that the idea may hold merit (you think it might have merit and need to do further brainstorming on it)
Step three... After much thought and preliminary study on the subject you come up with what you think is a good THEORY...
This word THEORY is very important because if you cannot prove the theory then you never get to make it into a FACT...
You went off the rails in the second section. You are completely wrong in your use of the terms theory and fact, not to mention truth.
Here are some definitions of these terms which are much closer to the way they are used in science:
    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.
    Hypothesis: a tentative theory about 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 chemical practices."
    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!
    So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source
    Fact: When an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
    Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ”it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source
Once you have learned these definitions perhaps you can try again.
Oh, and while you're at it, read up on logic and logical fallacies, and see what category your statement, "Ok... you guys have fun rebutting truth" might fall under.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Dave101, posted 06-05-2008 10:33 PM Dave101 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Dave101, posted 06-05-2008 11:09 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024