Science Theory Is a Misunderstood Concept

Who the hell says that Vulcan has to be "detectable." Maybe it's just a chunk of "dark matter." If that's the case, then GR has no superiority in that respect.

Popper's criterion of "falsifiability" as a line of demarcation between science and pseudo-science is purely illusory.

To me, String Theory is a scientific hypothesis dressed up for Prime Time TV shows. It does Nat Geo much better than does surface chemistry of ligands and epigenetics.
Most people couldnt do dimensional analyses if their lives depended on it, but wath a few shows an read some natty web sites , and everyones an expert.

Even the obstetricians of String theory feel that theres a bit of woo hoo in there

A " fact" in science means data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts.

Dont spoil my illusions. I think it a very workable construct as valid as the ""Lemon Test" in cases involving our First Amendment rights and duties. Many of the Thumpers herein would like it stricken since their "Science is a religion " bullshit has been nicely debunkulated.
And me a total skeptic that Philosophers are even able to wash their own hands without adult help.

I think youve gone over the edge to the land of unicorns a bit. As Stephen J said back in 1981

Quote:

A " fact" in science means data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts.

The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret these facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret these facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them.

That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it.

and is not , therefore, a fact in itself? I think thats what Gould meant as the thesis of his article

... facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.

He is not saying "The theory of evolution is identical to the fact of evolution."

Quote:

He is not saying "The theory of evolution is identical to the fact of evolution."

Actually he IS. The title of his article is "Evolution, theory and fact".

So you are saying that the theory of evolution sits at a level different from that of the facts that support it?.

All the available evidence (so far) supports the theory, and NONE refutes it.

I'm afraid you are just once again proving your lack of reading comprehension. You're just embarrassing yourself now, homey. Try reading more than the title sometime, eh?