Science Theory Is a Misunderstood Concept

See you on the crossword forum at dawn !

The English language is only used in crosswords? You do have a limited reality.

Right on, man.



It is pertinent there is disputes to any theory in science. Disputation is critical to science, and initself acts as a self protection mechanism to drive out any fictious premises that stand on misconeption or error in data.

Theories are made to be disputed, no matter how much an individual personally feels the theory is flawless.

Agreed.
Most physical scientists, including Einstein, recognized that the lay concepts of "reality" alluded to here, are of little interest. A number of philosophers such as Merleau-Ponty, with one foot in the "psychology camp" have given some theoretical bases for psychotherapists interested in re-shaping the "aberrant realities" of their patients. For example, the concept of "paradigm" or "gestalt" familiar to philosophers of science like Khun (Structure of Scientific Revolutions), have been successfully adopted as "structures for modification". And some progress has been made in "second generation cognitive science" in adapting to the axiom of observer-observed inextricability.

It's not control, we are limited by our influence, and there is nothing we can do, in almost all cases.

Essentially, in our interaction with a matter that we are focused on studying, we change it from its natural state. So our data is after the interaction is not per se accurate, relative to the "reality" that we want to observe.

You hold the old dogmatic view of science, and that it is the goal of science to know and study things as themselves. Such a view is too simple.
I see science is knowing the relations among things, because outside such relations, we can not know the acutal reality. As mentioned above, it isn't reality anymore, since we have interacted, and in minute or major ways such an interaction by us (contraptions, sensors, devices, etc) is not the reality that was a moment ago before our interaction.

Not me mate !

Mostly, you are talking sense. A bit of semantic hair-splitting between "influence" and "control" does not detract from your general grasp of the theme I have proposed.

I don't understand why you said that though.
We aspire the opposite of control to know the actual reality (thus we propose contolled variables, which are in some ways, even if we don't perceive it at first, influenced by us).
We are helpless in our influence when observing a matter/specimen.

No need to reply, as the post speaks for itself.

Science is also based in the philosophy of naturalism, so all scientific uses of terms like "reality" are based within the assumptions of that philosophy.

By "aspire to control", I am talking about the unique advantage displayed by homo sapiens (relative to other species) whose use of "cognitive planning" involving concepts such as "time", "permanence" etc are embodied in a complex language which gives potential power to "an acting subject" over his perceived reality (also segmented by language). Some psychologists have defined "intelligence" as "the capacity to delay a response", and it is easily argued that such a capacity is indeed the fundamental essence of "control" exercised by humans over their perceived "world". So the "aspiration" is an unconscious by-product of language based thought, since the very subject/verb/object linguistic structures acquired are latent "control programs" which spontaneously promote consideration of alternative modes of action. (See for example Piaget on the natural exercising of developmental schemata)

Edgar,

I think there are specific problems with the concept of "facticity" in the realm of biology due to our difficulty in comprehending "the life process". So whereas sub-observations like mutation of physiology have certainly been "scientifically" documented, there still lingers the "mystery of vitalism" casting an epistemological shadow over the efforts of the observer to observe himself as a lifeform. For this reason, the creationists, whose "God of the Gap" is their psychological palliative, think they have a case. They also think that their case is strengthened by "Big Bang Theory" (a la Genesis) whose apparent recent erosion will no doubt be resisted.

I know they think that. But how does it refute the solid case for evolution?

Evolution per se cannot be refuted. Fundamentalist fools, with self integrity at stake, merely attempt to selectively rig the evidence. The only viable fall back position for "believers" is to downgrade their holy books as mere allegory, and go for a clause like "evolution is the tool of the Creator". ( Polkinghorne, the atomic physicist/cleric suggested that "God tweaked the strange attractors in the chaos equations"). The catch-all clause of believers is of course "all apparent scientific knowledge lies in the gift of God" and thereafter it is a waste of time arguing with them. The position I highlighted earlier gives the logic of theoretical limits. Believers simply attempt to cash in on that logic with mythical substrates..

Concept is the other term correct? for beliefs.

Nice, but wrong. Theories almost always differ on things other than facts. Unless of course you think that you just look at something and it gives you an interpretation. The facts that Evolution uses are the same that anti-Evolution uses. Aristotle saw more of flora and fauna then Darwin ever did. Alexander the Great sent stuff back from all over the known world. A. worked over a decade on pure Biology. Even an atheist-philosopher (and Evolutionist) makes this strong point.

Read Aristotle and Modern Biology by Marjorie Grene

And note this well
Her obituary in The New York Times said she was "one of the first philosophers to raise questions about the synthetic theory of evolution, which combines Darwin’s theory of evolution, Mendel’s understanding of genetic inheritance and more recent discoveries by molecular biologists."... In 2002, she was the first female philosopher to have an edition of the Library of Living Philosophers written about her.[

Theory is what is accepted as science fact. Evolution has been proven correct. These days they are refining the understanding of the fact, but no longer questioning that it has, is, and will continue, happening. People will attempt to obstruct understanding of evolution, but can never find proof that undoes the theory.

I agree 100%, Edgar, and misunderstanding seems to have a loyal following.

Hypothesis is speculation, and if a hypothesis withstands all tests, then it becomes theory. After a prolonged period the theory becomes accepted as fact.
Problems arise if the scientist makes a pet of his hypothesis and defends it. In otherf words, the scientist must remain totally objective. Subjectivity destroys the legitamacy of science. Attempts at objectivity destroys religion, which must remain totally subjective.

"The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, is a scientific fact." Neil deGrasse Tyson. Of course there are those who dispute gravity as a fact in all cases. One thinks of bodies resurrecting, flying up out of graves, and shooting up into outer space. I'm not making fun of Christianity, just literal interpretations of such.

Actually you make a mistake that has been criticized throughout history, to think that the observer stands outside reality. Descartes is at fault here.

You couldnt be WRONGER! In science, FACTS are what uphold the theories. An organized bunch of facts of evidence are what cause theories to be designed
FActs that dont support a theory mean that the theory must not be completely correct as proposed.

Remember, the only way to PROVE a theory is to not dispeove it.

You seem to be lost in classical drivvle. Biology has discarded much of Aristotle long ago (He, like Leonardo, mostly serves as a lesson in "HOW TO GET YOUR OBSERVATIONS FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG"). Even Darwin , catching up on the fact that he failed to acknowledge ANYONE in his first edition of On the Origin of Species..., began a wholesale crediting of"giants" who'd gone before. In his third edition he acknowledges Aristotle and , by acknowledging, failed to understand that Aristotle didnt know what he was even talking about.