Science Theory Is a Misunderstood Concept

Stick with religious fanaticism, you have no future in comedy.

One disputes -- not facts -- but explanations of facts. Truly you do not know science. So live by your convictions.

Only Orwellian doublespeak could change those explanations for you. I prefer what scientists have to say about it.

It sort of reminds of Trumpet comedy. It's fantasy and outrageous, but many Americans are in support of it.

I selected this elementary concept for a thread to demonstrate that creationists refuse to accept even the tiny first steps toward understanding science.

well, they are a rather small minority . Its always fun arguing with them as they make their observations and purposely screw with evidence and data and the many laws of science.

In other words, when the facts contradict their beliefs, it's the fact's fault.

No. It's the facts that survives. Or should.

Or should ; The Facts Survive but the mainstream science is not about facts, just what they want to believe .

The mainstream science has become a religion .

Oy,
again , around we go.

CV is right here, and there is nothing "Orwellian" about distinguishing theory from so-called "fact." Theory does not "become fact" when we believe it is consistent with empirical sense impressions.

Using evolution as an example, it is simply an oxymoron to claim, as someone just did, "the theory of evolution is a fact."

If you want to call the hypothesis that life forms change over time "evolution," then, sure, everything we know would indicate that this is the case (a "fact"). But any given *theory* of evolution, such as the modern synthethic (neo-darwinistic) theory, cannot be a "fact." It is, and will always remain, a theory.

The confusion of ontology with epistemology and the tendency of some (such as Fresky, the abject solipsist) to equate interpretation with "reality" (so-called "fact') underlies most disputes of the kind being presented in this thread.

It is a common indulgence for people to insist that their shallow understanding of the issues involved is "what the scientists say," as Ed did here. In that sense, "science" can be fundamentally subjective, and it is this type of conceit that Fresky tries to exploit when advocating his ridiculous conclusions.

It becomes theory after it has been established that it is true. Refining theory is an ongoing process of explaining how it is true.

I am assuming you meant to say this: "It becomes FACT (not theory) after it has been established that it is true," with "it" referring to theory.

I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion Ed, but it is a very naive view that would be disputed by virtually every philosopher of science (which would include most "theoretical scientists").

Farmer takes issue with this, but I agree with you if I take your use of the terms "theories" to mean viable alternative competing theories." I also agree with most of what Farmer says in his response to you, but I take him to be referring to alternative theories which are clearly at odds with the so-called "facts."

Any given theory is always inherently "under-determinative." This is just a fancy way of saying that there are always a potentially infinite number of competing theories which could coherently explain the same collection of sense-data at issue.

In such cases, the theories do NOT differ on "the facts." The difference lies in the "explanation" of the facts, not the facts themselves.

A theory in science incorporates facts, laws, evidence and inferences all of which support that theory and none of which refute it.
Pretty strong. Whats naive is the belief that some of these facts or evidence can be interpreted totally differently when "cut from the herd" and viewed individually.

Cherry picking and trying to cast doubt on one or two scientific facts by the high priests of the anti-science movements has always been their favorite tool .

To the extent I think I understand what you are saying here, Farmer, it is you who is being naive.

Take an example from physics. How does a theory of relative motion which starts with a premise of absolute simultaniety (sometimes called a "neo-lorentzian" theory) differ from one such as Einstein's theory of "special relativity," which posits relative simultaniety?

The two theories are fundamentally different in their premises, but reach identical conclusions insofar as they can be compared. "Special" relativity applies, as a theoretical matter, to an extremely limited set of circumstances, and hence cannot even address (make predictions about) many of the sets of conditions which the other theory does, so they cannot even be compared, strictly speaking, in those (broader) conditions where a theory positing absolute simultaneity also makes accurate predictions.

Consider also the case of "string theory," where a virtually infinite amount of varying premises will all give you the exact same conclusion. Which one, if any, is "true" (fact)?

relativity and Newtonian physics really hve two frames of reference that, within their scopes, are different applications.Eg. Universal gravitation equations still work in Newtonian references. Absolute and reltional outlooks are fundamentally different based upon the limitee nd unique frames of references in which either dfield equations actually work.
AS far as "String theory" , to me, its still mathturbation. I have to beg working ignorance , but I will say, from my post , that it has NOT YT risen to theory status any more than "Intelligent Design Theory" has anything to speak for it. Theres really nothing behind it save its meager attempts at discrediting real science

I agree with you about the nature of it. However it is a "theory." Just not a "scientific theory" in the sense that it can be empirically tested. But that has not stopped the "scientists" from devoting many billions of dollars of scientific research funds to this pseudo-scientific garbage and repeatedly claiming that they are on the verge of completing a "theory of everthing."

As one poster said, much of modern theoretical physics is not much different that the creation of Greek myth about "the Gods."

As one poster said, much of modern theoretical physics is not much different that the creation of Greek myth about "the Gods." Anyone who thinks these theories are "facts" or even based on "facts" (empirical sense perception) is not well-informed.

If we assume, as we always had, that "matter" is the kind of thing that can be seen and otherwise detected if and when it exists, then it seems we must conclude that the gravitational theory called "general relativity" has been falsified.

So, then, has GR been "falsified?"

HELL, NO! To save the theory, the scientists just conjure up the imaginative concepts of "dark matter" and "dark energy" to "prove" the correctness of GR. Of course these things are, by their very definition, totally undetectable as an empirical matter.

So, are they based on "fact," ya think?

Is ANY theory EVER really falsifiable?

This is a legitimate question properly analyzed in terms of what philosophers of science call "holistic underdetermination." The answer is "no." Popper's criterion of "falsifiability" as a line of demarcation between science and pseudo-science is purely illusory.