Christmas

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Re: Christmas

To be clear on one point, I believe the way word theory is used in science is a bit different to our common, everyday parlance.

In science, a theory is used to explain the how or why. Even when this can be clearly observed, measured and tested. So even if we knew how gravity works on a sub atomic scale this would still remain a theory.

So a scientific theory isn’t a prior stage before establishing a fact, it’s something different altogether. Sometimes science can be dismissed as merely a ‘theory’ and so equal in credibility to any other speculation, but this really confuses how the word theory is used in a scientific context.

I won't engage with who has become the protagonist on this thread as it would be fruitless. It's just amusing that science (a.k.a. knowledge) has enabled many lives to be saved whereas patients all around the world may have perished if they were left to the vagaries of what knowledge and treatment that existed two thousand years ago when microbes, tectonic plates, particles, viruses and electricity was either absent or minimal. What we have subsequently learned has, in many cases, cured what would otherwise be incurable illnesses (regardless of whether they were supposedly sent by a deity as means of punishment), space travel, electronics, computers and a million other sophisticated things that would have probably been deigned as sophistry by illiterate people thousands of years ago.
I see in this thread that there still seems to be this ridiculous attitude about the fact that scientific theory can be wrong. Any intelligent person knows how science progresses and we know it is progressed as we learn more and that we previously understood may indeed be wrong. We learn something from observations and measurement and scientists make their best stab at what may well describe why and in the full knowledge that there may be more to learn. That educated guess may or may not be correct and may be partly correct based on the results and data hitherto. If more information comes to light or throws a spanner in the works then that becomes the most important fact to concentrate on in the pursuit of greater knowledge and accuracy. This is not a failing nor a ridiculous dogma that seeks to defend ancient theories in any way. It is the polar opposite. If someone doesn't have the nous to understand that (as is obvious in this thread) there is no point in stating what to most people is the bleedin' obvious.

[truthpaste]

Re: Christmas

I won't engage with who has become the protagonist on this thread as it would be fruitless. It's just amusing that science (a.k.a. knowledge) has enabled many lives to be saved whereas patients all around the world may have perished if they were left to the vagaries of what knowledge and treatment that existed two thousand years ago when microbes, tectonic plates, particles, viruses and electricity was either absent or minimal. What we have subsequently learned has, in many cases, cured what would otherwise be incurable illnesses (regardless of whether they were supposedly sent by a deity as means of punishment), space travel, electronics, computers and a million other sophisticated things that would have probably been deigned as sophistry by illiterate people thousands of years ago.
I see in this thread that there still seems to be this ridiculous attitude about the fact that scientific theory can be wrong. Any intelligent person knows how science progresses and we know it is progressed as we learn more and that we previously understood may indeed be wrong. We learn something from observations and measurement and scientists make their best stab at what may well describe why and in the full knowledge that there may be more to learn. That educated guess may or may not be correct and may be partly correct based on the results and data hitherto. If more information comes to light or throws a spanner in the works then that becomes the most important fact to concentrate on in the pursuit of greater knowledge and accuracy. This is not a failing nor a ridiculous dogma that seeks to defend ancient theories in any way. It is the polar opposite. If someone doesn't have the nous to understand that (as is obvious in this thread) there is no point in stating what to most people is the bleedin' obvious.

Verified science works - no press conference required

[Croesy Blue]

Re: Christmas

To be clear on one point, I believe the way word theory is used in science is a bit different to our common, everyday parlance.

In science, a theory is used to explain the how or why. Even when this can be clearly observed, measured and tested. So even if we knew how gravity works on a sub atomic scale this would still remain a theory.

So a scientific theory isn’t a prior stage before establishing a fact, it’s something different altogether. Sometimes science can be dismissed as merely a ‘theory’ and so equal in credibility to any other speculation, but this really confuses how the word theory is used in a scientific context.

Yep theory in Science is different to the everyday use.

[truthpaste]

Re: Christmas

Yes I've long been aware that gravity is a theory, no problem. But that's only a third of the issue - "we don't currently know" and "we haven't yet figured out how..." is a problem if people are going to insist that science has come up with THE definitive answer.

If they actually knew already knew HOW it all began then why build the Hadron Collider for a total cost of about $4.75 billion and an annual ongoing cost of about $1 billion per year?

Sure, actual science is wonderful, at 10p or even billions of dollars, guesswork is just guesswork.

[truthpaste]

Re: Christmas

I'm getting the impression that if no-one can come up with a definitive explanation for the origin of the universe and life itself (with witnesses) then that would make your theistic beliefs fact? Have I misread this?

Completely, but that happens when you fear the fallout from an actual exchange of views.

[lardy]

Re: Christmas

Yes I've long been aware that gravity is a theory, no problem. But that's only a third of the issue - "we don't currently know" and "we haven't yet figured out how..." is a problem if people are going to insist that science has come up with THE definitive answer.

If they actually knew already knew HOW it all began then why build the Hadron Collider for a total cost of about $4.75 billion and an annual ongoing cost of about $1 billion per year?

Sure, actual science is wonderful, at 10p or even billions of dollars, guesswork is just guesswork.

Because they are people who would like a bit more evidence than just being earnestly told that something definitely definitely happened it really did I promise.

[truthpaste]

Re: Christmas

Because they are people who would like a bit more evidence than just being earnestly told that something definitely definitely happened it really did I promise.

You mean someone like me!

Rewind, I was informed that your story was >> "widely accepted in science to be absolutely ****ing true" - so as you've said above, I asked for documentation. If you agree with the need for this then you too need the same, because you just said "would like a bit more evidence than just being earnestly told that something definitely definitely happened it really did.."

So we both await the definitive evidence we require.

[Croesy Blue]

Re: Christmas

Peer reviewed scientific journals are the most accurate evidence you can get.

Scientific theories aren’t just being told something and believing it. There are open source studies that back everything up.

If someone wanted to prove something they could go and repeat the same studies them self.

If you consider the bible on the same level fair enough. But it isn’t and it means there is no point discussing it because you won’t accept genuine evidence.

[Croesy Blue]

Re: Christmas

The large hadron collider is used to understand particle physics theories at a deeper level that previously able. It’s not being built to prove the dawn of the universe

[lardy]

Re: Christmas

You mean someone like me!

Rewind, I was informed that your story was >> "widely accepted in science to be absolutely ****ing true" - so as you've said above, I asked for documentation. If you agree with the need for this then you too need the same, because you just said "would like a bit more evidence than just being earnestly told that something definitely definitely happened it really did.."

So we both await the definitive evidence we require.

One group is actively looking for evidence, the other isnt.

Guess which group you're in...

[Croesy Blue]

Re: Christmas

One group is actively looking for evidence, the other isnt.

Guess which group you're in...

Maybe you missed the that God made a protein shaped like the thing the bible says his son was killed on, before it even happened.

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

Re: Christmas

Completely, but that happens when you fear the fallout from an actual exchange of views.

What fallout would that be?

[Croesy Blue]

Re: Christmas

What fallout would that be?

Roundhouse kick from Jesus I think

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

Re: Christmas

Roundhouse kick from Jesus I think

I thought TP was going to announce he's become an atheist.

[bobh]

Re: Christmas

Yes I've long been aware that gravity is a theory, no problem. But that's only a third of the issue - "we don't currently know" and "we haven't yet figured out how..." is a problem if people are going to insist that science has come up with THE definitive answer.

If they actually knew already knew HOW it all began then why build the Hadron Collider for a total cost of about $4.75 billion and an annual ongoing cost of about $1 billion per year?

Sure, actual science is wonderful, at 10p or even billions of dollars, guesswork is just guesswork.

Gravity doesn't exist.
The Earth sucks.