Christmas

[Taunton Blue Genie]

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]

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