Scientific theory defined

[Mike B.]

Unregistered visitor,

I may agree with you, but Wordsmythe and I sure do invite you to join our community. You have some good thoughts!

[Highwayman]

He could resister under the moniker ‘unregistered’.

If there wasn't fundamentalism, rational people could talk to each other -- that's the problem -- those that believe only they are right about something that can't be proven. And that Their book is the only correct one -- as though any human written, edited, translated, etc., book could be the only correct one. duh.

Western churches spent a couple of hundred years sending people to die in the middle east -- to regain the jewish temple for the gentiles that killed the jewish rabbi to begin with -- etc. etc.

[Detector]

hmmm, wonder what a long list you have of the proven wrong theories ? Please share, ok?

A person could write several books just on the times science has been wrong. Oh wait! lots of people already have!

Just do a search for "Junk science", "mistakes in science" or the like for a very long list of available books.

Some of the more well known would be "the earth is flat" and "the earth is the center of the universe".

I'm not looking to rag on science, I'm just pointing out that science can be just as wrong in theories as the rest of us. What cracks me up is that science goes to great lengths to attempt to explain, with complicated words, why their guess was wrong.

I don't think science would be licking their wounds near as often if they weren't so eager to try and prove a guess right. Take the Pal-down Chicken, or whatever its called, where science once again claims to have found the missing link in China. In the end it was found to be a hoax like all the other missing links. Perhaps a bit of testing first would have saved face.

When science is proved wrong they go to great lengths to justify why they guessed wrong. They simply say thats what science is. They make a theory/guess and then test it. Mmmm... OK. So how is that different from someone guessing?

A hypothesis is an educated guess about how things work.

[wordsmythe]

Even the unregistered can espouse thier views in this section and I have no problem with that. But if you want to discuss something directly with me then you need a name that I can talk to.

ANYONE can show up as unregistered in this thread and I'm not going to try to follow the thoughts of several people.

So give yourself a name or like I said, your opinion doesn't much matter to me.

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by wordsmythe

Even the unregistered can espouse thier views in this section and I have no poroblem with that. But if you want to discuss something directly with me then you need a name that I can talk to.

ANYONE can show up as unregistered in this thread and I'm not going to try the thoughts of several people.

So give yourself a name or like I said, your opinion doesn't much matter to me.

Very good point Wordy...very good point indeed. That's why you ARE the man.

[wordsmythe]

I went back and fixed they typeos.

[Reddemons54]

Originally Posted by Detector

A person could write several books just on the times science has been wrong. Oh wait! lots of people already have!

Just do a search for "Junk science", "mistakes in science" or the like for a very long list of available books.

Some of the more well known would be "the earth is flat" and "the earth is the center of the universe".

I'm not looking to rag on science, I'm just pointing out that science can be just as wrong in theories as the rest of us. What cracks me up is that science goes to great lengths to attempt to explain, with complicated words, why their guess was wrong.

I don't think science would be licking their wounds near as often if they weren't so eager to try and prove a guess right. Take the Pal-down Chicken, or whatever its called, where science once again claims to have found the missing link in China. In the end it was found to be a hoax like all the other missing links. Perhaps a bit of testing first would have saved face.

When science is proved wrong they go to great lengths to justify why they guessed wrong. They simply say thats what science is. They make a theory/guess and then test it. Mmmm... OK. So how is that different from someone guessing?

A hypothesis is an educated guess about how things work.

I think the difference that you are missing is this, the fact that science actually tests the 'guess' to see if it is correct or not. Something doesn't become a theory until many tests. Also, you claim science is wrong a lot, I would dispute that rather heavily. About the only way science is wrong is when a scientific law is proven to be incorrect. Anything science does before it becomes a law really can't be incorrect, as we are trying to still figure it out.

Lay people make guesses and leave them at that. They do no further investigation etc. That is the difference.

that those proving that the earth wasn't the center of the universe were punished and that the flat earth belief held way after Arab/Ottoman science, among others, had proven that to be false.

In fact, those 'false' science theories were religious beliefs to begin with -- doesn't really make the point you want, does it, Detector? Sorry for you, but you actually just proved the point -- religion (at least in the West) has been the power stopping science normally.

[Detector]

Source: Popper's Philosophy of Science

the hypothesis that Earth is the center of the universe was held to be true in early science

a long time ago in a far away land, it was believed that Earth was the center of the universe. That was the accepted theory of the day.

Not just religious.

Once Darwin presented the evolution theory did science spend as much time trying to prove it wrong as they do trying to prove it right? Thats what testing a theory is all about. Testing for errors as well as truth. From what I see science is spending a lot of effort to find the missing link and ignoring the evidence that the theory is flawed.

The bible, in my opinion, is a very valuable source of scientific information. No doubt it is in fact our oldest source of information. But because it has a religious origin most science ignores its truths and refuses to see its value in teaching science. The bible has a religious flavor because of the period it was composed but that doesn't take away from the fact most of it is true.

Those of science that see the bible as more than a religious book have found it is based in fact. By that I mean if you look past the reference to a superior being used to explain why an event happened, you find the even itself did in fact happen. Jericho, for example, did exist as the bible describes and science has found a catastrophic event was how it met its demise. Just because a lack of understanding at the period uses a religious event to describe the why and how doesn't mean the event didn't happen.

If you think about it the bible and Darwin aren't so far off on their ideas of the beginning. In fact depending on your view the bible is probably more accurate. If you look past the religious influence, again a result of the period, the bible is saying the human race had a single source beginning. Where Darwin and the bible differ is that Darwin believed ALL life forms had a single source beginning, whereas the bible says the human race had a single beginning(Adam) but not the same source as other life on earth. Since people of the time thought God was in Heaven they are in fact saying we were created from the heavens. I happen to agree.

In the period God's were used to explain most events they couldn't explain. Its important to put the bible in the proper context of time.

I believe if science would take of its anti-religious blinders they could learn a lot for our oldest source of information. The bible. I also see nothing wrong with using the source in school. Not to teach that god is responsible for the destruction of Jericho, but that Jericho was in fact a real place destroyed by a real event.