Question about Science

[Celsus]

I have seen various statements by Christians and others that, to paraphrase; "Scienctific theories that were considered laws have been proven wrong in the past". I would request that someone substantiate this claim. Please give examples to this effect. Further discussion to be forthcoming.

[a midnight star]

Other than this sentence everything that I am posting here is directly from the links provided.

 

It is this implicit fallibilism which helps differentiate science from other human endeavors. It is certainly the case that scientists will act as if something is definitely true and not give much thought to the possibility that it is wrong - but that doesn't mean that they ignore it completely. This quote from Stephen Jay Gould illustrates the issue nicely:

 

Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. ...In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

 

The key phrase is "provisional consent" - it is accepted as true provisionally, which means only for the time being. It is accepted as true at this time and for this context because we have every reason to do so and no reason not to do so. If, however, good reasons to reconsider this position arise, then we should begin to withdraw our consent.

 

Note also that Gould introduces another important point: for many scientists, once a theory has been confirmed and reconfirmed over and over again, we get to the point that it will be treated as a "fact" for pretty much all contexts and purposes. Scientists may refer to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, but in most contexts Einstein's ideas here are treated as fact - treated as if they are simply true and accurate descriptions about the world.

 

 

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_sci_hypo.htm

 

 

Generally a fact is an event that has happened, or a statement that is generally regarded as true — whether one accepts it as real (true) or not. There are issues concerning whether all statements claimed to be true need be claims of fact. Statements about the truth of a theory or a scientific law, for example, are often regarded as not being claims of fact. Sometimes, of course, there are differences of opinion over what is factual, and there are some methods for attempting to minimize those differences.

 

 

In science, a fact is data supported by a scientific experiment. A fact is an honest observation. A scientific fact is an honest observation seen by many scientists. A scientific fact is a scientific observation that is so accepted that it becomes difficult to consider other interpretations of the data. A fact may tentatively support or refute a model of how the universe works. Facts do not prove a model is correct. One observation of any phenomenon does not prove anything.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

[Celsus]

Midnight, I asked for examples to substantiate specific claims, not a run down on what a scientific theory is.

[a midnight star]

OK, here we go:

With this in mind, Lamarck developed two laws:

 

In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears.

All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young.

In essence, a change in the environment brings about change in "needs" (besoins), resulting in change in behavior, bringing change in organ usage and development, bringing change in form over time—and thus the gradual transmutation of the species. While such a theory might explain the observed diversity of species and the first law is generally true, the main argument against Lamarckism is that experiments simply do not support the second law—purely "acquired traits" are not inherited. The mechanisms of inheritance were not elucidated until later in the 19th Century, after Lamarck's death.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

 

and:

 

At this time, geocentrism is rejected in scientific and popular opinion; and it is believed that the Sun is at the centre of the solar system, but not the universe (see Heliocentrism), so a better term for the modern view is geokineticism (i.e. that the earth moves, without asserting anything about the center of motion). However, Sir Fred Hoyle wrote:

 

The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view ... . Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory “wrong” in any meaningful physical sense.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric

 

There is also the fact that both the EPR paradox and Newton's Theory of Relitivity are not compatable, but both have been tested and shown to be "true". This leads to the Hidden Varible Theory(that I have brought up in the past) where there are hidden varibles that have yet to be discovered.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory

[Ouroboros]

OK, here we go:

With this in mind, Lamarck developed two laws:

...

What I remembered from a book a read recently, Lamarcks ideas were not established "laws" in science, and not accepted by the majority of scientists. Nazi Germany and Soviet was huge believers in it, but the west was more reluctant to accept the theory. I could be wrong, but that's how I remembers it explained

[a midnight star]

But see? That was my entire point. Evolution is a possiblity and just might be true, I am not saying that it isn't.

 

Now I will concede that the latter evolutionary processes more than likely are true, and will go so far as to say fact. But when it comes to the older (millions of years) side of evolution, it is still up for debate.

 

The processes for dating is only proven accurate for so many years. So how could I believe 100% that this is true? Or that more accurate dating can still be found? Whether or not it will substanciate(sp) modern thinking is still unknown.

[Asimov]

Evolution isn't a law.

[Ouroboros]

Evolution isn't a law.

True! I totally didn't think of that. We hear the "Evolution is only a theory" so much, so I should have brought that up myself! I was only stating Lamarcks theories were not law, but as you say, Evolution is not either.

[Celsus]

Midnight,

 

I will address each of these and then followup with a general summation.

 

Lamarkism: Was not accepted in the general scientific community because it was not validated by experimentation. While lamark developed two "laws", they were not and did not meet the scientific defintion of a theory or a law, but were hypotheses. This whil later scientific experiments confirmed that his first hypothesis was generally true, they did not validate his second proposal.

 

Heliocentrism: From a matter of perspective, the physical coordinate system is true as Hoyle described. However, from a physics stand point, it is not. The Earth, like all the other planets (as well as planets around other stars) fall along a curvature of warped space induced by the mass of the star at the center of the solar system(s).

 

EPR paradox: This simply shows that our understanding is incomplete.

 

Summation: A valid scientific theory/law is one that has been repeatedly demonstrated by objective tests to be valid. For instance, the gravitational theory of Newton. In this instance, Einstein did not over turn Newton, his theory of general and special relativity expanded the understanding of gravity and cosmology. Newtons law applies, within certain parameters. In very large scale or very small scales, Newton's laws are not adequate. The point I am making is this. Scientific theories/laws, which are validated repeatedly, by objective experimentation, have never been overturned. They have been incorporated into more robust theories that expland the understanding of the area in question. So while it is valid to state that scientific fact is always provisional and subject to change, it is not valid to state that validated scientific laws are thrown out in favor of something else; rather they are incorporated into larger and more refined theories as the parameters of knowledge and/or observational techniques develop.

 

A key is to understand that a scientific theory or law is, as well as what a hypothesis is. Quantum physics did not make classical atomic physics invalid; Einsteinian relaativitydid not make newtonian cosmology invalid; Genetics did not render natural selction invalid. In each case the more refined, robust theories incorporated and led to a more detailed and thorough understanding.

 

Bruce

[a midnight star]

OK, I just did some more search and everywhere else but in my reference it was said that it was a theory.

 

side note:

It was simply copied and pasted from the link. It was a direct quote.

[a midnight star]

I never said that it made it invalid, but rather that it contraticted Newton's theory and it does.

 

The point and question was to show theories that have been proven false. The fact that some of then we not excepted by ALL, doesn't invalidate the fact that they were theories that were proven false. Parts of evolution is still be debated on by scientist.

 

Hence my questions and points.

[Celsus]

True! I totally didn't think of that. We hear the "Evolution is only a theory" so much, so I should have brought that up myself! I was only stating Lamarcks theories were not law, but as you say, Evolution is not either.

 

Lamark's theories first hypothesis was found to be valid, his second was not. Thus the first became a valid scientific theory and the second was assigned as an invalid theory after experimentation.

 

 

Evolution of life is an observed fact, as documented by Lamark, Wallace, Darwin and others. Life evolves. The theory of evolution is a robust, yet incomplete set of theories to explain the observed fact that life evolves. Evolutionary theory has been tested repeatedly and been proven to make correct predictions, which are then validated in the real world. In like manner, gravity is an obeserved fact in nature. We have an incomplete theory(s) to exlpain gravity, but do not know really how it works.

 

Bruce

[Ouroboros]

Bruce

I know. I wasn't arguing against you.

[a midnight star]

I understand that I may seem as if I am trying to give you all a hard time. This is NOT my intent. I am one of those rare birds who ask questions and show my side as a way to gain understanding. My questions and answers are not designed to annoy, aggravate, or demean anybody. It is simply me using my understanding of what I have learned to gain more knowlege and understanding for myself.

 

I do apologize to anybody who takes my posts any way other than what they were designed for. Offence was not meant.

[Celsus]

I never said that it made it invalid, but rather that it contraticted Newton's theory and it does.

 

The point and question was to show theories that have been proven false. The fact that some of then we not excepted by ALL, doesn't invalidate the fact that they were theories that were proven false. Parts of evolution is still be debated on by scientist.

 

Hence my questions and points.

 

 

Einsteinian reltivity does not contradict Newtonian gravity. Einsteinian relativity says that in two conditions, very high mass or very high speeds, things work a bit differently. Under all but these two conditions, Newtonian gravity is valid. It is just now part of a larger, more robust and refined theory which defines parameters much better.

 

Bruce

[a midnight star]

QM prohibits the simultaneous knowledge of more than one mutually noncommuting observable of either system. The paradox of EPR is the following contradiction: for our coupled systems, we can measure observable A of system I (for example, photon 1 has spin up along the x-axis; photon 2 must therefore have x-spin down), and observable B of system II (for example, photon 2 has spin down along the y-axis; therefore the y-spin of photon 1 must be up), thereby revealing both observables for both systems, contrary to QM.

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quan...inequality.html

 

 

I realize that a paradox seems to contradict more proven models. If I understand correctly, this is where the Hidden varible theory comes in.

[a midnight star]

Quote:

"Albert Einstein, .. produced a series of objections to the theory, the most famous of which has become known as the EPR paradox. John Bell showed that the EPR paradox led to experimentally testable differences between quantum mechanics and local hidden variable theories. Experiments have been taken as confirming that quantum mechanics is correct and the real world cannot be described in terms of such hidden variables. "Loopholes" in the experiments, however, mean the question is still not quite settled."

 

 

There is just as much evidence to prove the paradox as there are to disapprove it. Kind of like the theory of evolution. It all comes down to what you decide to believe. If given a choice of believing something that has some scientific basis or believing some book, I will always choose the science.

 

 

There are simply some things that can't be explained away by science, yet.

 

http://www.ahisee.com/content/epressay.html

 

 

Quote:

 

a scientific theory must be:

1. Guided by natural law

2. Explanatory by reference to natural law

3. Testable against the empirical world

4. Tentative; that is, its conclusions are not necessarily final

5. Falsifiable

 

The influence of Popper is very clear here; however, is there anything here that scientists or philosophers would find problematic? Take item 4. Clearly this distinguishes between a religious theory - which is inescapably absolute and thus final - and a scientific theory, which is neither. Now, a complete theory of physics would necessarily be final. But by this criterion, any complete theory is not tentative. It would cease to be a theory and become absolute, and thus enters the realm of religion, in the same moment leaving the realm of science. I therefore argue that necessarily science and its theories must remain incomplete in order that they remain science.

 

Conclusion

Let's make this brief. In my view the EPR paradox does not show that the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum theory is incomplete. Quantum theory is nonetheless incomplete, and indeed all theories in science must necessarily be incomplete.

There are many truths out there and not all will coincide with the others. I do not believe that things are black and white only, but shades of grey where discussions and differing opinion come in. Besides, the forum would be boring if we all only echo each other's thoughts. Where is the fun in that?

[Guest aexapo]

The day someone starts saying we can't question science is the day that indeed science will have become a religion. Just accept without question. Bullshit! If I accepted without question, I'd still be a christian.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know anyone that's interested in setting up a Science Religion. Questioning science is something that science does it self (and welcomes externally) in order to stay relevant and accurate. The ID argument (and similar POV that seem to "hold out hope" for a Creator deity) aren't just arguments questioning science; they are arguments that by default give equal weight and measure to a Creationist point of view that has zero facts to back it up.

 

It's as if someone were saying that Genesis-based ideas on how the earth came to be are just as valid as arguments made from the viewpoint of scientific observation and discovery.

 

Everyone does have the right to make such arguments, but in a secular society, the powers that be do have and must exercise their right to keep mythological nonsense out of the business, research, and education of current and future science. I'm not talking about here -- on this forum -- but in the labs and classrooms across the civilized world.

 

We can elect to have democratic science classrooms (as long as we're doing the same for math and english -- "Teacher, I have an objection to the syntax you're using in reading Shakespeare. I think we need to open up a debate for all interpretations!" -- "Teacher! I think you're being biased against opinions that say algebra is necessary!"), and science based industries will most certainly elect to move their jobs to nations and countries where fact-based curriculae are the norm.

[a midnight star]

Nobody here in this thread so far are disputing the fact the ID is garbage. This discussion has nothing to do with ID or evolution.

[a midnight star]

You have not done anything wrong, I'm sure Bruce started this thread knowing that people are sincerely seeking answers.  You are bringing up valid points Midnight, you are not starting trouble or being offensive at all.  If anyone is offended by someone questioning science then that is their problem, not yours.  You are having a civilized discussion, you are not name-calling, you are not being rude. 

 

The day someone starts saying we can't question science is the day that indeed science will have become a religion.  Just accept without question.  Bullshit!  If I accepted without question, I'd still be a christian.  Also, using "experts say so" doesn't fly either as there are "experts" in religion too that justify their views/beliefs/proofs.  All things need to be weighed and then a decision should be reached and if not, heck, at least you walk away from it a little more knowledgeable than you were before.

 

Keep on truckin' MidnightStar, there are more people willing to help than condemn...at least I hope so. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What I find most confusing is how can anybody come from a religion where you are told what is right and what is "truth" then find out it is wrong and not question everything. "If you don't question everything, then you learn nothing" has been my sig in many different places. I am not about to believe anything because so and so says so. That is not enough for me. There are so many things now that I question, this is one of them. Now if I can be proven wrong...... then I will happily state that I was wrong and thank whoever it was that pointed me in the right direction.

[a midnight star]

Ok another question. I know I am full of them today.

 

You say:

Evolution of life is an observed fact, as documented by Lamark, Wallace, Darwin and others.

 

but this was observed and considered fact as well:

The geocentric model (in Greek: geo = earth and centron = centre) of the universe is a paradigm which places the Earth at its center. Common in ancient Greece after the discovery of the approximately spherical shape of Earth, it was believed by both Aristotle and Ptolemy. Most Greeks assumed that the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets orbit Earth. Similar ideas were held in ancient China.

 

So my question and confusion is this:

if both were observed facts and both had been tested insofar as they were able to be, how could the latter not be considered a theory that was debunked?

[Asimov]

Ok another question. I know I am full of them today.

 

You say:

but this was observed and considered fact as well:

So my question and confusion is this:

if both were observed facts and both had been tested insofar as they were able to be, how could the latter not be considered a theory that was debunked?

 

It wasn't really an objective observation.

[a midnight star]

How could it not have been? It was what they saw and what they believed using what they had and the tech that was available.

 

Again, questioning so I can understand, not to be obtuse.

[Asimov]

How could it not have been? It was what they saw and what they believed using what they had and the tech that was available.

 

Again, questioning so I can understand, not to be obtuse.

 

They weren't using any technology, midnight. They saw the sun rising and setting...the obvious assumption is that the sun goes around the earth. It was wrong because it was based on limited observations, and without any understanding of physics or relativity.

 

They weren't using science.

[a midnight star]

They weren't using any technology, midnight.  They saw the sun rising and setting...the obvious assumption is that the sun goes around the earth.  It was wrong because it was based on limited observations, and without any understanding of physics or relativity. 

 

They weren't using science.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because they didn't have technology, or rather what we have today. It was still science asfaras science was in those days. Who is to say that it won't change again. It was still considered a theory then and it was debunked. That was the question that Bruce asked. I know that things have changed and that it isn't correct. I am not questioning that. I am simply making the point that things change as time goes on. What is considered truth today, may not be true in years to come.