Guest thebiblesquitesilly Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 I do believe(know) in evolution but shouldn't they come up with a word to replace theory so creationists can stop exploiting the fact that it has a different meaning in the scientific community. Or why aren't they teaching that theory has a different meaning in sciencle classes at school, shouldn't that be first in teaching science so creationists can stop exploiting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 I do believe(know) in evolution but shouldn't they come up with a word to replace theory so creationists can stop exploiting the fact that it has a different meaning in the scientific community. Or why aren't they teaching that theory has a different meaning in sciencle classes at school, shouldn't that be first in teaching science so creationists can stop exploiting it. They DO define theory in science classes at school. Besides...this has nothing to do with "evolutionists" or scientists as a whole. The publishers decide what goes in, not the scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entgegen Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Well, if I remember correctly, we were taught the scientific definition of "theory" in school, but I never really remembered it until my college freshman intro bio. class. When you're the age and maturity level that you are when you're in grade school, little facts like that just don't stick. Not to mention the popular definition put forth by creationists so often these days. So you have old, learned facts from years ago falling out one ear and bullshit taking its place coming in the other ear. Is it really any wonder why ignorance is so pervasive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
narcissist Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 It doesn't matter what you teach, how you teach it, or what you call it or what language you put it in. Creationists will always find a way to exploit it to make it fit their agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Well, if I remember correctly, we were taught the scientific definition of "theory" in school, The only definition that a Science teacher ever gave me for the word 'theory' was - an educated guess. That's it. That's what my seventh or eighth grade teacher told us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend AtheiStar Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 It doesn't matter what you teach, how you teach it, or what you call it or what language you put it in. Creationists will always find a way to exploit it to make it fit their agenda. They sure will. Why? Because they believe they have their deity on their side. They believe, therefore, that what they are doing is it's will and must do it's bidding. <in Igor voice> Yesss masterrrr.... lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Well, if I remember correctly, we were taught the scientific definition of "theory" in school, The only definition that a Science teacher ever gave me for the word 'theory' was - an educated guess. That's it. That's what my seventh or eighth grade teacher told us. How long ago was that, Fwee?? Were dinosaurs still alive? From what I remember, we were taught that a hypothesis was an educated guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunraveler Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 i did my own reading and there exist a hierarchy of accuracy used by scientists in the past it starts off with observation, educated guess, hypothesis, theory and then finally law. in modern science, there is hardly any more new "Law of..." becoz nothing in science is absolute. new models and data will arise to displace older models and data. an example is Newton's law of gravitation work fine till u reach the realm of quantum physics a theory is given that name becoz it has reached a state in the hierarchy of accuracy that it is able to predict future phenomenons based on past observation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 i did my own reading and there exist a hierarchy of accuracy used by scientists in the past it starts off with observation, educated guess, hypothesis, theory and then finally law. in modern science, there is hardly any more new "Law of..." becoz nothing in science is absolute. new models and data will arise to displace older models and data. an example is Newton's 3 laws work fine till u reach the realm of quantum physics a theory is given that name becoz it has reached a state in the hierarchy of accuracy that it is able to predict future phenomenons based on past observation Uh, no. Whatever source you got that from is inaccurate bullshit. The terms model, hypothesis, theory, and law have different, more specific meanings in science than in colloquial speech. Scientists use model to refer to a description of something, specifically one which can be used to make predictions that can be tested by experiment or observation. A hypothesis is a contention that has been neither well supported nor ruled out by experiment yet. A theory, in the context of science, is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural phenomena. A physical law or law of nature is a scientific generalization based on a sufficiently large number of empirical observations that it is taken as fully verified. The scientific method provides an objective process to find solutions to problems in a number of scientific and technological fields. Often scientists have a preference for one outcome over another, and it is important that this preference does not bias their interpretation. The scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of a scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. This can be achieved by correct experimental design, and thorough peer review of experimental design as well as conclusions of a study. Scientists never claim absolute knowledge. Unlike a mathematical proof, a proven scientific theory is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them. Critical to this process is making every relevant aspect of research publicly available, which permits peer review of published results, and also allows ongoing review and repeating of experiments and observations by multiple researchers operating independently of one another. Only by fulfilling these expectations can it be determined how reliable the experimental results are for potential use by others. Newton's law of gravitation is a famous example of an established law that was later found not to be universal - it does not hold in experiments involving motion at speeds close to the speed of light or in close proximity of strong gravitational fields. Outside these conditions, Newton's Laws remain an excellent model of motion and gravity. Since general relativity accounts for all the same phenomena that Newton's Laws do and more, general relativity is now regarded as a better theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunraveler Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Uh, no. Whatever source you got that from is inaccurate bullshit. The terms model, hypothesis, theory, and law have different, more specific meanings in science than in colloquial speech. Scientists use model to refer to a description of something, specifically one which can be used to make predictions that can be tested by experiment or observation. A hypothesis is a contention that has been neither well supported nor ruled out by experiment yet. A theory, in the context of science, is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural phenomena. A physical law or law of nature is a scientific generalization based on a sufficiently large number of empirical observations that it is taken as fully verified. The scientific method provides an objective process to find solutions to problems in a number of scientific and technological fields. Often scientists have a preference for one outcome over another, and it is important that this preference does not bias their interpretation. The scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of a scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. This can be achieved by correct experimental design, and thorough peer review of experimental design as well as conclusions of a study. Scientists never claim absolute knowledge. Unlike a mathematical proof, a proven scientific theory is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them. Critical to this process is making every relevant aspect of research publicly available, which permits peer review of published results, and also allows ongoing review and repeating of experiments and observations by multiple researchers operating independently of one another. Only by fulfilling these expectations can it be determined how reliable the experimental results are for potential use by others. Newton's law of gravitation is a famous example of an established law that was later found not to be universal - it does not hold in experiments involving motion at speeds close to the speed of light or in close proximity of strong gravitational fields. Outside these conditions, Newton's Laws remain an excellent model of motion and gravity. Since general relativity accounts for all the same phenomena that Newton's Laws do and more, general relativity is now regarded as a better theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science I notice the last part of your statement: "Newton's law of gravitation is a famous example of an established law that was later found not to be universal - it does not hold in experiments involving motion at speeds close to the speed of light or in close proximity of strong gravitational fields" Isnt that the same as mine stating "an example is Newton's 3 laws work fine till u reach the realm of quantum physics" The inaccuracy I believe u were refering is to the "3 Laws" and I have ammended it From the very same webpage, I did a search on "theory" and i found this 'In science, a theory is a proposed model, explanation or description of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurences' Which is the same as mine saying "a theory is given that name becoz it has reached a state in the hierarchy of accuracy that it is able to predict future phenomenons based on past observation" And I would reiterate that in science nothing is absolute, new data will either confirm or destroy older models Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padreko Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 pwned.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 And I would reiterate that in science nothing is absolute, new data will either confirm or destroy older models Haha...Padreko. Sorry, unraveler I should have been more concise with my dispute. That is entirely my fault. There really is no hierarchy as what you stated. A Law does not supersede a Theory as you seemed to imply (am I wrong in your implication?). You were dead on with your definition of Theory, and your criticism regarding Newton's Law. A Law derives from a scientific hypothesis much like a theory, but they are two different entities...theories do not graduate into laws. That is what it seemed you were saying, and I was very terribly correcting you on it. Again, my problem with communcation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjacksonRIAB Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 Well, if I remember correctly, we were taught the scientific definition of "theory" in school, The only definition that a Science teacher ever gave me for the word 'theory' was - an educated guess. That's it. That's what my seventh or eighth grade teacher told us. At least my biology teacher got that one right. Called it a hypothesis. Why don't we just stop fucking around and call it the: LAW OF EVOLUTION They couldn't get their crowbars under a more solid foundation!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 No, no, no, we should call it "The Supreme and Absolute Law of Evolution". That will stir it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dianka Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 No, no, no, we should call it "The Supreme and Absolute Law of Evolution". That will stir it up. That's nice, but I would suggest you tack on Set in Stone. The Supreme and Absolute Law of Evolution Set in Stone....ah, it just rolls off the tongue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 Why don't we just stop fucking around and call it the: LAW OF EVOLUTION They couldn't get their crowbars under a more solid foundation!!!!! Well, technically evolution is both law and theory, so they are correct that it is a theory, they just don't have the correct definition of theory. I was taught the heirarchy throughout school, and I was horrified (but not surprised) to find that this wasn't correct. I've actually been in an argument over the definition of theory and its relationship with laws, and to prove my point I cited Gould's essay Evolution as Fact and Theory, but I was told that this was an appeal to authority, and he said that some scientists (probably) don't use it that way, but he couldn't give any specific examples. It ended there, surprisingly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjacksonRIAB Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 No, no, no, we should call it "The Supreme and Absolute Law of Evolution". That will stir it up. That's nice, but I would suggest you tack on Set in Stone. The Supreme and Absolute Law of Evolution Set in Stone....ah, it just rolls off the tongue. Yes, and a picture of me with my size 12 steel toes crushing a Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RHEMtron Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 Well, if I remember correctly, we were taught the scientific definition of "theory" in school, The only definition that a Science teacher ever gave me for the word 'theory' was - an educated guess. That's it. That's what my seventh or eighth grade teacher told us. At least my biology teacher got that one right. Called it a hypothesis. Why don't we just stop fucking around and call it the: LAW OF EVOLUTION They couldn't get their crowbars under a more solid foundation!!!!! it is HYPOTHESIS, but rhemember... hypothesis is not the same as theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend AtheiStar Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 Why don't we just stop fucking around and call it the: LAW OF EVOLUTION They couldn't get their crowbars under a more solid foundation!!!!! Well, technically evolution is both law and theory, so they are correct that it is a theory, they just don't have the correct definition of theory. I was taught the heirarchy throughout school, and I was horrified (but not surprised) to find that this wasn't correct. I've actually been in an argument over the definition of theory and its relationship with laws, and to prove my point I cited Gould's essay Evolution as Fact and Theory, but I was told that this was an appeal to authority, and he said that some scientists (probably) don't use it that way, but he couldn't give any specific examples. It ended there, surprisingly That was a really good article. It'll be on my site shortly! Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 That was a really good article. It'll be on my site shortly! Thanks! Hey, maybe you will find it to be helpful. Anywho, yeah, it is a great article, potentially very useful and just informative for people who had an "education" like I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend AtheiStar Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 That was a really good article. It'll be on my site shortly! Thanks! Hey, maybe you will find it to be helpful. Anywho, yeah, it is a great article, potentially very useful and just informative for people who had an "education" like I did. It will be housed next to others just as great in my collection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest coolmtnman Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 we evolved from monkeys, end of story we have an appendix which was used to break down rough vegetation like bark and we have little tails at the end of our spline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunraveler Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 we evolved from monkeys, end of story we have an appendix which was used to break down rough vegetation like bark and we have little tails at the end of our spline we evolve from a common ancestor but not from monkeys. its a seperate branch on the "tree of life"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts