When does a theory stop being a theory?

[Squawk]

a theory that is more accurate may replace an existing theory, so on and so forth..thus, the most accurate theory amongst the other theories may be ultimate, therefore, it becomes a law. the law is ultimate and conclusive!

Please provide a single example of this happening. You won't be able to find one, since it's a false statement, as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread. Putting a falsehood in big letters won't make the point any more valid.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Actually I would disagree that there are no Laws in mathematics.

Of course, using very strict definitions of specific words will probably clear up any misunderstanding. It could be easy to see where confusion would set in.

A few laws that are defined as such would include the following:

Law of Sines
Law of Cosines

And if we were to continue this discussion, I would probably agree that those "Laws" are probably better described as rules.

Bad, bad English language.......

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Law of Sines
Law of Cosines

And if we were to continue this discussion, I would probably agree that those "Laws" are probably better described as rules.

I used to know them a rules... but meh... I acept your usage.

 

[Deleted member 619]

A fact is a data point. A hypothesis is an attempt to explain a data point or a set thereof. A law is a (usually mathematical) description of a process or relationship. A theory is an explanatory framework dealing with a set of facts, hypotheses and laws of specific interest.

At no point do we encounter a set of circumstances in which one becomes another, because they are all qualitatively different things.

Show me where the big bang THEORY or THEORY of evolution are talked about in the Bible and we can have a debate. Otherwise, your, point is moot. Good day.

but how do you explain that to somebody who says things like this?

I wish I had an answer to that question that was universally applicable, but I don't. All you can do is to challenge them on the statements they do make.

This is precisely why I always say that it isn't my intention to convince the believer of anything, only to expose the problems in their statements for the benefit of onlookers. If you're out to change the mind of somebody who erects fatuous statements such as the one above, you're probably doing it wrong. Don't try to teach a pig to sing, and all that.

 

[Andiferous]

Actually I would disagree that there are no Laws in mathematics.

Of course, using very strict definitions of specific words will probably clear up any misunderstanding. It could be easy to see where confusion would set in.

A few laws that are defined as such would include the following:

Law of Sines
Law of Cosines

And if we were to continue this discussion, I would probably agree that those "Laws" are probably better described as rules.

Bad, bad English language.......

Well, only to be argumentative but... mathematics is a closed hypothetical and symbolic system that only represents what we perceive as reality. It doesn't exist by itself, so in a way, all it's truth is apparent in the sandbox, so to speak. As hypothetical reality we can make rules and set boundaries. And in regard to your examples of laws, I might include the law of rhinovirus, because in context it makes equal sense to an ignorant like myself.

I do agree that 'laws' is a bit insidious and invites some sort of unsubstantiated trust, and maybe 'rules' comes across as a bit more honest. and more accepting to scepticism.

 

[nudger1964]

it would be nice if those of you in the scientific community were a bit more disciplined as to how and when you use such terms. You cant really complain when a theist says "its only a theory" when the term is applied to the likes of string theory, m theory...it ceases to have any real meaning at all

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

it would be nice if those of you in the scientific community were a bit more disciplined as to how and when you use such terms. You cant really complain when a theist says "its only a theory" when the term is applied to the likes of string theory, m theory...it ceases to have any real meaning at all

What do you mean? The usage is correct.
When you have a good scientific education there is no confusion about what they mean, in fact the language is relatively very clear compared to everyday language. The problem is there are to many scientificly iliterate pople trying to use scientific terminology that they shouldn't be using in the first place.
There are to much scientist wanabes and very few scietists, they like science when it suits them but they are not willing to go the extra mile of actually becoming knowledgeable about the subject they profess to be interested.
I'm recently gaining the habbit of telling people to fuck of when they try to bring a study about some shit they have no knowledge about, because 90% of the time they just missunderstand completly what the hell it is talking about (fruit of not knowing anything about what it is being talked about, how surprising ain't it?) and when they get the subject matter right the paper itself is very often wrong. Scientists are humans and they make mistakes, I can even try to explain why do I think it is wrong (or agree if I think it isn't) and if he/she knew anything about the subject matter they can interject with an actual valid reason to why my position is wrong and a coherent discution can take place, but given that they actual don't know anything about it at all, what they do is point back to the paper and say "But he said this". Well so fucking what he said that? Just because it is writen in paper it doesn't become the unfalible word of God, but many people think that it does (go figure why they are religious).

 

[Andiferous]

it would be nice if those of you in the scientific community were a bit more disciplined as to how and when you use such terms. You cant really complain when a theist says "its only a theory" when the term is applied to the likes of string theory, m theory...it ceases to have any real meaning at all

Given the contradictions of this argument, it really sounds like your objective is to 'find the right way to 'win' this debate....

Why are the sacrifices of critical concepts like 'probability' and 'truth', or 'theory' and 'law' necessary in arguing about for the truth of a concept that is founded on these distinctions? Scepticism and accuracy are critical to the foundation of science and the scientific method itself; and abandoning both of these in a debate arguing for science is contrary to your own argument. Forgive me if I get overly wordy and passionate about this.

Let me ask: which is important - learning and reasoning the arguments using logic and knowledge, or gleaning a 'win' over some anonymous person spouting a belief drone argument script? For me, accuracy and honesty are always important in arguments, otherwise I don't see a point in having debates. If I don't gain knowledge or understanding from my discussion, then I see argument as completely useless for me (unless there are compelling reasons shared with the opponent). But a person can't gain knowledge or understanding by not being honest and forthright in a debate. You might not think this way yourself - but I suppose I'm really tired of watching people argue concepts merely to one-up each other without being true to those topics they argue.

It goes the other way too. I believe that many who criticise scientific theory are not necessarily ignorant of facts, but are rather trying to find ways to prove themselves true. So this can backfire when they wait for science-proponents to hint at faith and truth within the scientific method and theory. It seems to me that there is a script , and people are looking for loopholes in a single-minded desire to somehow win a debate. I'm sure there's psychological insecurities in that - but I won't go there at risk of sounding even more insensitive than I am sure I do now.

I don't know - I find it way more fun engaging honestly with people who are open to learning and discussion rather than those looking for loopholes and weaknesses with a single minded desire to win (or even 'convert''), (you'll find that I really hate it when people argue using 'fallacy' ) because I don't think anyone can gain anything from that kind of discussion anyway. I'm not sure there's a point to argue technicalities in order to gain some sort of abstract superiority or win. Sorry, I digress.

I don't think I've ever 'won' a debate, and I'm not sure what that means, anyway. I could have a debate on what winning a debate means, and I'm sure no one would ever win it.. I do think I've personally benefited by having debates and discussions when interested, honest, open and and wanting to learn from the topic at hand. Otherwise, I find it pointless to argue with people and tend to gain nothing from discussions that lack honesty and respect. And I think in those situation, the feeling is mutual.

Beyond my tirade on debate etiquette:

Keep in mind, manipulating an argument by sacrificing accuracy in order to 'win' a scientific debate is completely contrary to the practice of science and scepticism, and being a hypocrite tends to lose debates anyway.

I don't think sceptics should win arguments, anyway. If they win, they've really lost the concept of scepticism. They are humble folk. Best to argue for ones own learning in the end, and not to try to stump people with language while ignoring accuracy. Even sacrificing the probable accuracy of semantics is important, because hypocrites tend to lose all around anyway.

Anyway, my self-important arrogant patronising lecture for the month is thankfully over. Feel free to argue.

 

[TheOnlyThing2Fear]

A theory stops being a theory when a better theory replaces it?

Evolution is a fact. The theories that explain the fact of evolution include natural selection and punctuated equilibrium.

Why the need for the question mark? Your BS (belief system) allows you to claim evolution is a fact, and your entire BS is a foundation built on what amounts to the miracle of mutations.

You enter a room, a cupcake is on a table. Do you believe the cupcake was made, or do you believe the cupcake came from nothing? Ignorance is not an option.

 

[australopithecus]

Your first post tells me 2 things: you don't know what evolution is and you don't know how science works. Not a good start.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[Laurens]

Why the need for the question mark? Your BS (belief system) allows you to claim evolution is a fact, and your entire BS is a foundation built on what amounts to the miracle of mutations.

Miracle of mutations? Perhaps you could elaborate on that?

Do you mean that mutations never occur in any form?

Or are you trying to suggest something else? Let me guess, 'most mutations are harmful?' - this is not true, most mutations do nothing for several reasons: 1. A change of a single letter in a codon can still code for the same amino acid, for example: UCU (mRNA codon) can become UCC, UCA, and UCG and still code for the same amino acid (serine according to my biology text book) - the same is true for all the other amino acids there is between 2 and 4 different combinations of letters for each amino acid. 2. Amino acids can be added/removed/exchanged with no detrimental effect on the resulting protein. 3. By far the most mutations occur on the vast swathes of our DNA that does not code for proteins. Most of our DNA is redundant, so mutations on it do nothing to us.

There are harmful mutations of course, and there are more harmful mutations than beneficial ones because there is more ways to be a dysfunctional organism than a highly functional one. However harmful mutations are quickly weeded out by natural selection, whereas beneficial mutations are favoured. So the net result is a tendency for an organism to become more adapted to its environment, because beneficial mutations are passed on, whilst harmful ones are eliminated.

Where is the miracle?

You enter a room, a cupcake is on a table. Do you believe the cupcake was made, or do you believe the cupcake came from nothing? Ignorance is not an option.

I don't think it's even worth addressing something so stupid.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

You enter a room, a cupcake is on a table. Do you believe the cupcake was made, or do you believe the cupcake came from nothing? Ignorance is not an option.

It was magically pufed into existance by God on the 4th day of creation?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Another hit and run methinks. Not worth bothering over.

 

[Prolescum]

When it's ajar.

 

[TheOnlyThing2Fear]

You enter a room, a cupcake is on a table. Do you believe the cupcake was made, or do you believe the cupcake came from nothing? Ignorance is not an option.

It was magically pufed into existance by God on the 4th day of creation?

Who said that? Well, besides you?

Let's assume you know 50% of all the knowledge of what we call the universe. I know it's not possible, but just assume you do. Could God exist in the 50% of all the knowledge you don't know?

 

[australopithecus]

God of the gaps? Is that what you're seriously going with?

 

[TheOnlyThing2Fear]

Why the need for the question mark? Your BS (belief system) allows you to claim evolution is a fact, and your entire BS is a foundation built on what amounts to the miracle of mutations.

Miracle of mutations? Perhaps you could elaborate on that?

Do you mean that mutations never occur in any form?

Or are you trying to suggest something else? Let me guess, 'most mutations are harmful?' - this is not true, most mutations do nothing for several reasons: 1. A change of a single letter in a codon can still code for the same amino acid, for example: UCU (mRNA codon) can become UCC, UCA, and UCG and still code for the same amino acid (serine according to my biology text book) - the same is true for all the other amino acids there is between 2 and 4 different combinations of letters for each amino acid. 2. Amino acids can be added/removed/exchanged with no detrimental effect on the resulting protein. 3. By far the most mutations occur on the vast swathes of our DNA that does not code for proteins. Most of our DNA is redundant, so mutations on it do nothing to us.

There are harmful mutations of course, and there are more harmful mutations than beneficial ones because there is more ways to be a dysfunctional organism than a highly functional one. However harmful mutations are quickly weeded out by natural selection, whereas beneficial mutations are favoured. So the net result is a tendency for an organism to become more adapted to its environment, because beneficial mutations are passed on, whilst harmful ones are eliminated.

Where is the miracle?

You enter a room, a cupcake is on a table. Do you believe the cupcake was made, or do you believe the cupcake came from nothing? Ignorance is not an option.

I don't think it's even worth addressing something so stupid.

Thank-you for taking the time to demonstrate your understanding of how mutations occur in an organism. It seems to me that a contradiction is evident in your explanation. The magic I was referring to is cited in your explanation of harmful and beneficial mutations. Since I am not a scientist, but I do study it with great interest, I cannot fact check your explanation at this moment. I'll take you at your word that you believe what you have stated;

A. There are harmful mutations
B. There are more harmful mutations than beneficial ones
C. There are more ways to be a dysfunctional organism than a highly functional one
D. Harmful mutations are quickly weeded out by natural selection
E. Whereas beneficial mutations are favoured
F. The net result is a tendency for an organism to become more adapted to its environment, because beneficial mutations are passed on, whilst harmful ones are eliminated.

I was following you up until my note B when all I can say is, "really"? And C makes sense if B is correct, then I started wrinkling my brow at D and E., and later F. The magic I referred to in my original comment was, in deeper terms, natural selection. I have never personally read anything but theories about natural selection. It seems this is a magic ingredient, along with almost unlimited amounts of time that somehow chooses the right mutation at the right moment, yet how does the magic of natural selection determine between a harmful and beneficial mutation unless it can test the result of it first? This, to me, is somewhat of a contradiction. I could be convinced otherwise, but I'm sensing some slight of hand here.

Now your net result comment (my note F) uses the word "tendency" and that leads me to believe you are about to tell me the organism itself is only sometimes doing the natural selection, that is creating both harmful and beneficial mutations in some sort of biological Russian roulette. Is this not also contradictory in that it's either the organism, or the natural selection choosing the mutation to run with?

As for my cupcake analogy, I think you might have missed my point, so ignoring it was probably the right decision. So as to not obfuscate, I have been told by friends and colleagues that the universe came into existence by a big bang. On its face that just sounds as silly as the cupcake, but I never get much of an explanation as to what banged, and how does anyone know that it was big, and what does big actually measure up to? So, I made up a question, and I throw it into the conversation from time to time and I am amazed at how much the belief in the universe just popping into existence sounds on par with the creation account. I'm just saying, it all sounds religious to me.

 

[TheOnlyThing2Fear]

God of the gaps? Is that what you're seriously going with?

Seriously, what is a God of the gaps?

 

[TheOnlyThing2Fear]

Your first post tells me 2 things: you don't know what evolution is and you don't know how science works. Not a good start.

Welcome to the forum.

Do tell...My experience tells me your defining the term evolution and the mechanics of science would be an accurate representation of your education, interpretation of what you gleaned from that education and would still illicit argument and debate from like minded individuals.

 

[australopithecus]

Do tell...My experience tells me your defining the term evolution and the mechanics of science would be an accurate representation of your education, interpretation of what you gleaned from that education and would still illicit argument and debate from like minded individuals.

Verbosity isn't intimidating. Just so you know.