SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (40241)6/12/1999 8:49:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
LRR, the issue that a lot of layman cannot seem to fathom is that while scientific theory evolves, the observations that gave rise to those theories do not. Newer theories are more robust because they include observations that were inconsistent with older theories. Thus, ideal gases were recognized as a special case where interatomic forces were either absent or minimal, and newer, more inclusive atomic theories arose to replace the older restricted, ideas. Nevertheless, the original observations are still germane.

While I'm at it, I would also like to point out that another problem that layman generally have is their failure to grasp that a theory is the strongest explanatory statement a scientist will ever make. The theory needs to be inclusive, falsifiable and predictive. And it needs to be based on empirical evidence.

A common misunderstanding is that the theory of evolution somehow means that evolution is problematic. Not so. Evolution is fact. It has been observed countless times both in the laboratory and in nature. The explanation of evolution --mutagenesis, natural selection, etc.-- that's the theoretical part.

That's why Scientific Creationism is an oxymoron. It is not falsifiable, nor is it predictive. There is no set of observations that renders the "theory" untenable. Thus, it is not a theory at all, but really a religion masquerading as science.

TTFN,
CTC



To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (40241)6/13/1999 12:36:00 AM
From: The Philosopher  Respond to of 108807
 
"pure" science (or better, statistically crisp science)
transcends the subjective.


It might if it existed. But it doesn't, so it doesn't.