Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Misconceptions About the Scientific Theories.

rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 10:33:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why is it that every other day I see these dumb common misconception about scientific theories? THE BIG BANG THEORY DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT EVERYTHING CAME FROM NOTHING. IT DOESN'T ADDRESS CREATION OF MATTER. ALSO EVOLUTION DOES NOT SAY THAT WE DESCENDED FROM MONKEYS. IT SAYS PRIMATES AND HUMANS HAVE COMMON ANCESTORS. It makes me want to beat my head against the wall every time I hear someone say these things.
Wain84
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 10:48:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 10:33:43 PM, rogue wrote:
Why is it that every other day I see these dumb common misconception about scientific theories? THE BIG BANG THEORY DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT EVERYTHING CAME FROM NOTHING. IT DOESN'T ADDRESS CREATION OF MATTER. ALSO EVOLUTION DOES NOT SAY THAT WE DESCENDED FROM MONKEYS. IT SAYS PRIMATES AND HUMANS HAVE COMMON ANCESTORS. It makes me want to beat my head against the wall every time I hear someone say these things.

When people hear theory they assume "oh that is just a theory, no proof". People do not understand or accept that a scientific theory is not the same as say a nihilistic theory about humanity. We actually have proofs for example the theory of evolution,as I am sure you know, such as the fossil record or the geographic distribution of related species. I hope people will read this and take all this into account.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2011 11:26:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
To quote one of my favorite people... one hopes these idiots have the same attitude about the theory of gravity... and they will just float away.
Defensor-of-Apollo
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 7:06:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I also hate how advocates of common descent are so arrogant that they think very creationist argues the same way and when they respond, I'm just like, "What the heck. That had no correlation to what I just said. What you "rebutted" could rebut your rebuttal. Wow."
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 10:56:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/4/2011 10:33:43 PM, rogue wrote:
Why is it that every other day I see these dumb common misconception about scientific theories? THE BIG BANG THEORY DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT EVERYTHING CAME FROM NOTHING. IT DOESN'T ADDRESS CREATION OF MATTER. ALSO EVOLUTION DOES NOT SAY THAT WE DESCENDED FROM MONKEYS. IT SAYS PRIMATES AND HUMANS HAVE COMMON ANCESTORS. It makes me want to beat my head against the wall every time I hear someone say these things.

For me, it's a source of amusement. The downside is that there are a lot of debates out there that are just too easy to win. Feels like cheating sometimes.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 11:33:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 10:56:44 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 12/4/2011 10:33:43 PM, rogue wrote:
Why is it that every other day I see these dumb common misconception about scientific theories? THE BIG BANG THEORY DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT EVERYTHING CAME FROM NOTHING. IT DOESN'T ADDRESS CREATION OF MATTER. ALSO EVOLUTION DOES NOT SAY THAT WE DESCENDED FROM MONKEYS. IT SAYS PRIMATES AND HUMANS HAVE COMMON ANCESTORS. It makes me want to beat my head against the wall every time I hear someone say these things.

For me, it's a source of amusement. The downside is that there are a lot of debates out there that are just too easy to win. Feels like cheating sometimes.

Actually, no.

I find this issue nearly ubiquitous. Even on this site, people will make thread after thread about scientific theories, legislation, and historical records based purely on assumption and word-of-mouth. It's enraging, I agree; there will be threads hundreds of pages long filled with completely misguided information. Occasionally, I will be the one to come in and cite or copy/paste the real information, and often, it goes ignored.

Many times, there will be entire debates saturated with the same errors, with both parties and spectators alike maintaining the false position.

This is the essence of accepted truth -- the evidence that what we acknowledge of truth is actually consensus.
TheTruthAnalyst
Posts: 312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 8:21:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 7:09:02 AM, Defensor-of-Apollo wrote:
Also there is no theory of gravity. It's Newton's Law of Gravity.

http://chemistry.about.com...

Actually, Newton's Law isn't correct. It's close enough for almost any practical application, but it's been proven wrong.
Vote For Truth. Vote For Pie.
Truth-Pie 2012 (member FDIC)
Defensor-of-Apollo
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 10:22:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I know it's not correct. I didn't say it was. I said it wasn't called a theory but a law. Mainly because it doesn't explain what causes gravity. Einstein's ideas sort of describe gravity however the why is still vague.
Defensor-of-Apollo
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 10:25:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
That means there are exceptions but Newton's Law of Gravity best fit the category of law as it only attempts the mathematical principles and not the cause.
TheTruthAnalyst
Posts: 312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 10:27:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 10:22:56 PM, Defensor-of-Apollo wrote:
I know it's not correct. I didn't say it was. I said it wasn't called a theory but a law. Mainly because it doesn't explain what causes gravity. Einstein's ideas sort of describe gravity however the why is still vague.

It's not a law anymore though.

A hypothesis is an idea, or an educated guess. If a hypothesis can describe and predict behavior reliably, it can become a theory. If a theory goes unchallenged, and helps to find new discoveries for enough time, it becomes a law. It doesn't have to do with what it does or doesn't describe, it has to do with how reliable it is in predicting future experiments.
Vote For Truth. Vote For Pie.
Truth-Pie 2012 (member FDIC)
Defensor-of-Apollo
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 10:31:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. "

http://en.wikipedia.org...
TheTruthAnalyst
Posts: 312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 10:41:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 10:31:48 PM, Defensor-of-Apollo wrote:
"Law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. "

http://en.wikipedia.org...

You're going to quote howstuffworks?

Why not quote HubPages or About.com(oh wait, you did already), or Squidoo?
Vote For Truth. Vote For Pie.
Truth-Pie 2012 (member FDIC)
TheTruthAnalyst
Posts: 312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 10:44:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You can go very in-depth into the differences between observations, data, hypothesis, theory, law, and probably other terms I can't think of right now. The basics just have to do with how well it's been proven and filled out. We develop formulas for laws from theories and hypothesis, but they have to be very well established to be considered a law.
Vote For Truth. Vote For Pie.
Truth-Pie 2012 (member FDIC)
TheTruthAnalyst
Posts: 312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 10:48:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 10:44:11 PM, Defensor-of-Apollo wrote:
Your right, your citations are much more reliable.

Sorry, let me go find something on an article website to use as a reference.
Vote For Truth. Vote For Pie.
Truth-Pie 2012 (member FDIC)
Defensor-of-Apollo
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 10:50:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So far I have been arguing from authority. This is where that stops and I will intellectually reason with you, or at least I will, I hope you respond appropriately.

A hypothesis is an unsupported or weakly supported testable scientific statement. A theory has much more support in it's favor. I see no reason why another hierarchy is needed.

By your requirement of law, nothing would qualify as a scientific law as every statement that is broad enough to be considered a law would have an exception because we don't understand everything. Indirect reasoning only gets us so close.

By my requirement of law, it is much more useful. It is separate from a theory and allows you to explain some material you couldn't have before. A law is very well supported and can be usually explained in a mathematical formula and does not attempt to explain the cause or why.
Defensor-of-Apollo
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 10:53:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I can't believe we are debating definitions. Ultimately debating definitions is useless because of the liquidity of language. Ultimately, replacing any term you want for hypothesis, theory, or law, Newton's Law of gravity as defined by me is a law, which is different then what you consider to be a theory. Thus useless debate avoided.
TheTruthAnalyst
Posts: 312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 10:55:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 10:50:31 PM, Defensor-of-Apollo wrote:
So far I have been arguing from authority. This is where that stops and I will intellectually reason with you, or at least I will, I hope you respond appropriately.

A hypothesis is an unsupported or weakly supported testable scientific statement. A theory has much more support in it's favor. I see no reason why another hierarchy is needed.

By your requirement of law, nothing would qualify as a scientific law as every statement that is broad enough to be considered a law would have an exception because we don't understand everything. Indirect reasoning only gets us so close.

By my requirement of law, it is much more useful. It is separate from a theory and allows you to explain some material you couldn't have before. A law is very well supported and can be usually explained in a mathematical formula and does not attempt to explain the cause or why.

Ok, first, a law can't be a law if we have found an exception to it. That's why Newton's Law of Gravity isn't really a law anymore.

Secondly, different fields of science handle the differences between theory and law differently. Chemistry and Physics tend to use more laws, and consider them mathematical, than other branches such as Biology.

I initially misunderstood what you were saying about Newton's Law of Gravity, which is why I said it has been disproven.

Anything further than this becomes dependent on who you are talking to and what branch of science you are working in.

I have no desire to go any deeper into this. Forgive me for presenting a basic explanation that isn't strictly true.
Vote For Truth. Vote For Pie.
Truth-Pie 2012 (member FDIC)
Defensor-of-Apollo
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 11:11:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The only thing I feel the need to add is it is BEST described a law since a theory would describe a cause which Newton did not address.

That is all and it is good we cleared misunderstandings.