Convincing Arguments ... are STILL just a Theory

[jerryR34]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wasn't aware that gravity was a theory.

 

Common mistake.  Proofs are only valid in math.  There are laws of gravity, but the mechanics of why those laws behave the way they do is theory.

 

 

No, it's not a mistake. Gravity is not a theory. A quantum theory for gravity is, but not gravity itself. If you're going to go down that line then everything in science is a theory because once you get down to reasons behind reasons, well..... where does it finish?

 

Gravity is described by gravitational theory.  If you think otherwise, you do not have a fundamental understanding of science.  Theory is science's highest order...theories cannot be proven only disproven.  As far as this sub forum, you should stick to the faith side and avoid science if you cannot understand such a basic concept.

 

 

hmmm....

 

In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.

 

We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

 

....

 

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.

 

http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law

 

so, either the happy scientist is wrong or Jerry is wrong. 

 

The computers we are posting on are possible because of just a little theory called electromagnetic theory.  All science is based on just theories.

 

 

Scientific Law  A scientific law is an empirical (ie based on experimental evidence) statement of great generality of something which seems to always be true.

 

Scientific Hypothesis  A scientific hypothesis is a tentative explanation of an observation or pattern which has been observed in nature.

 

Scientific Theory  A scientific theory is an explanation of a natural phenomenon with a broad range of significance and application.

 

 

The chief distinction between a scientific law, on the one hand, and a theory or hypothesis on another, is that a law is a generalization.  It is NOT an explanation.  It is the result of induction.   It is an empirical (ie based on observation alone) statement of something which always appears to be true.

Hypotheses and theories, on the other hand, are an attempt to explain what has been observed.  Often scientists form theories to explain laws.

 

Laws:

1. The Law of Gravity.   This law tells us the size of the gravitational force, but it does not explain why gravity exists or even why it is as strong as it is.

2. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.   The first law of thermodynamics tells us that every experiment ever done leads to the conclusion that energy is always conserved.  It is an empirical fact, but it is not an explanation.  The second law of thermodynamics is extremely successful at predicting what processes are spontaneous, but it cannot explain why entropy increase causes spontaneity.

Theories:

1.  The theory of evolution is a theory (as opposed to a hypothesis) because it has very broad applications and explanatory power.   We can explain the entire fossil record and the genetic code of all plants, animals and other forms of life using this theory.  It is the breadth of the theory more than the amount of support which makes it a theory.  In fact, the day it was published (1859 by Darwin) it was already a theory, not just a hypothesis, not because of all the support (the support was still fairly weak at the time) but because of the wide range of things it could explain.

 

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CG8QFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.grossmont.edu%2Fjohnoakes%2Fs110online%2FNotes%2520on%2520Scientific%2520Laws.doc&ei=0LYwU5uvJoq5qAGhxIGoDw&usg=AFQjCNHe1KkFCySYux1fhLz4BvZkRNxzpA

 

Laws are a subset of theory.

[LookingForAnswers]

 

Laws are a subset of theory.

 

 

No, they are not.  They have very different purposes. 

 

http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html

 

While scientific theories and laws are both based on hypotheses, a scientific theory is an explanation of the observed phenomenon, while a scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon.

 

Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, for example, describe the motions of planets but do not provide an explanation for their movements.

Both scientific laws and theories are supported by a large body of empirical data; both help unify a particular field of scientific study; and both are widely accepted by the vast majority of scientists within a discipline.

 

While a scientific theory can become a scientific law, it does not happen often and each process has a revered and separate purpose as part of the scientific method. A common misconception is that a theory becomes a law after a certain amount of data has accumulated. That is not the case.

[jerryR34]

 

 

Laws are a subset of theory.

 

 

No, they are not.  They have very different purposes. 

 

http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html

 

While scientific theories and laws are both based on hypotheses, a scientific theory is an explanation of the observed phenomenon, while a scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon.

 

Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, for example, describe the motions of planets but do not provide an explanation for their movements.

Both scientific laws and theories are supported by a large body of empirical data; both help unify a particular field of scientific study; and both are widely accepted by the vast majority of scientists within a discipline.

 

While a

 

 

 

Laws are a subset of theory.

 

 

No, they are not.  They have very different purposes. 

 

http://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html

 

While scientific theories and laws are both based on hypotheses, a scientific theory is an explanation of the observed phenomenon, while a scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon.

 

Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, for example, describe the motions of planets but do not provide an explanation for their movements.

Both scientific laws and theories are supported by a large body of empirical data; both help unify a particular field of scientific study; and both are widely accepted by the vast majority of scientists within a discipline.

 

While a scientific theory can become a scientific law, it does not happen often and each process has a revered and separate purpose as part of the scientific method. A common misconception is that a theory becomes a law after a certain amount of data has accumulated. That is not the case.

 

 

 can become a scientific law, it does not happen often and each process has a revered and separate purpose as part of the scientific method. A common misconception is that a theory becomes a law after a certain amount of data has accumulated. That is not the case.

 

Newton's laws are a subset of gravitational theory.  Laws describe the way gravity affect objects, but do not describe why.  Thus, a subset...from your link:  A theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, while a law is a description of an observed phenomenon.

[Donibm]

 

Always remember that when dialoging with opposing religions, atheists and evolutionists.

 

They are riddled in THEORIES.  They trust their Professors and trust in the opinions of certain groups.  But a theory is a theory is a theory ... it's STILL a theory.  A commonly accepted theory ... is still a theory.  Carbon dating itself is a THEORY due to all the considerations, like atmosphere, etc.  Nothing has a date tag attached to it.

 

That's it.  That's all I got for you in this.  It's a CORE PRINCIPLE that you all can build upon yourselves.

 

 

 

 

 

The antichrist will cause them to believe the lie.

 

 

========================================================

 

Carbon dating itself is a THEORY

 

Well actually Radiometric Dating isn't even a Theory (More like Guessing ) it's in the trash-bin because it's been Falsified by the many False Positives and errors with Known Ages.

 

The antichrist will cause them to believe the lie.

 

Be careful here, I know what you meant, but.....

 

(2 Thessalonians 2:11) "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:"

 

 

I appreciate that.  But, I wasn't confusing the passage - I know that one well.  I was referring to 2 Th 2:9.  The root cause is the lying wonders and deceit of the Antichrist which causes God to be like, "Ok, ya'll want delusions and you prefer to believe lies?  Fine.  I'll keep you in darkness!" as seen a few verses later. 

 

But the ROOT CAUSE of this, isn't God simply sending delusion.  It's a RESULT of the hard hearts of men who prefer the lie over the truth anyway.  In fact, I see it in the world today.

 

I appreciate the admonishment, but I think we'd agree on this.

[Donibm]

In the OP there was a reference to other religions. I wouldn't say that theories is the correct term here. Better to leave it at religion or to some degree worldview.

 

Hi Gray,

 

I've been debating for about 15 years (7 years removed in that).  I've debated wide ranges, and studied much, and learn a great deal along the way.  My words are deliberate ... based on my experiences.

 

Also, I wasn't aware that this would be a "hot topic" for some.  It was, however, directed to CHRISTIANS - true, born-again believers.  I wasn't vying for the attention of any other group.  So, it's not meant to be well-balanced, but clearly lop-sided with favoritism towards one group.  Sorry about that, but it's the truth.

 

I'm aware NOW that there are minors in here and non-Christians, and psuedoChristains, and the curios and the contenders.  I know that NOW.  lol  But again, this thread was created with the Brethren in mind.

 

"Love one another.  By this, the world will know that you are My disciples" - Jesus

 

 

So, do I show favoritism to the Christian brethren?  Yessir - I do.  I make no apologies for that.  But it doesn't not mean i am dishonest or deceitful in my delivery either.  

 

I hope ya'll can exchange your ideas and opinions without any verbal bloodshed.  I didn't realize this would be a contested thread when I created it.  I apparently, get into trouble in these threads for things I don't realize ... every time.  lol   But TRUTH is spoken nonetheless

 

 

MessengerOfTruth

[OakWood]

 

 

 

 

I wasn't aware that gravity was a theory.

 

Common mistake.  Proofs are only valid in math.  There are laws of gravity, but the mechanics of why those laws behave the way they do is theory.

 

 

No, it's not a mistake. Gravity is not a theory. A quantum theory for gravity is, but not gravity itself. If you're going to go down that line then everything in science is a theory because once you get down to reasons behind reasons, well..... where does it finish?

 

Gravity is described by gravitational theory.  If you think otherwise, you do not have a fundamental understanding of science.  Theory is science's highest order...theories cannot be proven only disproven.  As far as this sub forum, you should stick to the faith side and avoid science if you cannot understand such a basic concept.

 

 

How do you know that I'm not a scientist? Do you know what I studied at University? I happen to have studied Chemistry. I very familiar with Physics, quantum theory, Nuclear physics, Radiochemistry and Nuclear chemistry.

Please do not patronise me.

[Hawkins]

To me, humans usually apply fallacious concepts without their own awareness.

Science usually goes through 3 stages to determine a scientific truth,
1) observation
Science is basically dealing with a set of rules behind a repeating pattern. Observation is achievable basically because the pattern itself can be repeated infinitively. Say, you can observe how the earth revolving around the sun because the number of times the earth revolving the sun is infinitive. 

2) formulation
Through the possibly infinitive observations, you can develop theories about how it repeats. You can then try to quantitatively describe how it repeats, say, using a formula.

3) prediction
This is to put your quantitative descriptions (formulated rules) into tests. If they predict correctly, the set of rules discovered/formulated by you is considered a truth (a formal scientific truth). If the prediction fails or doesn't fail within an acceptable variance (say, due to equipment capability limit), the set of rules you developed is considered falsified.

To simply put a set of rules behind a repeating pattern is considered "proven" when the prediction of the pattern using this set of rules doesn't fail.

For an example, water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen. This holds true no matter what. That is, you make a prediction (that water must dissolve into H2 and O2) before each and every experiment and that your prediction will never fail. You deserve a Nobel Prize shall your this prediction actually fails.

A human brain thus realizes/recognizes that it is a truth as the numerous predictions never fail.

This is the nature (predictability and falsifiability) of what science is.

 

As for gravity, the related laws are proven as its behavior is repeatedly predictable. However, we don't know yet the true nature of gravity. Plus that we don't have a united theory (super theory) for the 4 known field theories. I believe that what limits us to explore further is that we cannot penetrate into other time-space dimensions to observe, formulate and predict the outcomes. We are confined within a 3D ball-like universe. On the other hand, even when one day we discovered the true nature of gravity and we developed a super theory which works for all the field forces, it won't falsify today's gravitational theory as the theory is considered proven. There will be a paradigm shift though. Just like the discovery of relativity is not a falsification of the Newtonian laws, it's just a paradigm shift. The Newtonian laws stand by themselves under a certain paradigm where they can be repeatedly verified through their predictability. 

[gray wolf]

Prediction of the pattern may still fail.  Hence the theory must be reexamined.

[Tristen]

 

The computers we are posting on are possible because of just a little theory called electromagnetic theory.  All science is based on just theories.

 

 

 

 

Hey jerryR34. You said “A theory is a good thing to be in science. It means it has been peer-reviewed and the evidence scrutinized and it has predictive value”

 

It has unfortunately become popular in some scientific circles to add to the definition of “theory” in order to make it suite their arguments. In reality, the term theory (as used legitimately in science) simply means the conceptual (or “theoretical”; i.e. explanatory) aspect of an hypothesis - as opposed to the empirical (facts; articles, observations and data) or practical (methods; best practice used to invoke or analyse the facts).

 

The legitimate definition does not speak to how widely accepted the idea is, or whether it has been peer reviewed. Neither does it speak to the amount of supporting evidence, or how much scientific scrutiny the idea has been subjected to. Debunked theories are still called theories. Some theories are well substantiated (such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity), and other theories are completely unsubstantiated (such as M-theory).

In any case, arguments over the term "theory" are entirely semantic. The ultimate consideration has nothing to do with the label "theory", but whether or not the confidence in the hypothesis is justified by the evidence. It is not good enough to claim 'its a theory' (meaning well-substantiated), or 'just a theory' (meaning not-well-enough substantiated). Legitimate claims of confidence must be supported by arguments and evidence; not labels.

 

Furthermore, any changes to definitions have to be justified in logic – not self-serving propaganda.

 

 

 

“Gravity is only a theory”

 

Gravity is most widely considered a scientific law because it is abundantly observed, and without exception – though range of theories have been formulated to explain how gravity might work.

 

 

 

“but you would't want to jump off a building to test it”

 

No – especially when I could so easily adjust my experimental design to say – drop something other than myself off the building.

 

 

 

“If you have a theory you are particularly unhappy with, the science community would be ecstatic to see you disprove it”

 

All of which assumes that the theory in question is logically falsifiable. If not, then claims to have survived scrutiny (as well as challenges of disproof) are rendered meaningless.

 

 

 

“Proofs are only valid in math”

 

It is nice to find something we agree on – though I would say that proofs can be legitimately applied in both math and logic.

 

 

 

“All science is based on just theories.”

 

Not “just theories” – but all science incorporates theoretical aspects.

 

The “just a theory” argument is only valid when an opponent is attempting to elevate the level of scientific confidence in their preferred theory to the point of certainty (e.g. like claiming Common Ancestry or Big Bang to be “fact”). It is otherwise invalid to use the term theory as though it speaks to the scientific strength of an idea (which is why it is broadly discouraged by informed creationists. See http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use ).

[Enoch2021]

1.  The theory of evolution is a theory (as opposed to a hypothesis) because it has very broad applications and explanatory power.   We can explain the entire fossil record and the genetic code of all plants, animals and other forms of life using this theory.  It is the breadth of the theory more than the amount of support which makes it a theory.  In fact, the day it was published (1859 by Darwin) it was already a theory, not just a hypothesis, not because of all the support (the support was still fairly weak at the time) but because of the wide range of things it could explain.

 

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CG8QFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.grossmont.edu%2Fjohnoakes%2Fs110online%2FNotes%2520on%2520Scientific%2520Laws.doc&ei=0LYwU5uvJoq5qAGhxIGoDw&usg=AFQjCNHe1KkFCySYux1fhLz4BvZkRNxzpA

 

 

 

==============================================================================

 

 

In that Link they went off the Reservation:

 

 

The theory of evolution is a theory (as opposed to a hypothesis) because it has very broad applications and explanatory power.

 

It has Zero Applications and Zero Explanatory Power.

 

 

We can explain the entire fossil record and the genetic code of all plants, animals and other forms of life using this theory.

 

 

 

Before we get to the Genetic Code (of which I'm waiting for with Bated Breath)

 

Can you start explaining the MASSIVE GAPS  "evolution of the Gaps"?  and this....

 

"Darwin's prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.

(Dr. Niles Eldridge, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History) The Myths of Human Evolution  (1982)  p.45-46

 

Is this how it explains the "ENTIRE" fossil record ??

 

 

In fact, the day it was published (1859 by Darwin) it was already a theory, not just a hypothesis, not because of all the support (the support was still fairly weak at the time) but because of the wide range of things it could explain.

 

 

Better Yet and more Accurate:

 

In Fact, the Day it was published it was already a Laughing Stalk, not just a snicker, because there was ZERO Support @ the Time (the "alleged" support was Ad Hoc-ingly assimilated {Chameleon Style}----and still is to this very day, as a basis for an a priori Fairy Tale World View that Pathetically and rather Clumsy attempts to explain away GOD).  13th Century Alchemy explains a wider range of "things".