Originally posted by humy
NO NO, it isn't correct to say science is "based on theories". Scientific method requires the creation of theories to be tested BUT science is "based on" empirical evidence and/or logical reasoning without which it wouldn't be science. The "theories" are what is to be tested by the evidence and/or logical. Mere theory is NOT what the scientific facts are ...[text shortened]... t conspiracy theory in this thread, why on earth did you make your OP about a conspiracy theory?
NO NO, it isn't correct to say science is "based on theories". Scientific method requires the creation of theories to be tested BUT science is "based on" empirical evidence and/or logical reasoning without which it wouldn't be science. The "theories" are what is to be tested by the evidence and/or logical.
Right.
So when I say that science is based upon theories and then you claim that a scientific method requires the creation of theories, somehow that’s… different?
Mere theory is NOT what the scientific facts are "based on" nor is scientific method merely "based on" the creation of theories because scientific method required evidence to test those theories else it isn't scientific method.
No one said that science is made up
entirely of theory, so it is unclear why you would be arguing against a point which wasn’t made.
Theories that have been proven wrong by the evidence are rejected by science and those theories that have no evidence for or against them are not assumed by science to be true thus science is NOT "based on" those theories.
Theories have been rejected, but--- wait for it--- so have facts.
Facts which went through the laborious and painstaking vetting process which were later rescinded… on account of the questioning of given facts, the formation of theories which would better and more accurately describe the scenario, testing of the new model, verification of the data, repetition of the experiments used and eventual acceptance as a new fact.
As for those theories proven correct, they are both theory and proven scientific fact thus part of known science but then they are not merely theories or wild speculation (like most conspiracy theories) but rather are 'facts', and specifically facts based on the evidence, NOT mere theory so it is still incorrect to say science is based on theories.
You seem confused on your nomenclature.
If it is a fact, it has moved from theory into fact.
It is not both.
Bringing “conspiracy theory” into the mix doesn’t come close to any kind of reasonable equivalent.
ANY theory will be, by nature, speculative.
Adding the pejorative “wild” serves only to show bias.
It would be 'more' correct, albeit still rather inaccurate and for several other reasons (which I will list on request) TOTALLY inadequate as part of a definition of science, to say "science is based on FACTS" (just for starters, science often deals with probabilities rather than 'facts' ),
It absolutely would not be inaccurate to claim that science is based on facts, with the understanding that ‘fact’ is considered with the caveat: to the best of our current knowledge.
Your OP is about a conspiracy theory. You asserted in your OP
"Academics have joined with the government in the campaign to convince the gullible public that chemtrail/geoengineering is a good thing.".
-that IS a conspiracy theory, right? You are the one who brought it up, not me. So I don't understand your complaint. If you don't want any talk about conspiracy theory in this thread, why on earth did you make your OP about a conspiracy theory?
So we’re back to redefining the term “conspiracy theory,” it appears.
The use of the term is very specific: it is employed whenever one wishes to dismiss a topic out of hand without any examination of the underlying support, i.e., evidence for a topic’s discussion.
No more, no less.
No one seriously considers history or current events clear of conspiracy, as though all players in all situations of government are free of any ulterior motives or agendas which are not disclosed to the general public.
No one seriously considers all human endeavors past and present as nothing more than a long list of straightforward efforts, as though all motivations should be seen as prima facie honest, without guile.
History and current events have taught and continue to teach us otherwise: people lie.
People conspire.
Hold, hold, sirs; for there is no reason that you should take revenge for the wrongs that love doth us;
and observe that love and war are all one;
and, as in war it is lawful to use sleights and stratagems to overcome the enemy, so, in amorous strifes and competencies, impostures and juggling-tricks are held for good, to attain to the wished end, so it be not in prejudice and dishonour of the thing affected.
As
Don Quixote’s dictum teaches, man has taken great pains to flesh out the first three words of the phrase, continually and eternally pushing the envelope on acceptable behavior when in pursuit of the wished end.
Therefore, to dismiss out of hand any thoughts, i.e., theories, regarding the factual existence of conspiracy by any group of people isn’t merely naÏve, for an educated person such insistence is tacit approval of the actions.
What the OP stated is decidedly NOT a theory, let alone a conspiracy theory.
Some within academia and some within the US government have gone on the record to put their support behind chemtrailing and geoengineering… after years of publically denying the same has taken place.
They’ve denied its existence so much, they’ve conditioned the gullible to knee-jerk their parroted “conspiracy theory” every time the topic is raised--- even when they’re telling you they’re doing it!