- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, you misunderstand what law and theory mean in science.
It is still called a theory. It is not called the Law of Evolution is it?
So that means it is not fact in my book.
P.S. We have a Law of Gravity -- that is fact
We also have a theory of gravity -- that means it is not a proven fact
Words in science have very specific meanings due to the fact that scientists want to be very clear what it is they are saying.
It is possible to call something a law and have it be wrong, and still call it a law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt is clear to me. Law is fact; theory is not.
No, you misunderstand what law and theory mean in science.
Words in science have very specific meanings due to the fact that scientists want to be very clear what it is they are saying.
It is possible to call something a law and have it be wrong, and still call it a law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
Originally posted by AgergYes, you have replaced choosing with best and you have not provided
Now let me recast this to be consistent with the actual probability argument sumydid posed...
A glass jar contains 6 red, 5 green, 8 blue and 3 yellow marbles. What is the probability that
a red marble will be the best type of marble?
a green marble will be the best type of marble?
a blue marble will be the best type of marble?
a yellow marble wil ...[text shortened]... bles are best. It is least likely yellow marbles will be best
See something wrong??? 😕
a way to determine the best marble.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsHow likely it is that the proposition There exists a creator is true is independent of how many people have faith the proposition is true.
No sunnydid is not saying it is true like Argumentum_ad_populum says.
He clarified his thoughts in a later post. He is saying the probability of
it being true is more likely without good evidence to the contrary. It still
may not be true, while the Argumentum_ad_populum says it is true. Of
course your probability example is correct too. It can apply i the probability argument to, take it as I'm arguing "therefore believers are correct." Nope.
Your and sumydid's interpretation of and inferences from the data is flawed.
Again, 9 out of 10 people believe there is some sort of creator suggests the next person you meet will likely be a believer. It doesn't suggest they're likely to be correct in this belief.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsWell what you are clear about is wrong.
It is clear to me. Law is fact; theory is not.
I don't know what else to say.
You are not the arbiter of how science defines the words it uses.
And science has very specific definitions for words so people can talk
about scientific ideas without confusion about what the words mean.
If you use different definitions from what scientists use your are spouting
meaningless gibberish.
Newtons Universal law of gravitation is wrong.
It doesn't predict Mercury's orbit, or how light is bent around the sun.
It is still however called Newtons law of gravitation.
Laws and theories are different things.
Theories are better because they produce an explanation for what is happening.
Evolution by natural selection is a theory because it explains why what it predicts
happens.
It is a fact because it has been proven.
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsYes! and similarly, the probability argument for a creator contains nothing via which we can validly assess the likelyness that a creator actually exists. We can only assess that it's likely a person chosen at random will have chosen some sort of creator entity to believe in.
Yes, you have replaced choosing with best and you have not provided
a way to determine the best marble.
Originally posted by AgergMaybe, I should just leave the explanation to sunnydid, since he gave
How likely it is that the proposition There exists a creator is true is independent of how many people have faith the proposition is true.
Your and sumydid's interpretation of and inferences from the data is flawed.
Again, 9 out of 10 people believe there is some sort of creator suggests the next person you meet will likely be a believer. It doesn't suggest they're likely to be correct in this belief.
the example.
Originally posted by googlefudgecorrect. I am only the arbiter of what I believe.
Well what you are clear about is wrong.
I don't know what else to say.
You are not the arbiter of how science defines the words it uses.
And science has very specific definitions for words so people can talk
about scientific ideas without confusion about what the words mean.
If you use different definitions from what scientists use your are ...[text shortened]... cause it explains why what it predicts
happens.
It is a fact because it has been proven.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsYes, but if you believe that ripe tomatoes are purple with yellow spots then you are clearly wrong.
correct. I am only the arbiter of what I believe.
If you believe that the word flammable means something that is impossible to set on fire you are clearly wrong.
In science law has a specific meaning, if you hold it to mean something else you are simply wrong.
Words only have meaning if we all use them in (at least roughly) the same way.
The English language is full of all sorts of wonderful double meanings and vagaries that in the hands of a good
word-smith or comedian can be a delight.
This however sucks for science where it is important to be absolutely clear about what it is you are saying.
So science, like all speciality feilds of expertise, has developed jargon and specific word meanings so that scientists
can talk to one another with complete clarity.
If you want to discuss scientific ideas with anyone else you have to use the words as they are defined by everyone else.
Otherwise we are just spouting meaningless collections of letters and sounds at each other.
Law and theory don't mean what you think they mean.
If you use them differently you are quite simply wrong.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou seem to overlook that scientist have been wrong in the past and I am
Yes, but if you believe that ripe tomatoes are purple with yellow spots then you are clearly wrong.
If you believe that the word flammable means something that is impossible to set on fire you are clearly wrong.
In science law has a specific meaning, if you hold it to mean something else you are simply wrong.
Words only have meaning if we all us ...[text shortened]... don't mean what you think they mean.
If you use them differently you are quite simply wrong.
confident the trend will continue into the future.
P.S. If theory is fact it would be called Law, but it isn't, even
by the scientists.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsno, I don't overlook that fact, the entire scientific method is designed to be self correcting to
You seem to overlook that scientist have been wrong in the past and I am
confident the trend will continue into the future.
compensate for that fact.
I even said newtons law of universal gravitation was wrong.
What we are arguing about is what the words mean.
Also while it is indeed true that bits of science have been wrong in the past, and will be now,
and in the future, the record of what it has got right and enabled us to do is irrefutable.
Religion has no such record.
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoYep! 😏
From Wiki, I have estimated that 2.505 billion adult people on this planet are theists. By adult I mean people between 18 and 65 years age. The christians are 1 billion,muslims are 1 billion,hindus are 0.5 billion,jews are 0.5 million. Total adult population of our planet is about 4.5 billions. So is about half of the total population of earth to be considered idiots?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsNo it wouldn't
You seem to overlook that scientist have been wrong in the past and I am
confident the trend will continue into the future.
P.S. If theory is fact it would be called Law, but it isn't, even
by the scientists.
Read the damn definition of a scientific law I gave you.
A scientific law is not the same thing as a theory.
Theories can contain (and often do) laws.
But theories don't turn into laws when proved right.
Again this is not controversial or arguable.
This is about how the words are defined.
This can be looked up, and checked.
I gave you a link to a pretty good definition of a scientific law. read it.
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgehttp://www.jimloy.com/physics/gravity.htm
no, I don't overlook that fact, the entire scientific method is designed to be self correcting to
compensate for that fact.
I even said newtons law of universal gravitation was wrong.
What we are arguing about is what the words mean.
Also while it is indeed true that bits of science have been wrong in the past, and will be now,
and in th ...[text shortened]... d of what it has got right and enabled us to do is irrefutable.
Religion has no such record.
These are the definitions I accept from the Merrian-Webster Dictionary;
Law -a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is
known is invariable under the given conditions
Theory - an unproved assumption
P.S. When you say religion, if you are including Christianity,
Christianity has never been proven wrong like religion.