Originally posted by Bosse de NageAha! Good one – really… but my intentions are pure – I promise. 😳
I see you're poised to strike with your Repeatable Zap Gun. I feel obliged to pre-empt you.
Here are more than 100 repeatable experiments relating to evolution:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=12185484
I'm still at the definition stage - otherwise this kind of discussion quickly disintegrates into semantic wrangling rather than a "cohesive" sharing of ideas, facts and opinions. Dialogue is only as good as the language used – which too often finds ID'ers and evolutionists often yapping at each other in polar-opposite terms.
Originally posted by HalitoseThis might be handy. I posted it before but nobody picked up on it. Ten Myths of Science. Among other things, it talks about induction. http://www.amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html
Heh heh. Problem being that it would cut down on all the fun. 😀 Conflict breeds creativity.
I get the feeling you & scottish both need to read it properly before you carry on.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI do recall your posting the link. IMO myths 5,8,9 would be of particular relevance to this debate.
This might be handy. I posted it before but nobody picked up on it. Ten Myths of Science. Among other things, it talks about induction. http://www.amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html
I get the feeling you & scottish both need to read it properly before you carry on.
Originally posted by HalitosePretty much. I would have perhaps slight issues with the word "accurate". Evolutionary theory cannot predict, for example, precisely the adaptation that a species may evolve to a particular pressure, in the same way that the theory of gravity cannot predict where every ball ever thrown will fall, just the they WILL fall (provided they're in the presence of a gravitational field).
Okay... So basically you define a theory as a cohesive explanation of phenomena, which is grounded in observable and repeatable scientific data and formulates accurate predictions. Am I correct in my précis of your stance?
Originally posted by HalitoseWell, with respect to #5, Science provides absolute proof, it's obviously just not true. We've went on hundreds of times about the plasticity of science as being it's biggest asset. it allows us flexability when we uncover some new information it allows us to (A) test out the ideas we currently have, and (B) assimilate this new information into current theories, or to add new caveats.
I do recall your posting the link. IMO myths 5,8,9 would be of particular relevance to this debate.
#8. Scientists are particularly objective. Scientists are just people. We make mistakes sometimes. However, when multiple people from multiple backgrounds use different techniques to make the same measurement and most of them get the same result then it's likely that the concensus is correct. The beauty of science is that anyone who reads your work is probably a specialist and will be able to spot mistakes from a country mile away. Individual scientists are not always as objective as they should be, but I do believe that the scientific literature as a whole is relatively unbiased.
#9. Expts are the main route to knowledge. Experiments often are the main route to derive new knowledge, but not always. Things such as the fossil record, observations of the movement of stars etc cannot be recreated in the lab, but that doesn't mean it's not science to explore what these things mean, or to use them as evidence in support of a theory.
Originally posted by scottishinnzOf course, I've used the word "experimentation" here. This is not always to say that an experiment per se is necessarily required. Exploratory studies (I normally call them "look sees"😉 are often useful, likewise using available evidence (like the fossil record) is completely valid. A new investigation of the fossil record which gave us a rabbit skeleton dated at 1 billion years would have definite repercussions. Perhaps I should have used the word "investigation" rather than the "experiment". I guess that comes from me being an experimental scientist!
Personally, I'd go with something approximating this.....
A theory is the highest level of scientific explanation. Whilst laws describe physical and chemical processes, and hypotheses are speculative, testable, statements about a plausible way in which a given process works, a theory must explain all available data in a unified manner, without contr ...[text shortened]... it describes.
[edit; whilst I personally wrote this, it is a standard definition of theory.]
Originally posted by scottishinnzI think the key word is observation. An experiment may be too complex or lengthy to perform eg observing the ageing process but observations can be made.
Of course, I've used the word "experimentation" here. This is not always to say that an experiment per se is necessarily required. Exploratory studies (I normally call them "look sees"😉 are often useful, likewise using available evidence (like the fossil record) is completely valid. A new investigation of the fossil record which gave us a rabb ...[text shortened]... her than the "experiment". I guess that comes from me being an experimental scientist!
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIn scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence
This might be handy. I posted it before but nobody picked up on it. Ten Myths of Science. Among other things, it talks about induction. http://www.amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html
I get the feeling you & scottish both need to read it properly before you carry on.
Although specialized procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are identifiable features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural
phenomena. These hypotheses are required to have as logical
consequences the prediction of additional, observable phenomena.
In physics, the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework — derived from a small set of basic principles (usually symmetries - like equality of locations in space or in time, or identity of electrons, etc) — which is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. A good example is electromagnetic theory, which encompasses the results that can be derived from gauge symmetry (sometimes called gauge invariance) in a form of a few equations called Maxwell's equations. Another name for this theory is classical electromagnetism. Within electromagnetic theory generally, there are numerous hypotheses about how electromagnetism applies to specific situations. Many of these hypotheses are already considered to be adequately confirmed; new ones are always in the making and perhaps untested.
The term theory is occasionally stretched to refer to theoretical speculation that is currently unverifiable. Examples are string theory and various theories of everything. In common speech, theory has a far wider and less defined meaning than its use in the sciences.
- excerpts from Wikipedia
Originally posted by frogstompSo, from the sound of it (according to the latest definition provided by someone on the Wik), evolution really shouldn't even be classified as a theory!
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence
Although specialized procedures vary fr ...[text shortened]... far wider and less defined meaning than its use in the sciences.
- excerpts from Wikipedia