What the scientific laws and stuff actually mean.

[A Random Reader]

**snip**

Point being missed, as usual. Context being twisted, as happens a lot on this site. Teaching Theory as Fact is wrong. That is my point. Theory is not fact. Its theory. And yet these theories are being taught as if they're fact. That is a misunderstanding of epic proportions. Its a concept, an idea, not a truism as much as you'd like to believe it.
In essence believing theory to be fact is akin to having faith that God exists without incontrovertible proof.

Just to clear this up, are you using the colloquial terms or scientific? Because I was arguing as if you had used the scientific meaning, not the common one. If you mean hypothesis (Or the colloquial theory) then I have to agree with you.

I was simply pointing out that it is literally impossible to 'prove' a scientific theory, and the major point in your arguement was that we shouldn't teach something until it has been proven beyond doubt, which, I might add, it has (Except for the absurd situations I mentioned), and if we don't teach according to our current knowledge, what do we have to teach from? If you read my original post, you would have noticed this. I am sorry if I sounded aggressive in my original post, and may we move this to PMs to prevent thread clutter?

In the end we need to be teaching that science itself is an evolving study, that what might hold true today may not necessarily be true tomorrow due to previously unknown things. Aside from that, we've yet to truly study the universe we live in (just seeing it through a telescope doesn't mean we understand it) and there may be things we can't see that have effects we aren't taking into consideration by our ignorance of those things. That has been my whole point. I haven't once said science is bullshit or wholly wrong, but people treat it like a religion, believe in theories that aren't fact (which is faith).

I agree, and it just sounds like we have a miscommunication of terms. However, my point of major disagreement is "believe in theories that aren't fact (which is faith)." No, we believe in theories that have a large amount of evidence backing them up, and will discard them at a moments notice if there is evidence that it is wrong. There is a difference.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

In the end we need to be teaching that science itself is an evolving study, that what might hold true today may not necessarily be true tomorrow due to previously unknown things. Aside from that, we've yet to truly study the universe we live in (just seeing it through a telescope doesn't mean we understand it) and there may be things we can't see that have effects we aren't taking into consideration by our ignorance of those things. That has been my whole point. I haven't once said science is bullshit or wholly wrong, but people treat it like a religion, believe in theories that aren't fact (which is faith).

A fact is something which we have witnessed to be true. A theory is what we use to try and explain why we have witnessed it to be true.

Fact: If I let a ball go from my hand, it will fall down
Theory: The ball is being attracted to the object with the largest mass in closest proximity, the earth's core

Fact: Species have been observed to change over time and in reaction to their surroundings
Theory: Genetic mutations which prove favorable are rewarded with greater breeding opportunities, so those with the change thrive while those without eventually die out


Evolution isn't an absolute truth, and obviously shouldn't be taught as such, but then the same goes for other areas of study like Literature or History. We don't always know what the author meant when he wrote the book, and we generally only are able to hear from the winning side about how the past was. Individual truth is all we have to go on until we find a single, universal truth, but if we use that as a basis not to teach something, we wouldn't teach anything.

I'm not saying don't teach it. I'm saying treat it as it is and explain the difference between theory and fact because it seems to me a lot of young people who are just learning this stuff are mistaking theory for fact.
Literature is opinion, and as such is being taught on a consensus of opinion. By which I mean the "classic" literature is "classic" because a consensus has been reached to teach it as such. Also in literature its not the "meaning" of the book so much as the usage of vernacular and composition of the story not necessarily the story itself.
History isn't always written by the "winners" either, there are plenty of objective historical documents written by people who weren't involved in those events. Outsiders and observers. But we don't have any true accurate history, just what people see and write down. Sometimes skewed by politics, sometimes they get the "big fish" syndrome.

 

[Innegativeion]

That's just silly. You can teach theory in school and in fact all schools do teach them.

*heheheheeh*

So it is undeniable, objective, universal truth then that all schools teach them?

*wide disingenuous smile*

 

[Potato Dragon]

Nothing is law, really. That's just what we go ahead and label theories that stick for a while. I'm pretty sure the flat earth theory was considered fact at some point.

No a Law is something like Force. If you push it, it experiences a force and this is never not true just like 1+1=2

OT: Good post, nice and simple whilst getting the point across.

 

[Xanadu84]

1. Teaching Theory as fact is wrong. Until a theory is proven incontrovertibly, it cannot be a Scientific fact or law. Evolution is still theoretical. Not saying its bullshit, but the fact that we don't understand it fully, cannot comprehend it nor prove that the theories behind it actually happened exactly that way, cannot reproduce it in a lab nor observe it means its not a fact. Its a theory with data supporting the theory but never outright proving it.

Theres a problem here, and i is in practicality.

If we apply this logic, then we can't teach English because there's no guerentee that anyone outside of this classroom speaks English. We can't teach history. We can't teach math. We can't teach basketball because we can't be sure that that ball exists, or the players, or the score, or if this is all a dream.

Sure, philosophically, Evolution might be wrong. But given the number of times tests have independently confirmed it, evolution has about the same chance of being a real thing as gravity. Also, saying that evolution isn't a practical certainty because we don't understand all of it is like saying that because we don't know a pattern to Pi, multiplication might not be real. We may not be sure of every little detail about the field of Evolution, but there are some basics that we can safely say are set in stone.

I didn't say anything about philosophy, nor even hint at it. I merely pointed out that theories are being taught as fact, and as such is redefining the word "fact". Your english metaphor and the basketball thing is just a ridiculous non sequitur.


To explain, I never said evolution is wrong, nor did I say it was right. I merely stated we don't know enough about it to prove it as fact.

3 Points you should consider before you confuse Evolution with Adaptation.

1. All living things change through time in order to survive in their environment.

2. Adaptation involves short-term changes to suit the habitat and environment.

3. Evolution is a long-term process wherein changes occur in the genetic level for a better functioning and survival as a race.

Individuals can adapt, but it takes a whole population to evolve.


In the end we need to be teaching that science itself is an evolving study, that what might hold true today may not necessarily be true tomorrow due to previously unknown things. Aside from that, we've yet to truly study the universe we live in (just seeing it through a telescope doesn't mean we understand it) and there may be things we can't see that have effects we aren't taking into consideration by our ignorance of those things. That has been my whole point. I haven't once said science is bullshit or wholly wrong, but people treat it like a religion, believe in theories that aren't fact (which is faith).

I really hate to say this, because I can't figure out how to say it in a way that does not come across as condescending. The simple fact of the matter is that you, quite simply, do not understand the evidence that supports evolution. I understand the idea of not accepting concepts absolutely. I understand it to a comical extent actually. I understand it so well, it is a personal failing. If I drink a glass of orange juice, can taste the orange juice in my mouth, and see the carton of orange juice I just finished in the trash, and I am asked if I drank the last of the orange juice, I hesitate to answer. Not for fear of getting accused of taking their orange juice, but because I don't want to assign certainty to something simply because I can directly observes, remember, and even taste the existence. I need to force myself to say, "I'm sure", about certain things, like my plans for dinner tonight, because my mother thought I was being obnoxiously pedantic when I could never give a straight answer, what with me considering all the possible exotic and confounding circumstances. I find the word, "Proof" more offensive then any swear or racial slur. I seriously consider the possibility that I may have a mild mental disorder that forces me into never accepting something as definitively true. And I am telling you that from any perspective taken, assuming reality exists and we have at least some capability of observing it, evolution is true. Statistically, given the supporting evidence, the likelihood of evolution not being the mechanism by which creatures change involves numbers that we cannot understand as human beings, they are so small. There is absolutely no reason to not assume that evolution is true, because we make infinitely more wild conclusion each time we assume those basics facts that we are required to assume to survive on a daily basis.

Oh, there is a wide world of strange and confusing things out there that we do not understand. Evolution itself holds endless secrets, and our discoveries fill in the holes in evolution that we don't understand. But it is undeniable that it is EVOLUTION that holds these secrets, and no other alternative.

Like I said, we don't know the pattern to pi, but that doesn't mean that multiplication might not exist. There are large secrets in mathematics, but there are fundamental structures that we must accept to think about things in any meaningful way. In biology, Evolution is like addition. You may discover crazy things about addition that provide special insights, but it is still addition.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

I copy-pasted this from RationalWiki's theory page; but take this as you will, because the entire site is very pro-evolution. Bias is not something to forget.

Another common misconception is that a theory is the step you go through while on your way to a law of science. Scientific laws and theories are two very different things and, despite what it may seem, one never becomes the other. Scientific laws are factual observations usually derived from mathematical modeling; they merely distill empirical results into concise verbal or mathematical statements that express a fundamental principle of science - for example, gravity attracts, force equals mass times acceleration and so on. Theories are the causal explanations behind what creates these laws and observations of nature. Theories also combine laws into a framework that is greater than the sum of its parts. In genetics, many different laws describe how genes interact in different combinations to influence heredity - work done principally by Gregor Mendel. Genetic theory combines these laws into a unified framework that can be used as an explanation and to make predictions. Evolutionary theory then combines genetic theory, the theory of natural selection and other theories with the various laws with which they are associated into a complex framework that forms the basis of much research in the field of biology.

Even superb theories, or laws, can be superseded by more successful theories. For instance, Newton's "Law" of gravitation is superb at predicting the path of a spacecraft among the outer planets of the Solar system, but it breaks down when large masses are involved, such at that of the sun. The precession of the aphelion of Mercury can only be explained by Einstein's general relativity, which is a refinement of Newton's Law taking into account the slight bending of spacetime near the sun.

Layman's terms, as far as I know: Law = something you can write down as a formula; Theory = an explanation

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Statistically, given the supporting evidence, the likelihood of evolution not being the mechanism by which creatures change involves numbers that we cannot understand as human beings, they are so small.

First, to rebut this point, it would be just as statistically impossible for all the right things to happen for life to evolve from non-living chemicals, just as unlikely for all the right traits to evolve for that life to continue to live without winking out of existence.

I cut the existentialist mumbojumbo out because, again it had nothing to do with my topic. Someone made a point earlier (or tried to) that science allows us to be flexible, yet when contradicting evidence is shown the majority of scientists tend to shout down those who found the evidence as frauds/charlatans. Peer review is the biggest joke in history because it allows human nature to stagnate our growth.

Please don't reply anymore with this "I may or may not exist crap" that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Theory has replaced fact in the minds of a lot of scientists so much so that they become unable to change their mode of thought. That is my whole point, and like so many people you've missed it.

 

[Xanadu84]

Statistically, given the supporting evidence, the likelihood of evolution not being the mechanism by which creatures change involves numbers that we cannot understand as human beings, they are so small.

First, to rebut this point, it would be just as statistically impossible for all the right things to happen for life to evolve from non-living chemicals, just as unlikely for all the right traits to evolve for that life to continue to live without winking out of existence.

I cut the existentialist mumbojumbo out because, again it had nothing to do with my topic. Someone made a point earlier (or tried to) that science allows us to be flexible, yet when contradicting evidence is shown the majority of scientists tend to shout down those who found the evidence as frauds/charlatans. Peer review is the biggest joke in history because it allows human nature to stagnate our growth.

Please don't reply anymore with this "I may or may not exist crap" that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Theory has replaced fact in the minds of a lot of scientists so much so that they become unable to change their mode of thought. That is my whole point, and like so many people you've missed it.

I really do understand EXACTLY what your saying. I know you can't accept that I understand it, because it would be an argument against you, but I do understand every word. Since you keep accusing me of non-sequitur, it's clear that you do not understand my point, nor do you understand the depth of the research that has gone into evolution. Considering where you are in your understanding of the topic, this debate can go no further.

 

[meloxicam]

You'd be surprised at how many adults actually believe in Santa. Of course, there's no real statistics, but a lot of adults have stated that they believe in Santa.

Just to point out Santa, god and the tooth-fairy are made up. just because people believe they are real doesn't make them real, see Pasteur's swan necked flask Experiment for evidence.

my point was that we made up santa so that kids would behave though-out the year. we made up the tooth fairy so that kids wouldn't be upset when they lose their teeth. God was made up to explain things we couldn't explain and to a lesser point make people behave.

Never said they were real. I was simply trying to point out that the guy I quoted said that there were no adults believing in Santa, but believing in God was nothing unusual. I am a relatively relaxed Atheist who doesn't try to force my beliefs on anyone who is religious, but I am also a very serious Atheist who will stand on my point even held at gunpoint.
From ym

Im not familiar with the syntax "ym"

obvious annoyance over people dismissing evolution because it's "just a theory" I think that it would be clear enough that I'm not religious. Is there any reason you feel like telling Atheists that god is made up or did you just not understand my post?

Firstly i didn't mean to offend. Secondly i wasn't telling you or atheists that god was made up, it was aimed as a more general framing point. you provided an epidemiological statistical piece of evidence where i included experimental evidence in order to backup the overall claim against the known belief of fictional deities, the Easter bunny is another one. An argument without evidence isn't an argument; the more evidence the better the argument.

Have you noticed that the spell checker corrects santa for Santa but not god for God.

 

[Yopaz]

You'd be surprised at how many adults actually believe in Santa. Of course, there's no real statistics, but a lot of adults have stated that they believe in Santa.

Just to point out Santa, god and the tooth-fairy are made up. just because people believe they are real doesn't make them real, see Pasteur's swan necked flask Experiment for evidence.

my point was that we made up santa so that kids would behave though-out the year. we made up the tooth fairy so that kids wouldn't be upset when they lose their teeth. God was made up to explain things we couldn't explain and to a lesser point make people behave.

Wrong. Santa is a marketing stunt from Coca Cola inspired by several different legends involving things from Serbian druids, hallucinogens and other things jumbled randomly together. Made up so a big corporation could make money, nothing more. The reindeer comes from a company selling rein meat, though I can't see how that seemed like good marketing...

Never said they were real. I was simply trying to point out that the guy I quoted said that there were no adults believing in Santa, but believing in God was nothing unusual. I am a relatively relaxed Atheist who doesn't try to force my beliefs on anyone who is religious, but I am also a very serious Atheist who will stand on my point even held at gunpoint.
From ym

Im not familiar with the syntax "ym"

If you had taken time trying to understand the context it shouldn't be too hard understanding that ym is a typo for my. I can understand that you mean I'm when you say Im or I when you say i. It's all a matter of applying some thought when you read.

obvious annoyance over people dismissing evolution because it's "just a theory" I think that it would be clear enough that I'm not religious. Is there any reason you feel like telling Atheists that god is made up or did you just not understand my post?

Firstly i didn't mean to offend. Secondly i wasn't telling you or atheists that god was made up, it was aimed as a more general framing point. you provided an epidemiological statistical piece of evidence where i included experimental evidence in order to backup the overall claim against the known belief of fictional deities, the Easter bunny is another one. An argument without evidence isn't an argument; the more evidence the better the argument.

You did not offend me with anything you said. You did however annoy me a lot with seemingly trying to inform an Atheist that the existence of god is a bad hypothesis. You did it again in this post trying to teach me that the scientific method requires evidence. Seriously I have already stated that I am an Atheist as openly as I know how, do you really think I need education on the matter? Now if you could please read my two first posts in this thread and the post that I quoted I never mentioned Santa or god as something that could possibly exist. I was simply responding to someone saying that no adults believed in Santa while several believed in god saying that there are adults believing in Santa. I didn't say that either had merits because someone believed in it. I didn't say either were real. In my last post I explained this to you and yet I can't seem to make you understand the fact. Now this is my second post directed to you and I am telling you for the second time that I am an Atheist and a firm believer in anything we can prove with science. I have done work in labs in order to explain evolution on a deep level. Do you really think I don't know what it takes to put a hypothesis?

Have you noticed that the spell checker corrects santa for Santa but not god for God.

I don't know what this has to do with anything we have discussed, but I'll explain it to you. Santa is a fictional character made by Coca Cola. All names, even those of fictional characters are always written with a capital letter (in English this also includes nationality, religion and words like I) so Santa will always be written with a capital S. However god is a noun that is used to describe a deity in Theism. We can use god in plural unlike Santa which is a name. In German however all nouns are supposed to be written with capital letter so in that case god (Gott) will always have a capital G. Personally I never write god with a capital g because I think of it as a noun an not a name no matter the context. Now do you have anything more incredibly basic you want to teach me about science? Like that water is polar and the the angles between the hydrogen molecules is 104.5 degrees?

 

[Asita]

1. Teaching Theory as fact is wrong. Until a theory is proven incontrovertibly, it cannot be a Scientific fact or law. Evolution is still theoretical. Not saying its bullshit, but the fact that we don't understand it fully, cannot comprehend it nor prove that the theories behind it actually happened exactly that way, cannot reproduce it in a lab nor observe it means its not a fact. Its a theory with data supporting the theory but never outright proving it.

You're propogating a very common misconception here. For starters, you're using 'theory' in a way that closer matches the definition of 'hypothesis'. In order to be considered a theory, a given model has to be very well supported by data and effectively surpass its fellows in explanatory power. Additionally, contrary to popular opinion, Theories do not - even hypothetically - graduate into Laws. They are different entities in and of themselves. A Scientific Law can perhaps best be described as a point observation, an event that occurs under certain conditions. A Scientific Theory is a comprehensive model, an overarching explanation often connecting a variety of phenomena and laws and explaining the process behind them. One of the better examples of this is Gravity, giving us the Law of Gravity and Gravitational Theory, which explains the aforementioned Law[footnote]Though to be perfectly accurate, Einstein's Theory of Relativity supplanted Newton's Gravitational Theory in 1915, explaining phenomena Newton's model could not[/footnote]. In a rather ironic twist for the misconception, the explanatory power of Scientific Theories arguably makes them more valuable than Scientific Laws.