Is science being unduly influenced?

[SargeNZ]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

Theory has a very specific meaning when it comes to science.

In science, the term "theory" refers to "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."^[11][12] Theories must also meet further requirements, such as the ability to make falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry, and production of strong evidence in favor of the theory from multiple independent sources. (See characteristics of scientific theories.)
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved (or replaced by better theories) as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time; this increased accuracy corresponds to an increase in scientific knowledge. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

[Akitu]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

Theory:
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.

Are we going to "discuss" the meaning of the word "theory"?
It's all semantics. Can't be disproved is a scientists way of saying it can't be proven either.

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

[Darren King]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

Theory has a very specific meaning when it comes to science.

In science, the term "theory" refers to "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."^[11][12] Theories must also meet further requirements, such as the ability to make falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry, and production of strong evidence in favor of the theory from multiple independent sources. (See characteristics of scientific theories.)
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved (or replaced by better theories) as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time; this increased accuracy corresponds to an increase in scientific knowledge. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

So, what you are saying is, "if enough people say it is true, then it must be true"? No matter how unbelievable or un provable.

[SargeNZ]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

In other words, Theories are not undisprovable or unprovable - That is religion. God is undisproveable.

Theories are very disproveable. Theories get disproved all the time, and replaced with better ones. Theories evolve .............seewhatididthere

For a theory to stick around as long as darwins is pretty good going really - and a testament to it's strength.

The strawman arguement you are setting up is not going to work here. Do not incorrectly summarise a statement and then rebutt against that false summary.

[Akitu]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

In other words, Theories are not undisprovable or unprovable - That is religion. God is undisproveable.

Theories are very disproveable. Theories get disproved all the time, and replaced with better ones. Theories evolve .............seewhatididthere

For a theory to stick around as long as darwins is pretty good going really - and a testament to it's strength.

The strawman arguement you are setting up is not going to work here. Do not incorrectly summarise a statement and then rebutt against that false summary.

I've broken my typical habit of avoiding CTN while at home for the last 3 hours, so I think I'll check it tomorrow on my day off tops (since I could have potentially been working anyways) and then enjoy my long weekend.

Iseewhatyoudidthere. Well done.


It's been an interesting discussion, but once you had to state this I realized this may no longer be going anywhere productive, so I'd best step out before it gets stale and allow someone with a fresh perspective to add some input.

[Darren King]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

In other words, Theories are not undisprovable or unprovable - That is religion. God is undisproveable.

Theories are very disproveable. Theories get disproved all the time, and replaced with better ones. Theories evolve .............seewhatididthere

For a theory to stick around as long as darwins is pretty good going really - and a testament to it's strength.

The strawman arguement you are setting up is not going to work here. Do not incorrectly summarise a statement and then rebutt against that false summary.

I'm with Akitu, we were only talking about one theory, and nobody even mentioned God.
Enjoy

[Chameleon]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

For a theory to stick around as long as darwins is pretty good going really - and a testament to it's strength

I disagree. No sarcasm or disrespect, just some facts.
Darwin himself realized if cells had any complexity his theory would be wrong.
1. He had a basic microscope and was basing his theory on the principle cells were all simple, alike and interchangeable.
-Reality, cells are extremely complex, not alike and have very specific purposes in the body.
2. He theorized an isolated group of a species would develop desirable traits and then pass it to the rest of the species.
-Reality, isolated groups develop diseases, disabilities, and other undesirable traits.

Good biology is finding cures for genetic disorders or explaining the life cycles of parasites that plague people. In my opinion macro-evolution is holding back science since most of what it has to offer is just speckulation for lack of data. Not trying to be sarcastic but "Hence we don't find them" is speckulation.

Theories get disproved all the time, and replaced with better ones.

With every new discovery made since he published his "Origin of the Species" his theory did get revised. In that respect, I agree, his theory was replaced with neo-darwinism. But I think macro-evolution sticking around has more to do with some scientists acidentially misintrepreting the data as with Neanderthol man, Lucy and many other fossils, intentional forgeries as with Piltdown man, or just refusing to accept the data does not fit.

[mojorolla]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

1. He had a basic microscope and was basing his theory on the principle cells were all simple, alike and interchangeable.
-Reality, cells are extremely complex, not alike and have very specific purposes in the body.
2. He theorized an isolated group of a species would develop desirable traits and then pass it to the rest of the species.
-Reality, isolated groups develop diseases, disabilities, and other undesirable traits.

Did Darwin sleep with your wife or something? Were you beaten severely with a copy of The Origin of Species? You seem to have very stern feelings about this. I must admit, the Darwin angle is a change from the usual religious arguments, so allow me to jump right in......

1. Stem cells can divide and either remain a stem cell, or create a specialized cell with a specialized purpose. This is not theory, it is fact.
2. If this were true, how do you explain islands? Every island nation around the globe is a disease riddled shit hole? Having personally been to Hawaii, I can attest to its thriving flora and fauna.
"Reality, isolated groups develop diseases, disabilities, and other undesirable traits". This sounds like an accurate description of the human species isolated to planet earth...you proved your own point...sort of.

As to speculation and lack of data....that is what science is all about. We may simply ask why, but the scientist asks how. Science is the quest to fill that void of information, the hunt for the answer.
Every idea, at one point, is speculation.

[Chameleon]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

We were having a discussion about religion and how blind faith can cloud a persons judgement. Challenging those peoples assertions is a good thing. I thought why give science a pass? This is an objective institution without bias in search of truth. At least the majority of it is. Is the idea we evolved out of a primordial soup around because the quality and quantity of evidence? Or because cloudy judgement is unduly influencing science? If the former, then nobody should have any problems proving it. If the latter then all people can do is speckulate. my earlier post about concluding fruit flies were once ameobas was to illustrate such speckulation. I am not against speckulation. Look at all the progress made when Copernicus made unbiased speckulation the sun was the center of the solar system.

[fixthecopier]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

No disrespect but I strongly disagree, which explains the name of this thread. In light of the fact that some sceintists refuse to allow others to examine their work and are willing to make forgeries I disagree there would be.

In the world of science, people who do not allow others to review their work are not taken seriously as scientist.

How real scientist work... from ... Introduction to the Scientific Method


Introduction to the Scientific Method

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

[fixthecopier]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

The great thing about science is that is true no matter what you believe. All my life I have heard how aids is punishment for gays. Science did not believe that shit and did this...Reprogrammed AIDS Virus Successfully Cures Child of Leukemia - JD Journal | JD Journal

[fixthecopier]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

So, what you are saying is, "if enough people say it is true, then it must be true"? No matter how unbelievable or un provable.

If all of those people are trained and educated in the subject, then yes.


If 10,000 people tell me that climate change is not real because the media outlets they listen to have talking heads who tell them so, and another source tells me that climate change is real because 100 people who are trained in climate sciences and dedicate their life studying it say it is so, I choose to believe the scientist. Medicine is considered science. not all doctors are correct all the time, but they keep data and based on that they evolve medicine based on what the most doctors agree on.

[DAG COPIERS & COMPUTERS]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

Theory:
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.

Are we going to "discuss" the meaning of the word "theory"?
It's all semantics. Can't be disproved is a scientists way of saying it can't be proven either.

Hi to all, I've just seen this thread, I'm still studying other member's posts. I will join the discussions later on.
However let me as of now chip in something on the basic definition of the word ''THEORY'' as applied in the context of this discussion.
- With due respect, Akitu's 'rigid' definition of the word theory that it can't be disproved is totally wrong. According to 'Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th edition, published in 2007 by the Oxford University press', the word 'THEORY' is defined as a set of formal IDEAS that is intended to explain why something happens or exists.e.g according to the theory of relativity, nothing can travel faster than light.
Now, IDEA is simply an opinion or belief about something, and this can change with TIME as & when better ideas come up, beliefs can also change.
- In the scientific world, a theory can either be proved, by providing empirical evidence [based on experiments], and if proved correct or true, the theory becomes 'LAW'. If the theory fails the empirical tests with time, it is DISCARDED into the dustbin of 'scientific history'.
- When the theory is upgraded into the LAW status it means it is an established/proven fact that something always happen in the same way in an activity or nature.
-Darren Kings definition of the word theory is the most plausible.

[Chameleon]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

The point about judgement on gays is a good illustration. Those religious people are weak and vulnerable mentally and are easily controlled by people with an agenda. I happen to think evolution is an agenda. If is has merit it should be easy to prove. If it is an agenda, all that will be offered is speckulation.

Mojo-
As far as the island/isolation thing. Darwin observed 1000's of birds and speckulated that if a group of 10 or 20 birds were to be isolated from the rest and interbreed for a few hundred generations good traits would develop. Not true, bad traits occur with a shallow gene pool. Islands have nothing to do with it, he was just wrong about the outcome from a shallow gene pool.
As far as stem cells, I don't doubt those are facts. Not trying to be sarcastic, but are you concluding evolution happened from that data? Following the facts where they lead brings me to the conclusion stem cells are incredible things but I don't see enough data to conclude anything more. I think progress is when stem cell research is not influenced by people with an agenda, imagine a fresh set of eyes looking at stems cells! And by agenda I mean Religious people and Darwinists forcing their square peg in there.

[DAG COPIERS & COMPUTERS]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

If all of those people are trained and educated in the subject, then yes.


If 10,000 people tell me that climate change is not real because the media outlets they listen to have talking heads who tell them so, and another source tells me that climate change is real because 100 people who are trained in climate sciences and dedicate their life studying it say it is so, I choose to believe the scientist. Medicine is considered science. not all doctors are correct all the time, but they keep data and based on that they evolve medicine based on what the most doctors agree on.

NO disrespect or sarcasm intended, Based on your own words above, whom would you choose to believe in, in the following case: if 10,000 people tell you 'there's no God', because the people whom they live among say so, and another 100 group of people who are theologically trained in theology & philosophy , and dedicate their life studying the Bible?.