Theory, Law, and Fact (split from another thread)

[The_Other_Admin]

Scientific theories are never "proven" correct
Incorrect... e.g. theory of spherical shape of the earth and theory of sub-atomic particles.

[Kabeer]

Incorrect... e.g. theory of spherical shape of the earth and theory of sub-atomic particles.
:hoppingmad: nooooo the Earth is FLAT I tell you!!! (a).
(more seriously scientific theories are very fallible, even the thing about subatomic particles is constantly being refined and re-evaluated....in fact everything is mostly space!!! we arent barely even here!!!!!)

[MF]

[FONT="Arial"]What she should've written is that scientific theories are fallible, or indeed falsifiable.
An error indeed, not a minor detail, thanks for mentioning


Incorrect... e.g. theory of spherical shape of the earth and theory of sub-atomic particles.
Accepted until proven otherwise.

Scientific theory is never verified because it can never be shown to be true, as some future observation may yet contradict it. Accordingly, a scientific theory is, at most, extensively corroborated, which makes it accepted until proven otherwise.

[The_Other_Admin]

Scientific theory is never verified because it can never be shown to be true, as some future observation may yet contradict it.
Scientific theory is verifiable depending on the scope and nature of theory, and technology. Tell me what future observation can contradict spherical shape of the earth?

[Kabeer]

Scientific theory is verifiable depending on the scope and nature of theory, and technology. Tell me what future observation can contradict spherical shape of the earth?

Its a bit egg shaped :giggling: and its apparently changing shape ever so slowly

[The_Other_Admin]

Its a bit egg shaped :giggling: and its apparently changing shape ever so slowly
Very funny :giggling: perhaps spherical is not the exact description, but I think people in general would get my point.

[Kabeer]

Hehe, yeah I got your point, just in a jokey mood :cool:

[MF]

Scientific theory is verifiable depending on the scope and nature of theory, and technology.
It can be tested and falsified

Tell me what future observation can contradict spherical shape of the earth?
I can't think of any but saying a theory is proven true is like saying it can't be falsified.

Logically speaking, a scientific law is conclusively falsifiable although it is not conclusively verifiable. Methodologically, however, the situation is much more complex: no observation is free from the possibility of error — consequently we may question whether our experimental result was what it appeared to be.

Its not my idea you know.

[Ratatosk]

Salam,
Its a bit egg shaped and its apparently changing shape ever so slowlyCorrect. Or rather an egg that's "lying on it's side". The Earth is not a sphere. And it is changing. Not even slowly, but it bulges toward the Moon, the "bulge" doing a circle around the surface of the planet every 24 hours. Percentagewise it's very, very tiny, but it's there alright. Not a sphere.

So there.

(Moreover, to observe that planets and such are spherical is merely an observation, it's not a theory. Theories are made to fit observations, on the other hand.)

Regards,

[The_Other_Admin]

Moreover, to observe that planets and such are spherical is merely an observation, it's not a theory.
Flat earth theory and round earth theory were not theories once?

[The_Other_Admin]

no observation is free from the possibility of error — consequently we may question whether our experimental result was what it appeared to be.

Here is something from a site given by you once:

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

.... Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

[Kabeer]

More to the point,
MF said she would rather place her faith in science, since its theories are infallible, even though they arent, they are just probabalistic theories based on what has been observed. And in the case of pure theory, its just an educated guess (*) .

Look at it like this, with Islam at least, we have the Quran, it is definate, the only thing being refined is the interpretations, and even that, on some very smaller, specific things,so its a bit like science lol. I think you prefer science since it sometimes has physically present proof.

Salaams

[MF]

Moreover, to observe that planets and such are spherical is merely an observation, it's not a theory. Theories are made to fit observations, on the other hand.

Yes, theories make predictions of unobservable. If we can observe a planet beeing spherical then this is a fact.


Flat earth theory and round earth theory were not theories once?
Yes, and whatever the theory was that predicted the earth as a sphere predicts this also for similar planets far in the galaxy we are not able to observe I presume.


Here is something from a site given by you once: Yes, I read in the quote that theories are not absolute truth and that a theory is not a fact so what is your point?


MF said she would rather place her faith in science, since its theories are infallible, even though they arent
if they arent, then there is no difference between your faith or science.

[Hannahh]

I beg to differ.

Scientific theory that has been objectified and corroborated physically is called EMPIRICAL evidence. Things such as the boiling point of water and melting point of iron are called Empirical data.

A theory can and must be attempted to be either satisfied or rectified. It is different from empirical in that theories generally incorporate empirical data as their foundational status. Theories can be said to be either weak or strong and grow or diminish in their integrity over time.

Just thought I'd clarify that and add that in religion, you could consider "miracles" to be the empirical data that it is founded upon but this type of data does not fit the typical pattern of research that is "repeatable" or "demonstrable" a second or third time. IT can only be read about and interrogated logically within a given context. This is the foundation of comparative theology.

[Ramsey]

I would like to note that science is not altogether falsifiable.
All science is build upon a foundation of assumptions. We must assume certain things are true (even if we cannot prove them right or wrong). A good example is for example mathematics which has many postulates. They cannot be proven right or wrong but mathematics needs them to make further calculations

[The_Other_Admin]

Yes, I read in the quote that theories are not absolute truth and that a theory is not a fact so what is your point?

My point was what I said in the first post of this thread, that scientific theories can be "proven". Point is clear in the part I quoted from talkorigins.

[Kabeer]

Salaam


if they arent, then there is no difference between your faith or science.
Indeed, the theory is like our understanding of 'religion', the truth is there, but its our understanding that is like the theories. Just like the truth of the universe, it exists, and then to understand it scientific theories exist. The understandiings dont have to be finitely correct, but that doesnt stop the universe from existing, nor God.

Peace

[MF]

My point was what I said in the first post of this thread, that scientific theories can be "proven". Point is clear in the part I quoted from talkorigins.

the bold part in the quote says it is essentially correct that theories cannot be proven. I personally think its the best approcoach not to consider a theory as absolute truth, that would be like a religion.

[hlatif]

Salaam all,


I personally think its the best approcoach not to consider a theory as absolute truth, that would be like a religion.
I believe that this is a very important issue in both science and religion. The problem often rises when people take scientific theory as absolute truth and impose it on religion. On the other hand, not everything in religion is absolute and religious people often fall into error when they make what is not absolute, absolute.

Take care all


Hussein

[The_Other_Admin]

the bold part in the quote says it is essentially correct that theories cannot be proven. I personally think its the best approcoach not to consider a theory as absolute truth, that would be like a religion.
The quote also says it won't do in the real world. Here is the next line to the bold part, maybe it will help (it wasn't quoted in the quote, btw): "A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it."

For example, round earth & micro-evolution. It would be silly to say that these theories haven't been proven as they have been observed directly.

[MF]

it won't do in the real world.
Thats true, many people do accept theories as proven.

[The_Other_Admin]

Thats true, many people do accept theories as proven.
Yup. I think that is more logical for theories that have been observed without a reasonable doubt.

A philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist... but that doesn't somehow feel right.

[Hannahh]

In general, theories cannot be proven conclusively. Objective empirical data can be proven but those are tiny parts of arguments. Maths like Fibonacci number systems are basically systems of maths DESIGNED to fit the criteria of the researcher and even those run into problems when used as "corroborative" tools...they work in one theory but do not suffice in another. Basic maths however work universally and are like the empirical data that the Fibonacci (and those systems like it) are based on. Those number systems are theories in themselves you know but the basic quantitative maths are universal and empirical in nature. Differential calculus for instance is nothing more than a math that quantifies "infinity" which of course, is a nonsensical limit on reality.

Allah cannot be 'proven' either nor can Allah be disproved. That is what faith is all about. There needs to be a suspension of biases for someone to make that leap however and if a person is attached to the idea of "theories" as facts, they won't get very far in getting to the minutia of all the arguments that can be made for a Creator. This same suspension of biases is absolutely in operation when one indulges "infinity" and "limits" in something like differential calculus or quantum theories. This is why some have suggested that science is indeed, "a type of religion" because it involves a certain amount of faith in various lines of logic.

Bells theorem theorists however are now suggesting that an entirely new logic is needed in order to understand the effect of particles on each other at great distances.

[Ratatosk]

Salam,
[...] nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty [...]Hmm... As an aside and a point of note; the formal sciences -- actually, there's only two; mathematics and logic -- are exclusively about 0/100% true proof. (Some say that they are actually the same branch of science, and that maths is simply "number logic", meaning there's only one formal science; logic.) One might think of these two as binary logic systems, i.e. an assertion is either true or false, sorta like the 0 or 1 of binary numbers. On the other hand, you've probably heard the old "2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2". ;)

Regards,


_____________________

PS: OFF TOPIC (for math nerds):

Even math has its' strange quirks, exemplified by the below which provides exclusive proof that 1 = 0.

x = y + 1
(x-y)x = (x-y)(y+1)
x2 - xy = xy + x - y2 - y
x2 - xy -x = xy + x -x - y2 - y
x(x - y - 1) = y(x - y - 1)
x = y
y + 1 = y
1 = 0(Exercise: spot the error.)

[The_Other_Admin]

this is easy; hint: 7

[Ratatosk]

Salam,
this is easy; hint: 7Actually, it's between steps 5 and 6... :comma:

The bizarre part is "x times infinity equals y times infinity", one of the weirdo things in mathematics that are not intuitive in any way; "4(infinity) = 400(infinity)".

Regards,

[The_Other_Admin]

Salam,Actually, it's between steps 5 and 6... :comma:

The bizarre part is "x times infinity equals y times infinity", one of the weirdo things in mathematics that are not intuitive in any way; "4(infinity) = 400(infinity)".

Regards,

Yup, correct, x=y comes out wrong. It suppose to come as x=y+1. Darn this don't need a good knowledge of math to see that, so obviously the error is in the step before 6th step.

[Ratatosk]

Salam,
Yup, correct, x=y comes out wrong.Yes, it does.

It suppose to come as x=y+1.Ya.

Darn this don't need a good knowledge of math to see that, so obviously the error is in the step before 6th step.Ya, the smaller the number is that you divide another number with is, the bigger the result. When you then divide anything by zero, the result is infinity. It's usually stated as being "undefined", although that's a matter of interpretation.

Getting from step 5 to step 6, one must do a division by (x - y - 1), which actually is ((y + 1) - (y -1)), which equals zero. Hence the result. It looks cool, though, doesn't it? It's just a variation of the equally bizarre (infinity+1) = (infinity).

This thread is now officially hijacked.

Regards,

[Roswell]

PS: OFF TOPIC (for math nerds):

Even math has its' strange quirks, exemplified by the below which provides exclusive proof that 1 = 0.
x = y + 1
(x-y)x = (x-y)(y+1)
x2 - xy = xy + x - y2 - y
x2 - xy -x = xy + x -x - y2 - y
x(x - y - 1) = y(x - y - 1)
x = y
y + 1 = y
1 = 0(Exercise: spot the error.)



Why this long excercise, take this,
Zero multiply by Infinity, what will be the answer ? Zero or Infinity ? Whatever the answer, is equal to x becuase x / Infinity = 0 :)
x = 1 or any integer :giggling:

[Ratatosk]

Why this long excercise,Because it looks cooler. ;)

take this,Alright. I will.

Zero multiply by Infinity, what will be the answer ?Zero. Nothing times anything is still nothing. Hey, that sentence wouldn't look too bad on a t-shirt, would it?

Zero or Infinity ?I already said zero! :hoppingmad:

Whatever the answer, is equal to x becuase x / Infinity = 0 :) x = 1 or any integer :giggling:Ya, anything divided by infinity equals zero. Even for very small values of infinity. Again, it's usually stated as being "undefined", although it's really a matter of interpretation.

This thread is still hijacked.

Regards,

[Kabeer]

Why this long excercise, take this,
Zero multiply by Infinity, what will be the answer ? Zero or Infinity ? Whatever the answer, is equal to x becuase x / Infinity = 0 :)
x = 1 or any integer :giggling:

Lol none of that makes sense to me...lol but i guess it wouldnt :$



Ya, anything divided by infinity equals zero. Again, it's usually stated as being "undefined", although it's really a matter of interpretation.

Hmm I would say its approximatly zero, since it cannot be a definite figure, just somthing approaching zero, for practical purposes you call it zero, but it isnt really.

PS; What about infinity divided by infinity, you did say anything :giggling:. Bah, im the king of off-topic

[Ratatosk]

Salam,
Lol none of that makes sense to me...lol but i guess it wouldnt :$Actually, Roswell's a bit wrong about it..

Hmm I would say its approximatly zero, since it cannot be a definite figure, just somthing approaching zero, for practical purposes you call it zero, but it isnt really.You are right. The correct answer is that the result is infinitely close to zero. Which, mathematically speaking, is not zero. Then again, when one is dealing with undefined entities such as infinity in mathematics, the answers will many times also be undefined. So, strictly speaking, I was a bit "wrong", too..

Regards,

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

is gravity a fact, theory, law or some combination of these?

metta,

~v

[Kabeer]

Hiya :)


is gravity a fact, theory, law or some combination of these?


Gravity is often stated as being a law. It varies though. And in certain conditions the laws seem to break down (but the stage it breaks down is only at the theoretical stage), so it could be a combination.
Although from what has been physically observed its a law ( I think, these physics boffins are doing crazy stuff with particle accelarators these days so its all very complex).

Peace

|Edit : I take it all back!! :rolleyes: no idea