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.

nooooo the Earth is FLAT I tell you!!! .
(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 and its apparently changing shape ever so slowly

[The_Other_Admin]

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

Very funny 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

[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 slowly

Correct. 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