[_ Old Earth _] Foolish Theories

[Oats]

I just wanted to make a list of some foolish theories that scientist hold to be true...

The one that really kills me is the demensional theory which in no way can be tested...why do we hold it as the Gospel truth?

The big bang is far worse, scientist can create prerequisites ,but we better not

 

[Ashua]

I just wanted to make a list of some foolish theories that scientist hold to be true...

The one that really kills me is the demensional theory which in no way can be tested...why do we hold it as the Gospel truth?

The big bang is far worse, scientist can create prerequisites ,but we better not

Yeah, I'm rusty on the pedantic titles given to most of them but I know what you mean. String theories and voo-doo science unsubstantiated such as many of prized mares like hawkings and the various singularity projections... Physics is a landfill of theoretical liter.

I don't think it's particularly esteemed in mainstream science, but the Drake equation deserves to be in the hall of shame. The statistical mathematics are "funtional", but there is no real data to plug into it; therefore it is worthless.

 

[Deavonreye]

Neither of the two you mentioned would be considered a "gospel truth". They would say that "the big bang theory" is their best guess based upon the science. as for dimensional theory, I doubt that anyone holds that as anything other than theoretical, which is not "truth".

Pointing out theoretical science is fine, but qualifying it as "they think this stuff is absolute" is incorrect.

 

[lordkalvan]

Neither of the two you mentioned would be considered a "gospel truth". They would say that "the big bang theory" is their best guess based upon the science. as for dimensional theory, I doubt that anyone holds that as anything other than theoretical, which is not "truth".

Pointing out theoretical science is fine, but qualifying it as "they think this stuff is absolute" is incorrect.

Indeed. I am not altogether sure of the purpose of this thread. In the context in which the word is being used here, a theory represents a possible explanation for a range of observed phenomena, a theory that can be tested and falsified by looking for evidence in respect of certain hypotheses within the framework of that theory. Many theories start life as 'foolish' ideas - some are discarded (e.g., phlogiston theory, geocentric theory) and others become more widely accepted (e.g., evolutionary theory, germ theory, theory of relativity), but in all cases it is the weight of evidence that determines whether a theory survives or dies.

 

[Deavonreye]

Well said, lk. Yeah, not sure of the purpose of this thread but to spread misinformation.

 

[Drew]

I just wanted to make a list of some foolish theories that scientist hold to be true...

The one that really kills me is the demensional theory which in no way can be tested...why do we hold it as the Gospel truth?

The big bang is far worse, scientist can create prerequisites ,but we better not

I am with lord k on this one.

You need to remember that a theory is a model - a conceptual construct that seeks to characterize how nature operates. I politely suggest that 11 dimensional string theory (or however many dimensions there are) is an entirely legitimage theory. There is no reason why a workable theory cannot "extend past" what we can visualize. So if it turns out that the 11 dimensional string model accurately characterizes how nature works, then it is a viable scientific theory. The interesting thing about mathematics is that it "goes beyond" what we can "picture" or otherwise conceptualize. For example, I suggest that no one can "picture" 11 dimensional space. But mathematics, fascinatingly, provides a tool that enable we humans to "explore" beyond the scope of that which we can "visualize" or make sense of by other means.

What's the problem with the Big Bang? I have studied this and it is a very strongly supported theory.

Post-script: Posted this without "asking permission" - didn't read the rule till after I posted. If "management" wants to delete this, I won't sqwuak (I'll bet I did not spell that correctly).

 

[jasoncran]

Neither of the two you mentioned would be considered a "gospel truth". They would say that "the big bang theory" is their best guess based upon the science. as for dimensional theory, I doubt that anyone holds that as anything other than theoretical, which is not "truth".

Pointing out theoretical science is fine, but qualifying it as "they think this stuff is absolute" is incorrect.

i have heard many athiests say this.
evolution is fact! meaning that science works in facts and that the toe is unfalsfiable. that isnt the science is was taught.

science doenst prove anything.

 

[Deavonreye]

What's the saying? Proof is for mathmatics and alcohol.

Evolution IS a fact, based upon the preponderance of the evidence. It may not be all inclusive, but it is relevant enough to be taught as the best explaination. IF something came along that shows the TOE to be false, in favor of the new evidence, then things will change. But based on several different scientific areas of study, the TOE is what shows as what happened to provide life on this planet.

Having said that, . . . "fact" doesn't necessarily mean "absolute".

 

[jasoncran]

What's the saying? Proof is for mathmatics and alcohol.

Evolution IS a fact, based upon the preponderance of the evidence. It may not be all inclusive, but it is relevant enough to be taught as the best explaination. IF something came along that shows the TOE to be false, in favor of the new evidence, then things will change. But based on several different scientific areas of study, the TOE is what shows as what happened to provide life on this planet.

Having said that, . . . "fact" doesn't necessarily mean "absolute".

really this is a dance on semantics.

fact your name is deavonrye or is not absolute, can it be something else on this forum?

when science says its fact then backs away from saying its a fact when it suits them. its either a fact and is or its not.

gravity occurs but the cause is unknown. but the toe isnt quite that sure.

its called the law of gravity not the theory of gravity.

 

[jasoncran]

fact noun \ˈfakt\
Definition of FACT
1: a thing done: as a obsolete : feat b : crime <accessory after the fact> c archaic : action
2archaic : performance, doing
3: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
— in fact
: in truth
so something this a piece of information presented as having objective reality(#5). is the toe a fact then when science science constantly rechecks it.

hmm doenst sound so sure to me. but rather skeptic.

that is what i meant by using fact so conviently.

i would rather use the terms most likely. as we see this happening but it has some rooms for holes.

really where is this primoridal soup, and so on that we cant seem to find let alone replicate and also get life to form from that all on its own.

the problem here tis not science but the scientist being close minded. and i didnt say that all scientists arent open and skeptical all the time. but a lot arent and its settled on thier in mind, meaning just like you said. its done.

no need to question it. is that really what science is. just accept what is and not recheck things?

 

[Deavonreye]

I think things are only accepted when figures ARE rechecked, and by various people. . . and various areas of study.

 

[jasoncran]

I think things are only accepted when figures ARE rechecked, and by various people. . . and various areas of study.

but that isnt how its taught. science should be this question , question question, nothing is ever settled.

when some say evolution is fact on the macro level we arent looking for support why then are we looking for evidence to support the toe as a whole?

i have done that in another thread and shown how a university was looking for the synthetic cell as a means to to support darwinian evolution.

i thought its fact! meaning that we dont need to look at it again. its settled. darwin was right.

 

[Oats]

Einstein based many of his teachings off of the two theories i mentioned..

With all due respect please don't be rude

...I've heard many, not all, scientist say those theories are factual...and they have "credentials".

Whatever my main point is that they are theories...everything is a theory, what can we truly prove then that which we are able?

 

[jasoncran]

Einstein based many of his teachings off of the two theories i mentioned..

With all due respect please don't be rude

...I've heard many, not all, scientist say those theories are factual...and they have "credentials".

Whatever my main point is that they are theories...everything is a theory, what can we truly prove then that which we are able?

i am not being rude btw.

 

[Oats]

i am not being rude btw.

not you Jason

these other guys

 

[jasoncran]

if it gets too much free or another will correct the problem.

i will try to be polite here as much as i can.

 

[coffeeelover]

Science is the only source for knowledge of the universe.

 

[Oats]

Science is the only source for knowledge of the universe.

you mean percepton/inference, everything else is just filler.

 

[Deavonreye]

What do you mean when you say "perception/inference"? Science is the mechanism for doing more than just teaching about the universe. It helps people in their daily lives. Same mechanism to do that is put into effect on that which seems more theoretical. The concepts are the same.

 

[jasoncran]

What do you mean when you say "perception/inference"? Science is the mechanism for doing more than just teaching about the universe. It helps people in their daily lives. Same mechanism to do that is put into effect on that which seems more theoretical. The concepts are the same.

in some regards to origins its far more theoritical then a hard science.

it was theorised by a man about how electrons would travel but he wasnt able to test them at the time, and by those tested theories we have the theory of electromagnetism and the wonderfully stealth fighter.bomber.

but that from them till the use of major electrical grids was just a hypothesis.