tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post115255238701824061..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: Pamela Winnick's Science EnvyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-70847351602443121492011-03-15T15:31:43.704-04:002011-03-15T15:31:43.704-04:00Ah, but did you submit anything to "Souce Wat...Ah, but did you submit anything to "Souce Watch"?<br /><br />At the risk of you getting sued for my comment, Jeffery, I would guess that Ms. Molly got her law degree at Liberty U.KeithBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-41082069942092601122011-03-13T10:46:24.723-04:002011-03-13T10:46:24.723-04:00Dear Molly:
I think you are confused. I have sub...Dear Molly:<br /><br />I think you are confused. I have submitted nothing to "Sourcewatch".Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-21697961041192111352011-03-13T00:44:15.997-05:002011-03-13T00:44:15.997-05:00Is it possible that you bit of a problem . I'v...Is it possible that you bit of a problem . I've read the book. Barely aboout evolution.<br /><br />Also, the info you submitted about author to Souce Watch watch is defamatory.<br /><br />My firm is gathering info about others you've defamed. <br /><br /><br />Molly Kelly,esq<br />Attorneymollyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18052120360847765450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-30501099654328241772009-03-14T08:56:00.000-04:002009-03-14T08:56:00.000-04:00Jeffery,When I refer to "evolution theory," I'm ta...Jeffery,<BR/><BR/>When I refer to "evolution theory," I'm talking about the entire body of theory reflecting the idea that all diversity of life on earth is due to evolutionary processes. It includes the idea, for example, that the ancestry of Blue Whales includes single celled organisms.<BR/><BR/>To my knowledge, experiments on evolution have showed that populations can evolve to some extent. For example I recently saw the paper abstracted at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12955142 referenced as experimental support for the idea that a population of single celled organisms can give rise to multi cellular descendants. But all the authors contend is that the results show "that transitions to higher orders of complexity are readily achievable."<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately I can't find a link that will allow access to the entire article for free but I have the entire article on my hard drive. But the experiment started with two genotypes of Pseudomonas bacteria and ended with the two genotypes of Pseudomonas bacteria. The authors were careful to note that what they generated through their experiment as "...a far cry from multicellularity."<BR/><BR/>In my opinion, the overwhelming preponderance of support for the body of evolution theory is provided by observational study. Scientists look at things as they are and note that it's consistent with theory. Or if it's not entirely consistent with the theory they may adjust the theory. What's been validated through experimentation in that realm of theory, I think, barely scratches the surface.<BR/><BR/>When I refer to "observational" vs. "experimental" I'm referring to the difference between making observations over which the investigator had no control to making observations that resulted from controlled experimentation. I am one who subscribes to the view that the highest level of certainty is achieved through controlled experimentation.<BR/><BR/>Gravitational theory, I think, is validated by experimentation to a far greater extent because it's far easier to do experiments validating entire scenarios. And even when the support is observational, it involves circumstances under which very precise predictions of exactly what's going to happen can be made then those predictions are observed to be correct to within very narrow limits. Predicting the orbits of planets based, in part, on gravitational theory is an example.<BR/><BR/>On Stephen J. Gould: I said he made a dogmatic statement. A Websters definition of "dogmatic" is "characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts." I think his whole "Evolution is a fact" approach was dogmatic. I believe he was talking about the overall theory including things such as the idea that Blue Whales had single celled ancestors. Also, I think it's reasonable to say that instead of the distinction between "fact" and "not fact" I'm looking at the distinction between "known to be a fact" and "not known to be a fact."<BR/><BR/>There is always an underlying reality. I think that, when people talk about "fact," they're really talking about "known to be fact." For instance, if I say, "there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe" I am expressing an opinion. Most people would not call that a statement of fact. But it may be a fact. It's just not known to be.<BR/><BR/>And I don't consider the idea that, say, Blue Whales had single celled ancestors as known to be fact in the same sense that saying an apple that breaks from an apple tree on planet earth will fall to the ground is. I'd say there's a lot more support for that idea that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. But it's still not known to be a fact.John StOngehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04534792274183343093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-74823706145521589452009-03-14T01:28:00.000-04:002009-03-14T01:28:00.000-04:00Belief in the divinity of Christ makes you Christi...Belief in the divinity of Christ makes you Christian, period. The fact that fundie madrassas teach children to hate other denominations doesn't alter this fact. Nor have I ever personally heard of everyday people (i.e. not fringe nutbags) avoiding the usage of the word 'Christian' to refer to Catholics. This usage is certainly NOT supported by 'the US dialect of English', whatever that might be. It's as if someone thinks the word 'dialect' means 'lots of arbitrary redefinitions'. Whether one denomination or another tends to substitute the name of their denomination in place of 'Christian' when describing their beliefs to the lay public is super-irrelevant. We are arguing meaning, not usage. We're arguing over who IS Christian, not who routinely and explicitly self-identifies as Christian to the exclusion of more specific descriptors.<BR/><BR/>Also, a lot of commenters above need to go take a math class and learn to differentiate between exponential growth, quadratic growth, and logarithmic growth. Ehrlich might want to do that, too. And yes, he is a fraud when it comes to this subject; by trade he is an entomologist. He already predicted a Malthusian catastrophe decades ago, and it didn't happen. He's a retarded doomsayer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-16652312645844831032008-02-14T21:30:00.000-05:002008-02-14T21:30:00.000-05:00John:Evolution has been experimentally validated, ...John:<BR/><BR/>Evolution has been experimentally validated, too, so in that sense the distinction you are drawing between it and gravitation is nonexistent.<BR/><BR/>I don't know what you mean when you say that evolution is based on "observational data". What kind of data is not "observational"?<BR/><BR/>You offer no support for the claim that Gould was "dogmatic".Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-45644545523918129072008-02-14T19:53:00.000-05:002008-02-14T19:53:00.000-05:00Don't know if you're still out there and don't kno...Don't know if you're still out there and don't know if you'll ever read this. But with respect to this statement:<BR/><BR/>"Some theories are better supported than others; only the really well-supported theories, such as gravity and evolution, can be considered as similar to facts, keeping in mind that in science every explanation is provisional."<BR/><BR/>That reminds me of Stephen J. Gould's statement about the possibility that apples could start rising tomorrow. He was comparing the theory of evolution to gravitational theory as though the two are comparable.<BR/><BR/>In my opinion, they are not. Gravitational theory is in a different realm because it has been experimentally validated. Controlled experiments can and have been performed to support it. Some experiments that are also practical efforts, such as landing robots on Mars, illulstrate the precision with which beliefs have been confirmed. <BR/><BR/>Evolution theory is based almost, if not entirely, on observational data. <BR/><BR/>I have a degree in biology, was a professional biologist for five years. I'm not a pure biologist now, but I've been working in an environmental science/public health realm that involves biology for the past 18 years. I personally view evolution theory as the most plausible explanation for what we see.<BR/><BR/>But I do not agree with the dogmatic statements about the certainty of it that I've seen in the past by people like Stephen J. Gould. It is NOT in the same realm of certainty as something like gravitational theory. I don't think it's even close.John StOngehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04534792274183343093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-19717278431471575282007-05-28T12:09:00.000-04:002007-05-28T12:09:00.000-04:00Bravo--a well considered, well documented, and muc...Bravo--a well considered, well documented, and much needed deconstruction of a hymn to the pseudoscience of ID. Religious fundamentalists (who tend also to be politically right) have no qualms about using the words of science without the rigor to achieve theocratic goals. <BR/><BR/>But I submit that evangelism is not limited to the right. The left side of the political spectrum, if you subscribe to the one-dimensional model of political views, also uses the gravitas of science, however poorly interpreted and perturbed, as a brickbat to further their own agendas. Take just for one example the so-called "global warming" crusade: it has its high prophets of gloom and doom who demand atonement and sacrifices of the faithful for absolution, sacrifices the high-priests don't care to make themselves. These self-appointed messiahs will use pseudoscientific ecumenical FUD to gain political power as surely as any right-wing religious fundamentalist would.<BR/><BR/>Change is the natural state of things; stars change, environments change, species adapt and evolve or die out. Change implies uncertainty, uncertainty leads to fear, and fear becomes a tool, the ring in the nose by which zealots, left or right, can and will use to control wealth and populations. <BR/><BR/>If one is truly concerned about global warming there are straightforward and economical ways to mitigate its effects--see Dr. Gregory Benford's solution, for one. But the problem with solutions such as his is that there is no <B>guilt</B> involved, and the political finger-pointers will be out of a job.<BR/><BR/>Shallit has done a fine job with his critical review of Winnick's sorry attempt to demonize science. Again I would emphasize to all rational readers that the misuse of science is not the realm of only the religious right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1166588018190522722006-12-19T23:13:00.000-05:002006-12-19T23:13:00.000-05:00A fertilized egg which does not attach itself to t...A fertilized egg which does not attach itself to the wall of the uterus is destroyed naturally. When Ms. Winnick wrote that if it is not destroyed it will develop into a fetus, she was right. It has to attach itself to the uterus to keep from being destroyed, and then must meet other criteria to keep from being destroyed, but having done that, it develops into a fetus. This is scientifically proven.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, Ms. Winnick never said that a theory is a fact, so I have no disagreement with her that a theory and a fact are two different things.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1152694195995503832006-07-12T04:49:00.000-04:002006-07-12T04:49:00.000-04:00"Christian" is a code word for "evangelical" in th...<I>"Christian" is a code word for "evangelical" in the US.</I><BR/><BR/>No, it isn't. Repeating this silly claim and selecting the evidence doesn't make it any more true. That fundies <I>wish</I> to view only themselves as "Christians" doesn't mean that only they are. Millions of non-evangelical Christians identify themselves, and are identified by the broader society, as Christians.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1152694866457472162006-07-12T05:01:00.000-04:002006-07-12T05:01:00.000-04:00"Religious". If you're religious in the US, it's a...<I>"Religious". If you're religious in the US, it's assumed you belong to a christian religion -- whereas if you're "Christian" it means you're an evangelical protestant.<BR/><BR/>At least in the minds of evangelical protestants.</I><BR/><BR/>But not in the minds of anyone else, which is why this is so absurd. Jonathan Badger in essence claimed that the meaning of "Christian" in U.S. English is determined by the way evangelical protestants use it for highly ideological purposes. It's like saying that John Kerry is a member of the "Democrat Party" because that's what rightwingnuts call it (because they want to avoid the implication that Democrats are actually "democratic").Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1152695459748854472006-07-12T05:10:00.000-04:002006-07-12T05:10:00.000-04:00The movement towards equating "Christian" with "ev...<I>The movement towards equating "Christian" with "evangelical Protestant" is deliberate and has been highly successful. Evangelicals, including those who were raised in a different Christian sect, almost always refer to their conversion to evangelism as "becoming a Christian". It's conscious and deliberate: they want the term to themselves.</I><BR/><BR/>And Jonathan Badger has declared, rather prematurely, that it's theirs.<BR/><BR/>I go back to my original observation, that Badger's claim that <I>Roman Catholic, Russian/Greek Orthodox, and even mainstream Protestant churches such as Methodist and Episcopalian are rarely labeled "Christian" in the US</I> <B>isn't true</B>; they are in fact <B>frequently</B> labeled "Christian". Again, this is as clear as the fact that the emperor wasn't clothed, but I offer as example the 1,070,000 google hits for "Christian denominations", headed up by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations <BR/><BR/>which (of course, duh, sheesh) includes the denominations Badger mentioned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1152738497830468722006-07-12T17:08:00.000-04:002006-07-12T17:08:00.000-04:00Pardon me if I repeat someone else's comment (didn...Pardon me if I repeat someone else's comment (didn't have time to read all of the string), but the usage distinguishing Christians from Catholics appears to be a staple of Protestant Evangelicals. And I suppose for good measure since I recall that buried within the Baltimore Cathecism around Q&A 259 or later is a statement that only Catholics go to Heaven. A pox on both their houses.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1152741074064303972006-07-12T17:51:00.000-04:002006-07-12T17:51:00.000-04:00jonathan badger:If a church in the US advertises "...jonathan badger:<BR/><BR/><I>If a church in the US advertises "Christian services" it is almost certainly a fundy evangelical church.</I><BR/><BR/>This is certainly not universal, nor does it appear from my experience to be particularly common. More common code words for fundamentalist services include "Christ-centered" and "Bible-based". <BR/><BR/><I>Take a look at an US community. You'll find churches named like "5th Street Christian Church". While technically, a Roman Catholic or Episcopalian church on 5th street could be called that, they aren't. "Christian" is a code word for "evangelical" in the US.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, here you are wrong and truth machine is right to point out that `<I>...one can find numerous organizations that are not "fundy evangelical" but have "Christian" in their name....</I>'. <BR/><BR/>In every community I have lived in, most of the churches with names like "First Christian Church" and "5th Street Christian Church" are acutally <A HREF="http://www.ucc.org/index.php" REL="nofollow">United Church of Christ</A>, one of the most liberal protestant denominations. (I don't know why they don't put UCC in their name more often.)<BR/><BR/>Probably the next most common are non-denominational churches who, because they lack affiliation with a specific denomination, adopt the generic term. It is nearly impossible determine the orientation of these churches from the name alone.<BR/><BR/>This is not to say that many fundamentalists don't reserve the term "Christian" exclusively for themselves, usually meaning "born again". However, it is a bad idea to determine the particular flavor of Christianity advertised by a church or organization with "Christian" in its name.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1152744178326545512006-07-12T18:42:00.000-04:002006-07-12T18:42:00.000-04:00Back in 1982, I covered a talk by Stanislaw Ulam. ...Back in 1982, I covered a talk by Stanislaw Ulam. I was able to talk to him afterwards, and the discussion turned at one point to "scientific creationism". Ulam didn't think SciCre had anything to do with science.<BR/><BR/>Now, a lot of people might get the impression that Ulam was in the SciCre pocket given his participation in the Wistar conference on "Mathematical challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis" back in the mid-1960s. Certainly by 1982, he was seeing SciCre and similar fringe movements as a threat to science education.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1152673022028901162006-07-11T22:57:00.000-04:002006-07-11T22:57:00.000-04:00Thanks all fo clearing up my confusion about US us...Thanks all fo clearing up my confusion about US use of "christian"! Groups highjacking termsdo do tend to confuse things.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1152688657532455922006-07-12T03:17:00.000-04:002006-07-12T03:17:00.000-04:00Clearly she has no understanding of evolution as d...Clearly she has no understanding of evolution as demonstrated by this: <BR/><BR/>"evolution could be inferred from the rapid variations that occur within a given species. During his famed five-year voyage aboard the HMS Beagle, Darwin observed these variations first hand. On a stop in the Galapagos Islands, he noticed the different beak sizes and shapes among the finches that had flown in from the mainland, each settling on a different island."<BR/><BR/>Each settling on a different island? where is the evolution in that? That just means birds with fixed differences dispersed. And we know that isn't true. Darwin's finches are a monophyletic group, indicating the islands were colonized once, and then the birds diversified, which is why they are so interesting. And beak morphologies can change rapidly both within and between species. But why am I putting this here? She probably isn't going to read this is she?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1152656370757561632006-07-11T18:19:00.000-04:002006-07-11T18:19:00.000-04:00We have not achieved zero population growth, nor a...<I>We have not achieved zero population growth, nor are we likely to achieve it for the forseeable future. </I><BR/><BR/>The UN regularly produces estimates of population growth. The current estimate (as of 2004) has a band of high probability events bounded between negative population growth by 2040, to 10.6B people by 2050, with a medium projection of nearly zero population growth by 2050. See http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPP2004/2004EnglishES.pdf<BR/><BR/><I>Forecasts are necessarily unreliable.</I><BR/><BR/>It should be noted that UN's projections have been consistently pessimistic, with periodic downward revisions on the expected size of the world population by 2050.<BR/><BR/>For example, the 2004 <B>medium</B> estimate of growth includes significant upticks in the fertility rates of the developed world. Given the rapid drop on the fertility rate there, even assuming no change (let alone an uptick) for the <I>medium</I> projection seems unduly pessimistic. <BR/><BR/>The study also assumes that <B>no</B> country whatsoever will move below a fertility rate of 1.85 from now until 2050, not even those ones with currently rapidly falling birth rates and close to reaching that threshold. The study assumes these dropping rate countries to magically stop at 1.85. <BR/><BR/>My guess is that in a few years, the UN will yet again issue a revision downwards in their projections.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1152648021238856172006-07-11T16:00:00.000-04:002006-07-11T16:00:00.000-04:00Came over from pharyngula.Torbjörn: But I'm curiou...Came over from pharyngula.<BR/><BR/><I>Torbjörn: But I'm curious, how does US christians refer to the whole group?</I><BR/><BR/>"Religious". If you're religious in the US, it's assumed you belong to a christian religion -- whereas if you're "Christian" it means you're an evangelical protestant.<BR/><BR/>At least in the minds of evangelical protestants.<BR/><BR/>The movement towards equating "Christian" with "evangelical Protestant" is deliberate and has been highly successful. Evangelicals, including those who were raised in a different Christian sect, almost always refer to their conversion to evangelism as "becoming a Christian". It's conscious and deliberate: they want the term to themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1152648701416418442006-07-11T16:11:00.000-04:002006-07-11T16:11:00.000-04:00You know, I interpreted the statement And though t...You know, I interpreted the statement <BR/><I>And though the [intelligent design] movement was often accused of being "Christian,", in fact only a few of them were Protestant evangelicals. A few were Catholic.</I><BR/>to mean simply: <BR/>"While the members of the ID movement are taken to be Christians, it in fact contains only a few Protestants plus a few Catholics and the rest/majority being non-Christian."<BR/><BR/>Now, the factual truth of this may be arguable, but I think the logic of the statement allows such an interpretation, yes?kaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05424949956038928580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1152640676076074952006-07-11T13:57:00.000-04:002006-07-11T13:57:00.000-04:00According to www.dictionary.com and The American H...According to www.dictionary.com and <I>The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language</I> the word <B>Christian</B> is:<BR/><BR/>adj.<BR/>1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. <BR/>2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings. <BR/>3.Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike. <BR/>4.Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents. <BR/>Showing a loving concern for others; humane. <BR/><BR/>n. <BR/>1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. <BR/>2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus. <BR/><BR/>But according to the <I>Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary</I><BR/><BR/><B>Christian</B><BR/><BR/>the name given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers<BR/>of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch. The names by which the disciples were<BR/>known among themselves were "brethren," "the faithful," "elect," "saints,"<BR/>"believers." But as distinguishing them from the multitude without, the name<BR/>"Christian" came into use, and was universally accepted. This name occurs but<BR/>three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16).<BR/><BR/>So IMHO, tomayeto...tomauto, doesn't matter. <BR/><BR/>Winnick should have used a term that exacts which religious sect she was thinking of.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1152640960738808512006-07-11T14:02:00.000-04:002006-07-11T14:02:00.000-04:00On the Christian/non-Christian question: perhaps t...On the Christian/non-Christian question: perhaps there's a regional distinction of some sort here?<BR/><BR/>I was raised in Minnesota in the Lutheran Chuch Missouri Synod. On the one hand, I went through two years of confirmation learning why all other religions and other branches of the Christian church were not "True Christians", and would thus be going to hell. On the other hand, I've never really encountered the term "Christian" used in a sense exclusive of any particular brand of Christianity: Catholics have always been lumped in with Lutherans and Baptists etc. etc...The Neurophilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10882999218797476423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1152636705727118122006-07-11T12:51:00.000-04:002006-07-11T12:51:00.000-04:00"Just like Canadians are not normally referred to ..."Just like Canadians are not normally referred to as "Americans" even though the description would technically be true, Roman Catholic, Russian/Greek Orthodox, and even mainstream Protestant churches such as Methodist and Episcopalian are rarely labeled "Christian" in the US."<BR/><BR/>This is nonsense. Speaking as a native-born US citizen and one who grew up in the Methodist church (though has become wiser with age), there is never any question about whether any of the various Protestant denominations are referred to as "Christian." And except for fringies, never any question about Catholics being Christians either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1152637640554275312006-07-11T13:07:00.000-04:002006-07-11T13:07:00.000-04:00Anonymous said:"How about this:- Fact: something o...Anonymous said:<BR/>"How about this:<BR/><BR/>- Fact: something observable in the real world,<BR/><BR/>- Hypothesis: wild idea that may provide an explanation for a set of facts in the real world<BR/><BR/>- Theory: an hypothesis that is well supported by facts (ie. previously wild idea that now looks like a pretty solidy, but contingent, fit to the facts)."<BR/><BR/>Um... nope. Don't agree with any of these.<BR/><BR/>A "fact" is nothing more than a single, repeatable observation. In themselves, facts are individually essentially trivial. Their only significance is in the ways they fit into our larger concepts about how things work.<BR/><BR/>A hypothesis is *not* a "wild idea." At least, it shouldn't be. "Wild ideas" are simply pointless speculation. Hypotheses are testable proposals, based on understanding and previous knowledge. The good old hoary "educated guess" isn't too bad a euphemism.<BR/><BR/>A theory is a posit--a highly tested explanation for a large body of factual information, generally encompassing *many* tested hypotheses and explaining a lot of information. A posit is a concept about which it is impossible to be completely certain, but for which we have so much evidence it's safe to treat it as truth (and pretty stupid to pretend it *isn't* at least pretty close to truth).<BR/><BR/>BTW, scientific "laws" are also posits. Despite what so many of my students are determined to believe, they are not "proven" to be "true." Like theories, they are ultimately tentative. The difference between a law and a theory is that laws merely describe the ways that matter and energy are observed to behave (which is why so many can be expressed best mathematically). Theories are *explanations*, which is why they are typically much more complex than laws and take a lot more work to refine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1152635177151045822006-07-11T12:26:00.000-04:002006-07-11T12:26:00.000-04:00> A theory is not the same as a fact; otherwise ho...> A theory is not the same as a fact; otherwise how could one speak of competing scientific theories?<BR/><BR/>Um ... I think we all better start getting our ducks-in-a-row on the definitions of hypothesis/theory/fact.<BR/><BR/>We're too inclined to shifting the goalposts here:<BR/><BR/>- sometimes (as above) we argue that a theory is just an idea,<BR/><BR/>- other times we say that "just an idea" is what we call hypothesis, and that "theory" is pretty near solid (contingent, but not a fact)<BR/><BR/>It tends to confuse people, and the listener thinks you're being shifty if you shift your definitions.<BR/><BR/>How about this:<BR/><BR/>- Fact: something observable in the real world,<BR/><BR/>- Hypothesis: wild idea that may provide an explanation for a set of facts in the real world<BR/><BR/>- Theory: an hypothesis that is well supported by facts (ie. previously wild idea that now looks like a pretty solidy, but contingent, fit to the facts).<BR/><BR/>Which leaves:<BR/><BR/>- Truth: only God knowsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com