My Aliens challenge

[AV1611VET]

You must know what a theory is.

Here are five theories from space.com:

How the Moon Formed: 5 Wild Lunar Theories

Written by Mike Wall:

"He has a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology from the University of Sydney, Australia, a bachelor's degree from the University of Arizona, and a graduate certificate in science writing from the University of California, Santa Cruz."

op.cit.

 

[Bradskii]

Here are five theories from space.com:

How the Moon Formed: 5 Wild Lunar Theories

Written by Mike Wall:

"He has a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology from the University of Sydney, Australia, a bachelor's degree from the University of Arizona, and a graduate certificate in science writing from the University of California, Santa Cruz."

op.cit.

I don't want examples of theories. I'd like you to tell me what you understand a scientific theory to be.

 

[Kylie]

Is that why have around seven different theories as to how we got our moon?

Which idea has the most merit?

And if it's accepted, why do we keep getting more?

I believe this one is the latest one:

Earth Had Two Moons, New Model Suggests

Because we don't have enough evidence yet to eliminate all but one.

 

[Astrid]

I don't want examples of theories. I'd like you to tell me what you understand a scientific theory to be.

. Tough to find a creationist who could answer that.et alone explain why none can ever be proven.

Yec is a bit of a troglodyte, thriving only in the dark.

 

[AV1611VET]

Tough to find a creationist who could answer that.

He's deflecting.

Rather than answer as to why science sites refer to them as theories, he wants me to give him the definition.

I don't know what the definition is.

I don't care what the definition is.

And he knows science ain't my bag.

But I do know that a science site called them "theories."

So ... in his case ... deflection is the best policy.

 

[SelfSim]

He's deflecting.

Rather than answer as to why science sites refer to them as theories, he wants me to give him the definition.

I don't know what the definition is.

Well, Ok.
For starters, no theory has to be true in science. You are expecting there to be a singular truth that science must be homing in on. That's not science's purpose in developing theories. That's your purpose .. not science's.
That's why there can easily be mulitple 'competing' theories undergoing testing at any given time in science.
Your premise giving rise to your definition of what a scienctific theory 'must be', is simply flawed .. which is what prompted you to pose your questions. (IOW: wrong premise .. therefore, wrong questions).

 

[Bradskii]

He's deflecting.

Rather than answer as to why science sites refer to them as theories, he wants me to give him the definition.

I don't know what the definition is.

I don't care what the definition is.

And he knows science ain't my bag.

But I do know that a science site called them "theories."

So ... in his case ... deflection is the best policy.

He ain't deflecting. He's asking you to clarify your understanding of the term. And 'I don't know what the definition is' cuts no ice whatsoever. It would take you a few seconds to find an accurate definition. But you'd rather not because it answers your own question. Which would prompt the obvious response: Why ask a question when you know what the answer is?

The answer to that is because you thought it would be a zinger of a point to make. When all it did was confirm your lack of understanding of science.

Why ask scientific questions if, by your own admission, you don't know and don't care about the subject? I don't mind you wasting your own time but I'd prefer it if you didn't waste mine.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why ask scientific questions if, by your own admission, you don't know and don't care about the subject? I don't mind you wasting your own time but I'd prefer it if you didn't waste mine.

I don't care if I knew the most accurate definition of "theory" imaginable.

I don't care if it was so good, the Encyclopedia Britannica asked me if I would let them use it.

My question still remains:

Is that why have around seven different theories as to how we got our moon?

Swallow your pride and admit that we have around seven different theories because these scientific sites are using the wrong word, and stop trying to blame it on me.

I'm just an innocent bystander.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't care if I knew the most accurate definition of "theory" imaginable.

I don't care if it was so good, the Encyclopedia Britannica asked me if I would let them use it.

My question still remains:

Is that why have around seven different theories as to how we got our moon?

Swallow your pride and admit that we have around seven different theories because these scientific sites are using the wrong word, and stop trying to blame it on me.

I'm just an innocent bystander.

The only thing you are being blamed for is for asking scientific questions when you keep admitting that you have no interest or knowledge of science. Notwithstanding that the blazingly obvious answer has been given to you twice already.

Still puzzled? Then that's a problem that only you can solve by doing some investigation into the subject. I have neither the time or the inclination to explain scientific matters to somebody who is not the slightest bit interested in learning about them.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have neither the time or the inclination to explain scientific matters to somebody who is not the slightest bit interested in learning about them.

Then explain it to those sites.

They have the time and inclination to explain why they called it a "theory."

Tell them they're wrong.

Or will they send you away packing?

 

[Bradskii]

Then explain it to those sites.

They have the time and inclination to explain why they called it a "theory."

Tell them they're wrong.

Or will they send you away packing?

They're not wrong. You are. And again, if you're not interested in learning about these things, you will continue to be wrong.

 

[sjastro]

They're not wrong. You are. And again, if you're not interested in learning about these things, you will continue to be wrong.

What do you expect?
Incidentally there was a creationist convention in NZ where they gave the standard response to a question about scientific theories.

 

[SelfSim]

...
My question still remains:

Is that why have around seven different theories as to how we got our moon?

Swallow your pride and admit that we have around seven different theories because these scientific sites are using the wrong word, and stop trying to blame it on me.

I'm just an innocent bystander.

Please demonstrate your claim that 'these scientific sites are using the wrong word'.

 

[AV1611VET]

They're not wrong. You are.

LOL -- okay!

(That made me chuckle.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Please demonstrate your claim that 'these scientific sites are using the wrong word'.

First of all, I expected to be challenged on the definition of the word "theory" -- (this isn't my first rodeo).

Second of all, I was challenged to define "theory."

Thirdly, I didn't say it was wrong, did I?

My exact words were:

Is that why [we] have around seven different theories as to how we got our moon?

I still want an answer to that question.

 

[sjastro]

In the early 20th century there were seven different theories that attempted to explain why the speed of light was constant for all observers.
By far the wildest one was the last option on the list which ultimately was the only one which was supported by experiment and observation which changed our concepts of reality.

 

[Kylie]

I still want an answer to that question.

The trouble is that you seem to be using that word in it's common, everyday, layman's meaning of what science would call a hypothesis.

But then you suggest that since there are several theories, then scientists can't get it right and science is a hopeless tool.

But this debate technique relies on switching the definition halfway through in order to create a strawman.

What you really seem to be saying is, "If scientists have a bunch of hypotheses about how the moon formed and they can't tell which is correct, then theories have little value."

If you asked your question again and limited yourself to the actual scientific definitions for each word, then your question would fall flat on its face.

 

[SelfSim]

Thirdly, I didn't say it was wrong, did I?

Yes .. You did:

.. we have around seven different theories because these scientific sites are using the wrong word,

My exact words were:
Is that why [we] have around seven different theories as to how we got our moon?
I still want an answer to that question.

Are you wanting everyone to call these 'theories' hypotheses instead? Is that what you're fishing for?

The only difference I can see between those two concepts in this context, is the amount of testing that's been done against each respective proposition's predictions, (along with its corresponding consistent data).
The degree of 'fit' between the proposition's predictions and its test data, establishes the tentativeness, (or otherwise), of its assertions.
It doesn't really matter how many propositions there are, unless one is fixated on extracting some sort of 'truth' about 'how the moon must have formed'. That query is of no interest here, (or in science in general). It may be of casual interest, but it has no meaning as far as objective reality is concerned.

 

[SelfSim]

What you really seem to be saying is, "If scientists have a bunch of hypotheses about how the moon formed and they can't tell which is correct, then theories have little value."

If you asked your question again and limited yourself to the actual scientific definitions for each word, then your question would fall flat on its face.

Sure would.
For starters I'm yet to see anyone claim absolute 'correctness' in any question posed when researching astronomical body formation processes(?)

 

[AV1611VET]

-- Maybe one of these days? --