My Theory Challenge Poll

[AV1611VET]

Example: For about 2000 years, medicine was based on the idea that there are 4 humors ...

And during that time, was it not considered valid science?

That's why I stipulated "at one time" in the question.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm going to respectfully decline to answer your question, Philo.

I'm perturbed at the sudden backing down of what valid science is considered to be.

If you use this site's search engine, and type in "valid science" in quotes, you'll get 25 pages in reply.

Here's one of the older posts, using the term w/o the need to clarify:



I suspect some tomfoolery is going on around here.

...... somehow, I don't think that validity within science depends upon comments from some past CF poster or from Behe.

 

[AV1611VET]

...... somehow, I don't think that validity within science depends upon comments from some past CF poster or from Behe.

Do you know anyone, including yourself, who practices valid science?

(And who is that in your avatar?)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you know anyone, including yourself, who practices valid science?

I don't personally know any scientists. I've studied quite a few, though.

(And who is that in your avatar?)

Copernicus.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Have all [and are all] scientific theories been valid ones?

That's not a well-defined question until you define what you mean by 'valid' in this context.

If it satisfies the criteria for a scientific theory, does this make it a 'valid' scientific theory?

If a seat is something you can sit on, and you find something you can sit on, is it a 'valid' seat? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Asking about the validity of something should be binary.

The criteria for a scientific theory and scientific validity have changed over time.

If you buy a train ticket for a journey today, it is considered valid for a journey today, but it may not be considered valid for a journey tomorrow. You might also find that what you thought was a valid ticket for a journey today turns out not to be valid when you try to use it. Is it valid? was it valid?

It depends. More context is necessary to give a binary answer.

 

[Chesterton]

The criteria for a scientific theory and scientific validity have changed over time.

If you buy a train ticket for a journey today, it is considered valid for a journey today, but it may not be considered valid for a journey tomorrow. You might also find that what you thought was a valid ticket for a journey today turns out not to be valid when you try to use it. Is it valid? was it valid?

It depends. More context is necessary to give a binary answer.

I don't know if this is useful or not, but what you said reminded me of the difference between a married couple getting an annulment versus getting a divorce. In the former case, it's determined that the marriage was never valid to begin with. In the latter, it's determined that the marriage was valid, but has "gone bad", just as a valid scientific theory can "go bad" with further research.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not a well-defined question until you define what you mean by 'valid' in this context.

 

[AV1611VET]

It depends. More context is necessary to give a binary answer.

I see that term "scientific validity" used all the time without the need to clarify

And I don't feel I have to clarify it when I use it either.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I see that term "scientific validity" used all the time without the need to clarify

And I don't feel I have to clarify it when I use it either.

I hate to say this, but if this is truly your disposition where making an effort to 'reach' others is concerned, and this is your attitude toward truth, reality and the presentation of the Gospel, then you and I truly are at epistemological odds. I wish we weren't at odds, though. It'd be nice if you could have more empathy for those of us who have to struggle hard, even academically, in order to give the Christian faith a fair chance. But here you come, and you all too often brazenly feel that standing you're ground is to ignore people, shut them down and affront their sensibilities.

Does it really have to be this way? Why can't you be more like Paul in your comportment, like when he was on Mars Hill? I'm not saying you shouldn't get irritated, but does every point of discussion have to be a brick wall with you?

 

[AV1611VET]

... just as a valid scientific theory can "go bad" with further research.

I'm not familiar with a theory "going bad with further research."

I'm under the impression that all research has been exhausted on a hypothesis; then the hypothesis is labeled a "theory."

From there, it would take a "discovery," not "further research," to discard a valid theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does it really have to be this way? Why can't you be more like Paul in your comportment, like when he was on Mars Hill?

I'm not saying you shouldn't get irritated, but does every point of discussion have to be a brick wall with you?

Could we leave God, the Bible, theology, and religion out of this thread please and just talk pure science?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Could we leave God, the Bible, theology, and religion out of this thread please and just talk pure science?

Pure science? As a person who studies the field of the Philosophy of Science and the Nature of Science, what conceptual entity are you referring to specifically? What source or authority for some thing you're referring to as 'pure science,' or aspects of scientific 'validity,' am I supposed to subscribe to and by which, do science?

Earlier in a previous post, I gave you a couple of relevant articles that reflect my view, but you just pushed them away. The worst part of it is that you did so with hubris and didn't offer anything to replace it with. I mean, you seem to want to be a teacher, then teach us. What do you have to add or offer to all of the dozens--no hundreds--of scholars and scientists that I've already either read or heard?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I see that term "scientific validity" used all the time without the need to clarify

And I don't feel I have to clarify it when I use it either.

So what do you think they mean by it? Is it what you mean when you use it?

If you're not prepared to explain what you mean by the terms you use, some people might assume you don't know what they mean.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm not familiar with a theory "going bad with further research."

I'm under the impression that all research has been exhausted on a hypothesis; then the hypothesis is labeled a "theory."

From there, it would take a "discovery," not "further research," to discard a valid theory.

Not exactly. Further research may lead to a discovery that falsifies the theory, or may show how the theory explains the hitherto unexplained.

Einstein's theory of General Relativity is still being researched and tested - the idea is to see if it fails somewhere and so get a clue to a deeper understanding of what it explains, which results in a better theory, or to see if it can explain as yet unexplained observations.

In principle, scientific theories cannot be proved but can be falsified (with certain caveats). Falsification doesn't necessarily make them useless, as they may still provide useful results within certain limits, e.g. they may be valuable approximations of a more complete theory.

 

[Chesterton]

I'm not familiar with a theory "going bad with further research."

I don't know, you may be right. Phrenology was a hypothesis that "went bad". I suppose it wasn't a formal theory.

I'm under the impression that all research has been exhausted on a hypothesis; then the hypothesis is labeled a "theory."

I'm not sure all research is ever exhausted. Something weird: last summer my car wouldn't start. I don't know much about cars, but I knew the likely culprits were the battery, the alternator or the starter. I went on some car mechanic forums to see if I could find some info on how to diagnose the problem. I was amazed when I came across this one thread where seemingly knowledgeable mechanics were arguing with each other about the relationship between the battery and the alternator. I'm like "Seriously? This is 2023. We've put men on the moon, and the workings of the gas combustion engine aren't completely well-established?"

From there, it would take a "discovery," not "further research," to discard a valid theory.

I think those are aren't mutually exclusive. Further research could lead to a discovery, and an unexpected discovery could lead to the desire for further research.

 

[jayem]

And during that time, was it not considered valid science?

That's why I stipulated "at one time" in the question.

And I stipulated that good science is tentative. When new scientific discoveries are made--especially in the medical realm--old ideas and practices will likely be invalidated.

 

[Laodicean60]

I believe that science is constantly evolving and as man gets smarter the more we understand. The problem is we all have personal biases and motives. The health industry does not want you healed, it's bad for a business that's why I look at pharmaceuticals with skepticism. Doctors are ignorant of nutritional science.

When new scientific discoveries are made--especially in the medical realm--old ideas and practices will likely be invalidated.

What I've seen in the past couple of years is that certain groups don't want cures or change. In the 80s when non alcoholic fatty liver was introduced, alcoholics were the majority with fatty liver and now kids have it. Can you trust the science of big tobacco and big sugar and whatever else corporations want to sell us?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you trust the science of big tobacco and big sugar and whatever else corporations want to sell us?

Can I trust you to vote?

 

[Laodicean60]

Can I trust you to vote?

I voted.