cDK Theory

[Tiberius]

That was a "yes or no" question I asked. Do you have an answer?

And that was an question you posted in response to my question, "If you have a problem with some aspect of science, perhaps you could tell us where in that aspect the science is flawed?"

If you are going to have a go at Loudmouth for not answering, don't I also get to have a go at you for not answering my question?

 

[Loudmouth]

That was a "yes or no" question I asked. Do you have an answer?

Sure, every theory could be wrong. However, this doesn't seem to stop you from accepting the Germ Theory of Disease, now does it? Or would it be better to have conviction that evil fairies cause disease than to rely on a tentative scientific theory?

 

[Doveaman]

If the evidence supports a theory, then the theory is accepted. Newtonian physics is wrong, because it doesn't take into account the finite speed of light. However, it is so very nearly right that the difference can only be detected with the most sensitive instruments, so it serves us well enough for day to day use.

It is possible that evidence may suggest that a theory is right when later evidence suggests that it is wrong. This is what happened with newtonian physics. But that doesn't mean that it is as wrong as say, "Fairies did it".

I'm not impressed by you mental gymnastics.

And that was an question you posted in response to my question, "If you have a problem with some aspect of science, perhaps you could tell us where in that aspect the science is flawed?"

If you are going to have a go at Loudmouth for not answering, don't I also get to have a go at you for not answering my question?

I did answer your question, and with a follow-up question:

The aspect where a theory is said to be confirmed by evidence only for that same theory to be falsified a few years later.

Is it possible for a wrong theory to be supported by evidence that confirms it being right?

 

[Doveaman]

Is it possible for a wrong theory to be supported by evidence that confirms it being right?

Sure, every theory could be wrong.

So, according to you, every theory could be wrong despite having evidence that confirms it being right.

I rest my case.

 

[Tiberius]

As usual you reach the wrong conclusion.

The theory of gravity could be wrong. All we need to do is let go of a hammer and see it stay suspended in mid air.

What Loudmouth's point was is that every theory that is currently supported by science is falsifiable. That is, we can think of something that would prove it to be false.

 

[Phred]

The aspect where a theory is said to be confirmed by evidence only for that same theory to be falsified a few years later.

Is it possible for a wrong theory to be supported by evidence that confirms it being right?

What theory are you referring to? What scientific theories have been said to be confirmed by evidence only to be falsified a few years later?

I know of one that fits, do you? Not some crackpot idea but a scientific THEORY.

You make it seem as if this happens every other day and that's far from the truth. But go on, what are you thinking of?

 

[Tiberius]

I'm not impressed by you mental gymnastics.

My mental gymnastics? What are you talking about? All I said was that while explanations may be wrong, it's foolish to say that they are 100% correct or useless. Newtonian physics is wrong when it comes to gravity, but it's a lot closer to the truth than saying, "Big invisible and intangible rubber bands are responsible for gravity."

Surely you see that, don't you?

I did answer your question, and with a follow-up question:

Your question did not answer my question, because you ignore the fact that investigations lead to theories that are closer and closer to being correct as new evidence is found.

 

[Phred]

As usual you reach the wrong conclusion.

The theory of gravity could be wrong. All we need to do is let go of a hammer and see it stay suspended in mid air.

What Loudmouth's point was is that every theory that is currently supported by science is falsifiable. That is, we can think of something that would prove it to be false.

Well, no. If I let go of a hammer and saw it suspended in mid-air I wouldn't first look for holes in the theory of gravity. First I'd look for other causes because the Theory of Gravity is pretty well documented. Anything that has mass is attracted to other things that have mass. It's much more likely that after all the experimentation and such that's gone on that one isolated incident wouldn't be a hole in the theory but some strange happening unrelated to the Theory.

Other than that yes. All scientific theories are tentative. Not because we aren't secure in the data or the conclusions. But because we are not arrogant enough to believe we know everything. Gravity is tentative because all objects that fall could be being pulled by invisible fairies. The likelihood is remote but it's possible. One day some guy could invent a camera that would show these fairies going about their work and wouldn't we all be surprised?

I just love how creationists take a strength of the scientific method, that nothing is set in stone, and try to make it a weakness. Like picking an answer and sticking to it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is a better idea. Well, I guess to them it is since that's what they do.

 

[Phred]

A further point is that even if the theory changes... what does that matter? Say that fairies are discovered that pull everything toward the biggest object in the area. All the textbooks would have to be rewritten but objects still fall. All the data that's been collected still holds true. All the experiments that were conducted still have valid answers. So tomorrow you wake up and the explanations of all that data are different. Ok, then we all were wrong. But we did the best we could with the data we had.

If your point is that creationists could be right because of that loophole... you miss out on a few pertinent facts. Creationism isn't just an idea that's floating around out there minding its own business. Creationism is a failed scientific theory. Up until about 1750 it was the only explanation for the existence of the earth and the universe. Of course by then it was already showing cracks such as moving to heliocentrism from geocentrism. But still, there was no explanation for how life came to be, how man came to be, how so many different kinds of life came to be, how the earth came to exist and so on.

Then men started to try and affirm the creationist theory by looking for the evidence to back it up. They thought they'd find vast layers of sediment from a huge global flood. Nope. They thought they'd find animals created just as they are never changing. Nope. Of course, you creationists blame this on man sinning. You can't show the process by which a mistake causes the extinction of the Dodo bird but... hey, you were never very big on details anyway.

The point is that come the 1850s they'd been at it for about a hundred years and they hadn't found a lick of evidence to support creationism. The theory was abandoned and they started to look at the evidence the did find for the real way the earth came to be. It turned out to be much, much older than 4004 BC. There were many, many creatures that lived long before man ever came to exist on this planet. And then Darwin published his book. If he hadn't done it someone else would have. Evolution gave us the explanation for how life came to exist in such staggering variety. And for the last 150 years everyone has been trying to tear it down. At first other scientists who didn't want to be a part of destroying the church. Then the church itself. Now we have you creationists trying to keep the knowledge from children so they can't think for themselves. All the while screaming about truth.

But you had your day. You owned every method of communication. You owned all the schools. You owned every mind on threat of excommunication and still it came on. Because the truth isn't on the creationist side. And that's the truth here.

Creationism is a falsified, failed scientific theory. It was tried and found wanting. Trying to force it on us now is like pretending the Cubs have won the last ten world series. You can say it. You can say you believe it. You can even make up statistics that seem to prove it. But we all know it ain't so.

 

[driewerf]

I think it's interesting to think about light being created in transit.

Why?

 

[Tiberius]

Well, no. If I let go of a hammer and saw it suspended in mid-air I wouldn't first look for holes in the theory of gravity. First I'd look for other causes because the Theory of Gravity is pretty well documented.

lol, I thought the "This would falsify gravity if we could find no other cause for this happening" was obvious.

 

[driewerf]

That was a "yes or no" question I asked. Do you have an answer?

Talking abaout unanswered questions, Doveaman, there are some questions still waiting for you:
http://www.christianforums.com/t41380-4/#post58598686

 

[ToBeInChrist]

You seem to be dismissive, not cautious.

Point well taken.

Reality is not forced to meet your standards of comfort. In order to understand how the universe works you may need to go outside of your comfort zone.

True. There may be time where I err a bit too much on the side of caution, when more speculation and abstraction is warranted and leads to good results.

 

[Phred]

lol, I thought the "This would falsify gravity if we could find no other cause for this happening" was obvious.

Well, I did know what you meant but didn't want to let the creationists skate.

 

[Loudmouth]

So, according to you, every theory could be wrong despite having evidence that confirms it being right.

So do you accept the Germ Theory of Disease or not?

 

[Loudmouth]

Point well taken.

If you continue with these reasonable replies I don't think we can discuss this any further.

True. There may be time where I err a bit too much on the side of caution, when more speculation and abstraction is warranted and leads to good results.

From reading your posts I get the distinct feeling that you have not read much about the science involved in these fields. It is my own opinion that you are not in a position to say what is and isn't speculation. You would probably be surprised at the amount of testing and work that has gone into shoring up the fundamental principles of many scientific theories and measurements. Before you state that such-and-such is speculation I would strongly suggest that you do some research and find out if it really is speculation.

 

[Loudmouth]

And then Darwin published his book. If he hadn't done it someone else would have.

Actually, someone else did. Alfred Russel Wallace also discovered evolution through natural selection. When Darwin heard that Wallace was going to publish soon it prompted him to hurry up and publish as well. Wallace's work on biogeography was no doubt a strong inspiration for the theory.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

If you continue with these reasonable replies I don't think we can discuss this any further.

I prefer reasonable expressions of doubt or agreement instead of nasty styles of debate -- the more reasonable we get about this the more it will be a real discussion and less like a nasty debate.

From reading your posts I get the distinct feeling that you have not read much about the science involved in these fields.

Well it couldn't hurt if I put in some effort to read another book or a few journal articles here or there.

It is my own opinion that you are not in a position to say what is and isn't speculation.

On details of a specific topic of research, I'd want to have a better grasp of details/theories/research before assessing just how speculative or dubious various conclusions/interpretations are -- so I could agree with you to an extent, that on some specific topic or other I'd really want to be in a better position before spouting off too much about speculation.

On the other hand, there are matters of epistemology, philosophical study of science, methodological questions, questions about presuppositions, which are generally worthy of examination. So I think a general caution about speculation is in order.

In other words, I think more research and detailed understanding would allow either of us to arrive at a better assessment of the DEGREE of speculation or of reliance upon assumptions and to what DEGREE those assumptions are difficult to assess or may be warping interpretation in specific cases, and more specific ideas as to methodology and the limits/strengths/weaknesses/realm of appropriateness of a given methodology.

 

[Loudmouth]

I prefer reasonable expressions of doubt or agreement instead of nasty styles of debate -- the more reasonable we get about this the more it will be a real discussion and less like a nasty debate.

I completely agree. The winky at the end of the sentence was supposed to indicate sarcasm. This has been a very enjoyable conversation.

On the other hand, there are matters of epistemology, philosophical study of science, methodological questions, questions about presuppositions, which are generally worthy of examination. So I think a general caution about speculation is in order.

In other words, I think more research and detailed understanding would allow either of us to arrive at a better assessment of the DEGREE of speculation or of reliance upon assumptions and to what DEGREE those assumptions are difficult to assess or may be warping interpretation in specific cases, and more specific ideas as to methodology and the limits/strengths/weaknesses/realm of appropriateness of a given methodology.

Perhaps we could start with a specific example?

 

[ToBeInChrist]

The winky at the end of the sentence was supposed to indicate sarcasm.

As has been noted.

This has been a very enjoyable conversation.

Agreed.

Perhaps we could start with a specific example?

Hmm. How about the subject of fat and cholesterol and health?

Researchers noted a correlation between the amount of fat in people's diets and the amount of obesity. So then in the 70's there was talk about decreasing the amount of fats/oils in the diet, using margarine instead of butter. But then later on they discovered that there was 'good fat' and 'bad fat' and they couldn't figure out how margarine stayed solid at room-temperature and maybe margarine wasn't so good for you.

People with high cholesterol are told to reduce the intake of high-cholesterol foods, but is everyone able to control cholesterol by diet alone or aren't medicines most effective?

There's a difference between correlation and causation. We can look at correlations and do various studies in various ways, and we can set up controlled lab environments to isolate variables and identify causes in various other ways, but the one sort of study is very different from the other, and identifying a correlation isn't considered proof of causation. It may be that high fat diets are a cause of people becoming fat (at least high 'bad fat' diets), and it may also be that high-cholesterol diets are a cause of people having high cholesterol, but the correlative studies do not establish causation.