Hi Josephus. I think that you misunderstood what I meant. Let me explain a little:
Originally posted by Josephus
Hence, I disagree with your implied assertion that "accepted scientific theories" are the equivalent to "truth", and thus are not in anyway decided by popular opinion.
This is not at all what I implied:
I don't think that
accepted scientific theories are equivalent to
truths. Science is not a quest for
the truth but seeks models that will account for our observations of the physical world as precisely and reliably as possible.
One of the basic principles of science is to allways be ready to question a theory when new data are found. Considering an accepted theory as the unchanging truth would be contrary to this principle.
In this perspective, the
accepted scientific theory for a phenomenon is just our best shot at explaining it.
For me, to accept a theory is not simply to believe the guy(s) that found the theory: it implies that you have a minimum knowledge of the evidence presented to back up the theory (i.e that you have access to them or can reproduce them) and that you are able to critically analyse this evidence.
THIS, is why it is in no way decided by the public: because the public is most of the time not equipped to make this kind of analysis.
Originally posted by Josephus
keyword: "accepted" - accepted by whom? those with opinions.
As I explained above, I meant something much more precise than just "believed by the public".
accepted is not equivalent to
believed since it implies a minimum knowledge of the phenomena at stake and of the evidence gathered.
The answer to your question ("by whom") is then: by the scientists in the field.
Originally posted by Josephus
read for yourself the very words people use to claim validity. you'll come to find that much of the truth we think we "know" is actually an assumption about what someone else has "said". "accepted" in this sense of group opinion is simply another term for "popular".
This is certainly so among the internet community or among the general public.
Of course, what
we, as laymen, accept, is most of the time based on how we trust what others say. But by
accepted, I didn't mean accpeted by the laymen...
Originally posted by Josephus
keyword: "theories" - obviously not the facts themselves (otherwise they would become Physical Laws), but stories made up to fit the facts.
A physical law
is, just as a theory, what you call a "story made up to fit the facts". Could you explain me how Newton's
law of motion is any more factual than the
theory of relativity? It isn't. It fact, since this
law only works for speeds much lower than the speed of light and is then to be replaced by the
theory of relativity, we could say that it is
less of a fact than the theory of relativity is.
I suspect that the use of the words law or theory is more a question of fashion than anything else. Anyway, neither a theory nor a law are facts, and both have to be supported by facts. Your claim that "otherwise [theories] would become Physical Laws" shows a misunderstanding of what a law is in physics: it
is "just a theory", so to say...
Originally posted by Josephus
Belief in stories requires a subjective approach in accepting them. As such, any theory accepted which is not yours, is a theory accepted based on personal agreement - thus an "opinion" of what you believe to be true.
When the scientific community "evaluates" a theory, it does much more than just
read about your results: your evidence is examined and your experiments are reproduced by other scientists. If noone is able to reproduce your results, then your theory is not accepted. A mere opinion, however authoritative, is never considered sufficient.
Originally posted by Josephus
combine these two key words: "accepted theories", and one could just as easily replace them with: "popular opinion."
Hence, I disagree with your implied assertion that "accepted scientific theories" are the equivalent to "truth", and thus are not in anyway decided by popular opinion.
I hope that you understand better now why, in my previous post,
accepted scientific theories cannot be replaced by
public opinion.
And let me say it again clearly: never did I think or imply that a scientific theory was "the truth".