Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But most scientist can't convey what they mean to the "common man". If they could I would not us third party sources. By the way, these third party sources are 100% in favor of the scientist theories and they do they best that they can to defend those theories. It not like I'm relying on alt-science to get my understanding totally.Science is not done in books. "Third party" won't cut it. If you don't read the primary literature, you've missed it.
I was Biblically oriented first. But science, like plumbing, can't use theology as a tool. If the evidence doesn't like up with your beliefs, science can't help you. But then, neither can plumbing.I'm always the one who is confused. Maybe it is all you science oriented posters out there who can't calmly express what the heck you are talking about.
That's one of the things that tripped you up. But not the only thing.As I said to one of the other posters, theory and hypothesis are the same in "common man tongue
Actually, scientists have concluded that man evolved from other forms of human a few million years ago. Common descent of all living things on earth is a different issue. Would you like to learn how we know that it happened?Alot of scientists have the idea that man evolved from a single celled organism many many many millions of years ago.
It looks to me like you're mostly complaining in a general way that scientists don't do their work the way you think they should and keep reaching conclusions you don't like.I'm always the one who is confused. Maybe it is all you science oriented posters out there who can't calmly express what the heck you are talking about. As I said to one of the other posters, theory and hypothesis are the same in "common man tongue"; they are an idea. Alot of scientists have the idea that man evolved from a single celled organism many many many millions of years ago. You have your facts to back up your idea.
Continue reading my other posts to others about what I believe and how it's not only a theological theory.
That's true of economists, engineers, metallurgists, blacksmiths, plumbers, surgeons, dog trainers, etc. Pretty much anyone with an extensive understanding of a particular field, is not going to be able to quickly transfer their knowledge to the "common man." It they could, we wouldn't need experts.But most scientist can't convey what they mean to the "common man".
Darwin's theory isn't about the origin of life. If God just magically poofed the first living things into existence, evolution would still work exactly as the theory says. You've been tripped up by yet another creationist fantasy about evolutionary theory.So are you saying that these elements of life were brought together by some force (possibly miraculous and intelligent) and it was planned out by these elements of life that they were going to come together to form a simple single celled organism.
Stop with your scientific talk "you're confusing hypothesis with theory". Use "common man" language if you want someone to understand you. In "common man language hypothesis and theory are the exact same - an idea. And one has certain facts to back up their idea. You have an idea and these are the facts used to back it up - period.
No scientists have that idea. Science doesn't use miracles as explanations for things.So many certain scientist have an idea that humans began as a single celled organism miraculously put together in a primordial soup.
Which isn't science.Higher Power people have many theories but this is the one I will use and that is that a Higher Power created or manipulated humans (miraculously or by doing something with their genes).
Then why do you think us scientists should waste our time on things without facts and data behind them?Not many facts to go on right now but it is worth pursuing because it makes good sense.
If you cannot understand scientific language you have no business discussing the philosophy of science.Stop with your scientific talk "you're confusing hypothesis with theory". Use "common man" language if you want someone to understand you.
They can if the common man has a high school education.But most scientist can't convey what they mean to the "common man".
Words have meanings in this context, and you appear to be deliberately misusing them to make a dishonest argument.Stop with your scientific talk "you're confusing hypothesis with theory". Use "common man" language if you want someone to understand you.
There are no facts to back up creationism.In "common man language hypothesis and theory are the exact same - an idea. And one has certain facts to back up their idea. You have an idea and these are the facts used to back it up - period.
No scientists support that idea.So many certain scientist have an idea that humans began as a single celled organism miraculously put together in a primordial soup.
Why not go with the idea that has the most facts?Higher Power people have many theories but this is the one I will use and that is that a Higher Power created or manipulated humans (miraculously or by doing something with their genes). Not many facts to go on right now but it is worth pursuing because it makes good sense.
No scientists are saying that.Ok, now you are either lying or you don't know what you are talking about but what the "common man" gets from listening to alot in the scientific community is humans started out as single celled organisms
Yes, a basic understanding of science.and over a long long long period of time, we evolved into what we are today. Am I missing something here.
I had to sleep on this one. Sorry, I don't want to make it sound like the science community doesn't know what they are talking about and that alternate theories put out by non-scientist hold more credibility. People in the scientific fields have helped and informed the world on very crucial matters. It is just that some theories are a slap in the face to average people (and especially religious people). So just like Christians telling you that God created everything in six days is a slap in the face to you so "man first started out as a single celled organism" is a slap in the face to many religious people.
Of course, you are not going to see it that way because "you have the facts". As I said before, you may have 50 pieces to the 100,000 piece puzzle put together but you are "No Jack Kennedy" (the old throw back line from the Dan Quayle vs Lloyd Bentsen Vice Presidential Debate; I know it doesn't make sense here but it just popped into my head and I felt like using it).
That is not only a theological topic, it is a real scientific topic if one has eyes to see it. I'm sure you have heard of the Enuma Elish, the Akkadian creation story. There is information in there that sounds like a grand way to start thinking humans. I don't subscribe to everything that is put forth in the document but it is very reasonable and possible that something similar happened here on Earth. It make better sense than the single cells forming miraculously in primordial soup. This alternate theory may not have nearly as much physical evidence as the scientific one but it is worth pursuing.
I wouldn't call that a uniform usage in science. A theory is generally a model that explains a broad range of evidence, but it's quite acceptable to have two competing models that explain the same evidence and for which there is not yet evidence to distinguish them. Or for a theory to explain the same evidence as an existing model and to offer a tentative explanation for data that is hard to explain under the prior model, without yet being clearly superior.You're confusing hypothesis with theory. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been confirmed with massive amounts of evidence.
But most scientist can't convey what they mean to the "common man". If they could I would not us third party sources. By the way, these third party sources are 100% in favor of the scientist theories and they do they best that they can to defend those theories.
It's been explained to you what a theory is. More than once. If you admit to some confusion then it would benefit you to listen to the explanations of what common scientific terms mean.I'm always the one who is confused. Maybe it is all you science oriented posters out there who can't calmly express what the heck you are talking about. As I said to one of the other posters, theory and hypothesis are the same in "common man tongue"; they are an idea.
I'm not the type of person who likes others telling "this is how it is, you just have to believe us". So, I do my own investigating of the matter and the questions and comments and criticisms that I make are from what I gather from the scientific knowledge I read. Yes, I not that fluent in some of the scientific areas but if science is going to have us follow questionable theories, I want to have a basic understanding of the theories.If you cannot understand scientific language you have no business discussing the philosophy of science.
And it seemed very redundant and meaningless to me back then (some 50 years ago) as it does to me today. It sounds like some say "world salad", to a true science at heart person it makes sense but to the common person, a theory and a hypothesis are just an idea - same words, same meaning. As I mentioned in another post, when I explain somewhat complex topics to people, who aren't affluent in the area, I break it down so even a 10 year old can understand it (if necessary). Science needs to start communicating with the common man world better."Hypothesis" and "theory" are pretty basic terms. That is why they are taught to middle schoolers. (And are repeated in every basic science course from then on.)
The problem here is that you have contradictory goals. You want to understand the science well enough to judge whether it's sound or not, and you also want it explained in really simple terms. You can't have both -- not at the same time, that is. It's great to explain things in simple terms, and I've worked pretty hard at doing that myself from time to time, but that level of explanation will not give you enough accurate and detailed knowledge to make any kind of independent judgment about the validity of the science -- you have to trust the experts. Or you can put in the work to really understand the science, but that's a lot of work, like years worth.So we have to have science explain it's works in the simplest ways so all can understand (that want to). Like our government has checks and balances built into its system so does science. So, when I see something that is possibly undermining the worlds view on everyday life, I am going to get to know it and if necessary expose it.
If only all of science was explained so nicely. Thank you for that very well layout response. Now let's see if some one can do the same non-living materials coming together to create a living organism. In you example above, you had a problem with the Toyota Camry headlights. I'm sure it was investigated and many thoughts on the cause were pondered. After much investigation, the problem was identified and a solution was installed to correct the problem. Everything was there to make the investigation a success.When I see posts about scientists vs the “common man” as expounded in this thread it smacks very much of anti-intellectualism.
Anti-intellectualism is hostility to and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectualism, commonly expressed as deprecation of education and philosophy and the dismissal of art, literature, history, and science as impractical, politically motivated, and even contemptible human pursuits.[1] Anti-intellectuals may present themselves and be perceived as champions of common folk—populists against political and academic elitism—and tend to see educated people as a status class that dominates political discourse and higher education while being detached from the concerns of ordinary people. [Wikipedia]
Let me put my two cents worth in on the differences between a hypothesis and a theory based on my own work experience as a scientist rather than a common man which has now become a distinction in this thread.
I have used this example a number of times which not only also serves to show how a hypothesis develops into a theory as more data becomes available but also how it was used to fix an engineering problem.
Evolution has also 'evolved' as a theory over nearly 170 years as the volume of evidence increases including in other fields such as genetics.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?