Difference between a fact ,theory and a guess

[mindlight]

Arguing on this Forum on and off for some 15 years now I have noticed that many people seem unable to distinguish what can be definitely known (ie a fact ) and what is a scientific theory and what is a guess.

This thread is going to offer a definition which no doubt a whole load of people will disagree with.

FACT:A fact is demonstrable with repeatable experimentation that anybody with the right equipment and appropriate training could duplicate.

THEORY:A scientific theory is a way of explaining a lot of facts by presenting a model which handles this evidence in a plausible fashion. The value of a scientific theory is weighted by:

1) its explanatory power
2) its ability to duplicate what is described ie. A theory of lifes emergence should also be able to facilitate the creation of life or refer to credible sources with a proven track record of creating life or it is merely a guess
3) by the ability to predict events before they happen e.g. an Asteroid will hit Jupiter at 5 o clock Friday. The sun will rise on January 1st in Lagos Nigeria at precisely....

GUESS:On this Basis I would suggest that the three pillars of modern naturalistic science are all guesses and should be regarded with a degree of agnosticism at best:

1) Big Bang
2) Chemical Emergence of Life - absolutely no supporting factual evidence whatsoever!!!!
3) Biological Evolution

EDIT:
As a result of the subsequent discussion I think it is worth distinguishing between historical and scientific facts. The battle of Waterloo for example is an historical fact verified by innumerable high quality witnesses and sources. But it is not a scientific fact cause it cannot be demonstrated incontrovertibly to have taken place.

 

[VirOptimus]

Arguing on this Forum on and off for some 15 years now I have noticed that many people seem unable to distinguish what can be definitely known (ie a fact ) and what is a scientific theory and what is a guess.

This thread is going to offer a definition which no doubt a whole load of people will disagree with.

FACT:A fact is demonstrable with repeatable experimentation that anybody with the right equipment and appropriate training could duplicate.

THEORY:A scientific theory is a way of explaining a lot of facts by presenting a model which handles this evidence in a plausible fashion. The value of a scientific theory is weighted by:

1) its explanatory power
2) its ability to duplicate what is described ie. A theory of lifes emergence should also be able to facilitate the creation of life or refer to credible sources with a proven track record of creating life or it is merely a guess
3) by the ability to predict events before they happen e.g. an Asteroid will hit Jupiter at 5 o clock Friday. The sun will rise on January 1st in Lagos Nigeria at precisely....

GUESS:On this Basis I would suggest that the three pillars of modern naturalistic science are all guesses and should be regarded with a degree of agnosticism at best:

1) Big Bang
2) Chemical Emergence of Life - absolutely no supporting factual evidence whatsoever!!!!
3) Biological Evolution

Nope, you dont understand science.

 

[USincognito]

Was the OP meant to be ironic?

 

[sfs]

FACT:A fact is demonstrable with repeatable experimentation that anybody with the right equipment and appropriate training could duplicate.

So the following are not facts:
- Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo.
- The Moon orbits the Earth.
- Stars are light years away from us.
- The Earth has a solid core.

 

[Mountainmike]

I disagree at philosophical level.
Sorry to pick nits but it is important, I support your general conclusion.

That an experiment repeats precisely does not make the existence of the underlying phenomenon a fact, since the phenomenon tested by the experiment is generally an artefact of the scientific model not the underlying universe.

The problem is our observation of our universe is limited to concepts in our sensor space, and by way of simple example in a sphere in a 3D world is seen only as a circle in 2d like a TV picture.

The circle is a projection so in a complex world all our measurements are of the limited projection, in our observation world, not the underlying object. Eg A bat has a wholly different model of the world.

This matters. Is an electron real? Or is it a model of what we see? Is aparticle or wave just a model? Do either exist outside our heads? Indeed do any of them exist before observation? Copenhagen says no.

Hawking got there in the end - when he recognised there is no unique model with his concept of Model dependent reality.

The starkest simple example of this is persistent misquoting of ohms law in almost every book. The usually quotated equation, is just a definition of resistance. It is not a law. Ohms law is the far less defined statement that resistance is roughly constant for some materials over a range of operating points. I can show you many materials that don't behave according to ohms law.

Not such a defined universe then. Just an observation model.
Nor are the hole/ electron charge transport models fundamental - they too are a model.


So the way atheists use the word "fact" to describe just a repetition of behaviour, is totally misleading since it has little to say about what the universe is... only what it usually does in as far as we perceive it.

Dawkins doesn't even seem to know what a hypothesis is.

As you rightly say -random appearance of the first cell - abiogenesis is pure conjecture. It doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis. It cannot be repeated and does not repeat. There is no mechanism for it. No experiment can be contrived to validate it, So it is not even a hypothesis Yet I see it called a theory by illinformed atheists all the time. It is not a theory , it is the name of a gaping hole in a conjectured paradigm of life as a chemical accident,

These people who put blind faith in science would not believe how strange some of the paradoxes they have to confront! Is the moon real before you observe it? Fortunately the paradoxes are a n illusion born of the fact science does not describe the underlying universe, just a model of how it normally behaves.

So speaks a now rested ex postgrad professional physicist, one time involved in both cosmological and electronic physics, and a company involved in genetics...

Arguing on this Forum on and off for some 15 years now I have noticed that many people seem unable to distinguish what can be definitely known (ie a fact ) and what is a scientific theory and what is a guess.

This thread is going to offer a definition which no doubt a whole load of people will disagree with.

FACT:A fact is demonstrable with repeatable experimentation that anybody with the right equipment and appropriate training could duplicate.

THEORY:A scientific theory is a way of explaining a lot of facts by presenting a model which handles this evidence in a plausible fashion. The value of a scientific theory is weighted by:

1) its explanatory power
2) its ability to duplicate what is described ie. A theory of lifes emergence should also be able to facilitate the creation of life or refer to credible sources with a proven track record of creating life or it is merely a guess
3) by the ability to predict events before they happen e.g. an Asteroid will hit Jupiter at 5 o clock Friday. The sun will rise on January 1st in Lagos Nigeria at precisely....

GUESS:On this Basis I would suggest that the three pillars of modern naturalistic science are all guesses and should be regarded with a degree of agnosticism at best:

1) Big Bang
2) Chemical Emergence of Life - absolutely no supporting factual evidence whatsoever!!!!
3) Biological Evolution

 

[Silmarien]

The Big Bang isn't a pillar of modern naturalistic science. It was first posited by a Catholic priest.

 

[LightLoveHope]

Nope, you dont understand science.

The term guess here should be translated hypothesis.

A theory is a way of explaining observed behaviour where an experiment will show whether the theory is denied or not.

What is confusing is science now disproves things rather than proves them as nothing is absolute and often a subset of other effects yet to be disclosed.

The foundation of science are these experiments. Metaphysics is the area where there is no experiment which can distinguish a hypothesis from idea to observable behaviour. For believers in evolution it is a fact yet to be proved. And it is hard for believers often to admit it is a belief rather than science.

 

[lasthero]

The Big Bang isn't a pillar of modern naturalistic science. It was first posited by a Catholic priest.

I always find it kind of odd when this is brought up, as if the Catholic priest in question only came up with the big bang through his priesthood. Yes, he was a priest, but he wasn't JUST a priest - he also had an extensive education in cosmology, astrophysics, and mathematics. That he was a priest doesn't negate any of that.

 

[VirOptimus]

The term guess here should be translated hypothesis.

A theory is a way of explaining observed behaviour where an experiment will show whether the theory is denied or not.

What is confusing is science now disproves things rather than proves them as nothing is absolute and often a subset of other effects yet to be disclosed.

The foundation of science are these experiments. Metaphysics is the area where there is no experiment which can distinguish a hypothesis from idea to observable behaviour. For believers in evolution it is a fact yet to be proved. And it is hard for believers often to admit it is a belief rather than science.

Science do not require "belief", "belief" is for religion.

Science is a tool do describe physical reality, no more no less.

Evolution is a fact, the ToE is an incredibly well-supported scientific theory on how evolution happen. Not accepting science is denying physical reality, not a good place to be.

 

[Mountainmike]

Science certainly does need belief.

Or at least ... a philosophy of existence based on it does.

Question for you.
Do you believe the moon exists before you observe it?
If so why... other than faith?

The atheist view of science, is not supported by science even!

Science do not require "belief", "belief" is for religion.

Science is a tool do describe physical reality, no more no less.

Evolution is a fact, the ToE is an incredibly well-supported scientific theory on how evolution happen. Not accepting science is denying physical reality, not a good place to be.

 

[VirOptimus]

It certainly does.

Question for you.
Do you believe the moon exists before you observe it?
If so why... other than faith?

The atheist view of science, is not supported by science even!

No, that is not faith.

There are no "atheist" science. There is only science.

Mixing science with religion is bad science and even worse theology.

 

[Silmarien]

I always find it kind of odd when this is brought up, as if the Catholic priest in question only came up with the big bang through his priesthood. Yes, he was a priest, but he wasn't JUST a priest - he also had an extensive education in cosmology, astrophysics, and mathematics. That he was a priest doesn't negate any of that.

Well, yes. Catholic priest-scientists are still a thing, and all religious people interested in science should be paying attention to them. The point is that the Big Bang wasn't proposed as part of some naturalistic atheistic agenda to undermine religion. If anything, it actually provides empirical support for the Judeo-Christian notion of Creation, so it is very strange when people on either side try to fabricate some sort of conflict between the Big Bang Theory and Genesis. There is none.

People can whine about evolution all they want, though I think it's stupid, but unless they want to toss out creatio ex nihilo, they should be happy with the Big Bang.

 

[Mountainmike]

No, that is not faith.

There are no "atheist" science. There is only science.

Mixing science with religion is bad science and even worse theology.

Answer my question.
Do you believe the moon exists before you observe it.
If so why?

And there is atheist science..Dawkins crap.

 

[VirOptimus]

Answer my question.
Does the moon exist before you observe it.
If so why?

My observing or not observing things do not in any way change facts.

-added- If its not on a quantum level where observation may in fact change facts.

 

[USincognito]

So the way atheists use the word "fact" to describe just a repetition of behaviour, is totally misleading since it has little to say about what the universe is... only what it usually does in as far as we perceive it.

Yeah, "atheists".

[Qoute]As you rightly say -random appearance of the first cell - abiogenesis is pure conjecture. It doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis. It cannot be repeated and does not repeat. There is no mechanism for it. No experiment can be contrived to validate it, So it is not even a hypothesis Yet I see it called a theory by illinformed atheists all the time. It is not a theory , it is the name of a gaping hole in a conjectured paradigm of life as a chemical accident,[/quote]

I don't know why some are so obsessed with "the first cell" as that phrase really mean anything without further clarification. That said, there is nothing in abiogenetic research that claims "random appearance appearance of the first cell". You also seem to be ignorant of the research that has been conducted over the last five decades. This area of inquiry has moved far beyond the successful Miller-Urey experiment.

And I'm not aware any "atheists" who claim that abiogenesis is a theory. Perhaps you could cite one doing so?

 

[Mountainmike]

My observing or not observing things do not in any way change facts.

For the last time do you believe the moon exists before you observe it?
Straight yes or no.

 

[VirOptimus]

For the last time do you believe the moon exists before you observe it?
Straight yes or no.

Your questin does not make sense. I don "believe" the moon exist for any reasonable definition of belief.

I accept facts, no more, no less.

Belief is for god(s), magic and such things.

 

[USincognito]

I always find it kind of odd when this is brought up, as if the Catholic priest in question only came up with the big bang through his priesthood. Yes, he was a priest, but he wasn't JUST a priest - he also had an extensive education in cosmology, astrophysics, and mathematics. That he was a priest doesn't negate any of that.

Since the OP is not so subtly suggesting that BBT is an "atheistic guess", I'd say it's entirely germane.

 

[Mountainmike]

Your questin does not make sense. I don "believe" the moon exist for any reasonable definition of belief.

I accept facts, no more, no less.

Belief is for god(s), magic and such things.

Is the existence of the moon independent of you a fact?

 

[VirOptimus]

Is the existence of the moon independent of you a fact?

Just say what you want to say, I dont like semantic games.