Difference between a fact ,theory and a guess

[mindlight]

So the following are not facts:
- Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo.

FACT : By virtue of eyewitness reports from all sides of the battle, by relics from the battle field.

- The Moon orbits the Earth.

FACT: Again demonstrable by space ship or by trigonometry

- Stars are light years away from us.

SCIENTIFIC THEORY: Given Speed of light, trigonometric angles etc - has very high probability, but not incontrovertible as we do not know how light travels in deep space etc. Until we go to another star not demonstrable.

- The Earth has a solid core.

SCIENTIFC THEORY: Has a very high probability, but cannot be demonstrated


EDIT:
After discussion will Change my categorisation of Waterloo to a scientific theory, even though it is clearly an historical fact

 

[Mountainmike]

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

Neither do I like games.
I like science I am very good at it... I have been to the extremes of quantum physics.

You used the word fact: is the existence of the moon a fact?

 

[USincognito]

And there is atheist science..Dawkins crap.

"Atheist science"? lol

 

[VirOptimus]

Neither do I like games.
I like science I am very good at it... I have been to the extremes of quantum physics.

You used the word fact: is the existence of the moon a fact?

Been to the extremes of quantum physics? What does that even mean?

Until you show different my estimation is that you know very little about science, and even less about theology and philosophy.

 

[sfs]

FACT : By virtue of eyewitness reports from all sides of the battle, by relics from the battle field.

Neither of which play any role in your stated definition of "fact". Even you don't seem to accept your definition.

 

[mindlight]

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...

Thanks for your post. It reminded me of a lengthy discussion I once had in a relaxed state with my wife as to whether the washing up in the next room existed or not. She knew it was there, but neither of us had direct viewing of it, we questioned each others conceptual models (you always want to clean versus you never want to clean), only my wife had a direct memory of it. I knew that I could trust her and that she was a generally reliable source (she does not lie). In the end my simply getting up and viewing it could demonstrate that my wifes conceptual models and memories and statements held up in the real world and I did the washing up. There are some things not worth arguing about as they are clearly demonstrable or have such a high probaility value as to be obvious. Facts are things you really have to subscribe to if you want to live in the real world.

The blurring of boundaries between what cannot be demonstrated and what can is a serious Problem amongst many scientists today though

 

[Mountainmike]

Been to the extremes of quantum physics? What does that even mean?

Until you show different my estimation is that you know very little about science, and even less about theology and philosophy.

So that's your standard reply to people you don't know is it?

It is clear to me you know little about the reality of science.

Here is an actual fact.
Science believes that nothing exists till observed

Study the Copenhagen interpretation and bell experiments. Einstein lamented " he refused to believe the moon existed until he observed it" but was forced to concede it was true.

So your entire concept of the existence of the universe or moon outside your observation is false.

Indeed science is just a model.
That conjectures an infinite number of universes of all futures and pasts selected when you observe,

I suspect you know little of the thing called science you put faith in!

 

[USincognito]

FACT : By virtue of eyewitness reports from all sides of the battle, by relics from the battle field.

Did you forget your own definition?

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

 

[VirOptimus]

So that's your standard reply to people you don't know is it?

It is clear to me you know little about the reality of science.

Here is an actual fact.
Science believes that nothing exists till observed

Study the Copenhagen interpretation and bell experiments. Einstein lamented " he refused to believe the moon existed until he observed it" but was forced to concede it was true.

So your entire concept of the existence of the universe or moon outside your observation is false.

Indeed science is just a model.
That conjectures an infinite number of universes of all futures and pasts selected when you observe,

I suspect you know little of the thing called science you put faith in!

I see, well, my estimation is indeed correct. Thank you for the QED!

 

[mindlight]

Neither of which play any role in your stated definition of "fact". Even you don't seem to accept your definition.

This is an historical fact but strictly speaking a scientific theory only with a very high probability of truth. Historical Facts are measured by the Quality and quantity of eyewitness testimony rather than demonstrability.

Anyone can read the countless books on the battle, visit Stratford Saye (home of Wellington who won the battle), see Pictures painted by artsists on both sides, go the battle field itself to see Museums and relics that have been dug up on site, note that official government records for France and the UK include accounts of the battle.

 

[mindlight]

Did you forget your own definition?

No my definition remains though I have changed my Waterloo answer. The difference between an historical fact and a scientific fact is the Quality and quantity of the eyewitness sources rather than the ability to conjure up 2 opposing armies on the field of Waterloo everytime someone doubts the battle took place.

But a scientific fact requires Demonstration or by Definition it is not a scientific fact.

But this is a good example of the limits of science as a method for finding out the truth of a matter compared to history

 

[expos4ever]

And there is atheist science..Dawkins crap.

No.

Dawkins is an atheist, and he is also a scientist. These two positions are conceptually distinct.

I am an engineer. I am also a Christian.

Does that mean there is such a thing as “Christian engineering”.

Of course not.

 

[mindlight]

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

Big Bang is a theory that cannot be duplicated , makes no clear predictions of any practical worth and given our limited vision of the universe may not explain anything. So yes it is speculation based on limited observations.

It does not really matter if a Christian came up with it. The point is that it does not give any kind of certainty about our origins

 

[mindlight]

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

Catholic priests also subscribed to a Ptolemaic vision of the stars for many years. This thread is about the level of certainty that can be ascribed to something. Fact is BBT is a best guess of no practical worth.

 

[mindlight]

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.

All Christians subscribe to creatio ex nihilo. But BBT is in effect an attempt to marry religion with an old view of the universe. It requires billions of years to be a credible theory. Since absolutely nothing can be proven scientifically over those kinds of time spans it is just guessing of little practical worth.

 

[mindlight]

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.

You could not even demonstrate the battle of Waterloo took place scientifically even though it is an obvious historical fact. If an event just 200 years ago is not demonstrable what chance has a process you say took billions of years?!

 

[VirOptimus]

You could not even demonstrate the battle of Waterloo took place scientifically even though it is an obvious historical fact. If an event just 200 years ago is not demonstrable what chance has a process you say took billions of years?!

Just because you dont understand it doesnt mean its not doable.

 

[mindlight]

Just because you dont understand it doesnt mean its not doable.

I said you could not demonstrate it using strictly scientific methods. Prove me wrong if you can

 

[VirOptimus]

I said you could not demonstrate it using strictly scientific methods. Prove me wrong if you can

Im in no way responsible for your education.

 

[Silmarien]

Catholic priests also subscribed to a Ptolemaic vision of the stars for many years. This thread is about the level of certainty that can be ascribed to something. Fact is BBT is a best guess of no practical worth.

Because it was the best theory on the table for many years. Even Ptolemaic astronomy was of real worth at one point, given that it was supported by the calculations. People weren't just making stuff up.

All Christians subscribe to creatio ex nihilo. But BBT is in effect an attempt to marry religion with an old view of the universe. It requires billions of years to be a credible theory. Since absolutely nothing can be proven scientifically over those kinds of time spans it is just guessing of little practical worth.

You are familiar with how astronomy works, I hope? People build models to best explain the empirical observations--this is how Ptolemaic astronomy was eventually overthrown in favor of Capernican astronomy, since once Kepler came onto the scene and ditched the idea of perfect circular orbits, the heliocentrists finally got their calculations together so that their model explained more.

The Big Bang Theory is popular because it is currently the best explanation of empirical observations. Not because of any sort of philosophical agenda. The fact that it requires billions of years is not actually a problem for it.