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.
oh, I'm so sorry my redneck vocabulary doesn't match yours....Numenor said:No wonder you have no idea what you're talking about. A theory gives an explanation to observed facts. A theory in the scientific sense is far far more than just an 'idea'.
actually (and I'm really surprised you don't know this) Wikipeidia isn't exactly the best source to use, since anyone can post anything whether it's true or not...however I did visit dictionary.com and even though the vocabulary is different, the meanings are pretty much the sameDannager said:WOAH! Okay, I'm going to stop you right there. Immediately go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory. You need to read atleast the entire section labeled "Science", and I would suggest taking a look at more than that. A theory is far more that just an unproven idea, and a fact is absolutely not a proven theory. Theories do not become facts, and facts were never theories. They are two completely different concepts used to support scientific discoveries.
Once you've had a chance to review what a theory means and how it relates to facts, let me know. Then I'll tackle the rest of your post.
Gwenyfur said:actually (and I'm really surprised you don't know this) Wikipeidia isn't exactly the best source to use, since anyone can post anything whether it's true or not...
however I did visit dictionary.com and even though the vocabulary is different, the meanings are pretty much the same
A recent scientific study has rated Wikipedia on par with the Encyclopedia Brittanica in accuracy when it comes to scientific concepts. I assure you, their definition of theory and the article surrounding it are entirely accurate. As The Lady Kate noted, it is subject to review by experts in the relevant field.Gwenyfur said:actually (and I'm really surprised you don't know this) Wikipeidia isn't exactly the best source to use, since anyone can post anything whether it's true or not...
No, you don't know what means what. A fact is not a proven theory, and a theory is far more than an unproven idea. Please read the Wikipedia article that I linked to. It is accurate, concise and informative and will do you a great deal of good when it comes to understanding the topic that you are discussing.however I did visit dictionary.com and even though the vocabulary is different, the meanings are pretty much the sameBear with the redneck in me...I'm not the most eloquent, but that doesn't mean I don't know what means what
Note that it tells you that a theory is used to explain facts. Facts are observations, theories are explanations for why we observe facts. Please read the Wikipedia article, it will explain the relationship between theories and facts far better than I can in my own words.Dictionary.com said:A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Well I actually used pretty much the same words as you, just in the right orderGwenyfur said:oh, I'm so sorry my redneck vocabulary doesn't match yours....
same idea...same difference
For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles--one from each site on a given topic--side by side, but were not told which article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews from its field of experts.
In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.
[Wales (wikipedia founder)] also acknowledged that the error rate for each encyclopedia was not insignificant, and added that he thinks such numbers demonstrate that broad review of encyclopedia articles is needed.
Huh, I wasn't aware that there was as much as a 25% disparity in smaller inconsistencies. For the time being, Wikipedia will suffice, as it atleast has the major points intact and that's really all Gwenyfur needs right now. Quite frankly, though, I still don't believe the inconsistencies to be a significant threat to the ability to find accurate information on Wikipedia, especially considering it has a much more extensive nature than the Encyclopedia Britannica (and it is peer-edited).Remus said:As is often the case, there's more to the story. Here's an article talking about this study:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5997332.html
So Gwenyfur, you are right to be skeptical.
It's just two links away from the zdnet article.Dannager said:It would help to see some examples of what they meant by "factual errors, omissions or misleading statements". It would also help to know whether or not they included scientific articles flagged as disputed.
True, but it does show how things are presented here in a much better light than is warranted. I posted a link to the details, which was very easy to find. Im not sure why Im the only one to find it. Take a look at the errors. If you want to claim that the wiki is reliable, then by all means, use it. Just dont be surprised when you get called on it.shernren said:And 2% error isn't going to change "theory" into "just a theory which really isn't confirmed even though thousands of scientists work day and night on experiments any one of which could go wrong and disprove it."
Numenor said:What this does show also is that peer-review is a very powerful process for spotting and correcting error. I'm sure all those articles in Wikipedia and Britannica have been or will be cleaned up.
The vast majorty of the authors are not qualified to write what they do.Nature said:As well as comparing the two encyclopaedias, Nature surveyed more than 1,000 Nature authors and found that although more than 70% had heard of Wikipedia and 17% of those consulted it on a weekly basis, less than 10% help to update it.
I really don't know. I don't follow their research. I am curious how the possibility of Creationist research being wrong would make the Wiki any more reliable. Or is this just some logical fallacy? Who can put a name on this fallacy? I cant think of it at the moment.So who peer-reviews Creationist research?
Actually, I'd say that 80 or so editors per 1000 Nature authors is a pretty good figure. Extrapolated to the entire scientific journal community, that's a lot of people - far more than I expect any other published encyclopedia contracts for their scientific entries.Remus said:The vast majorty of the authors are not qualified to write what they do.
Dannager said:Actually, I'd say that 80 or so editors per 1000 Nature authors is a pretty good figure. Extrapolated to the entire scientific journal community, that's a lot of people - far more than I expect any other published encyclopedia contracts for their scientific entries.
I'm not certain. I imagine a few thousand, but if you can find a figure by all means let us know.Remus said:How many thousands of authors do you think they have?
Probably a good number, but then again there are a lot of other scientific journals out there and only a select few people get published each issue in Nature. There are a lot of scientists out there.How many of those authors also write for other journals?
And how many of these pertain to entries on science that people writing in Nature would be editing? I imagine not all that many, considering how little of a percentage scientific articles make up on Wikipedia.The Wiki reports that they have had over 100,000 people who have edited at least 10 times.
Again, this extrapolation is based on the presumption that the people editing more than ten times are only doing so to scientific articles. As there are huge swaths of articles that are not scientific ones, and as someone must have put them there, I don't think this is a valid assumption to make.To reach a low 10%, you'd have to extrapolate that out to over 100 journals, or over 10,000 authors. Again, that would be assuming that the rate of contribution is consistent. Possible? Perhaps, but is 10% really good? I would say definitely not!
Oh, I'm sure we can estimate this. Let's see, judging by the ToC, I'd estimate that the current issue of Nature has about 100 authors. Taking this back 10 years gives us about 12,000 authors. This is assuming that none of these authors published more than once which is hilghly unlikely. That would give us around 1200 authors who have contributed to the Wiki. Judging by this, it would seem that 10% is a valid estimation of how many experts vs. laymen have contributed to the Wiki.Dannager said:I'm not certain. I imagine a few thousand, but if you can find a figure by all means let us know.
So it's safe to assume that we can't use the same number of authors for every journal since many won't be unique authors. Would you agree with this?Probably a good number, but then again there are a lot of other scientific journals out there and only a select few people get published each issue in Nature. There are a lot of scientists out there.
You have a valid point. So what do you think would be a fair number? It would seem that you are in a catch-22. Either the number of experts contributing is low, thus the number of errors in the Wiki is high, or there are a high percentage of experts contributing to the Wiki and yet the number of errors is still high. If the latter is true, then it shows that either the experts are publishing errors, ignoring errors, or do not have enough influence.And how many of these pertain to entries on science that people writing in Nature would be editing? I imagine not all that many, considering how little of a percentage scientific articles make up on Wikipedia.
Again, this extrapolation is based on the presumption that the people editing more than ten times are only doing so to scientific articles. As there are huge swaths of articles that are not scientific ones, and as someone must have put them there, I don't think this is a valid assumption to make.
Nature has German, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean versions. How many of those authors do you think only speak English?EDIT: Also worth noting - I just took a look at the statistics viewer on Wikipedia, and though 100,000 people have edited articles at least 10 times, only 50,000 of them have done so with articles on the primary, English site.
Remus said:Oh, I'm sure we can estimate this. Let's see, judging by the ToC, I'd estimate that the current issue of Nature has about 100 authors. Taking this back 10 years gives us about 12,000 authors. This is assuming that none of these authors published more than once which is hilghly unlikely. That would give us around 1200 authors who have contributed to the Wiki. Judging by this, it would seem that 10% is a valid estimation of how many experts vs. laymen have contributed to the Wiki.
So it's safe to assume that we can't use the same number of authors for every journal since many won't be unique authors. Would you agree with this?
You have a valid point. So what do you think would be a fair number? It would seem that you are in a catch-22. Either the number of experts contributing is low, thus the number of errors in the Wiki is high, or there are a high percentage of experts contributing to the Wiki and yet the number of errors is still high. If the latter is true, then it shows that either the experts are publishing errors, ignoring errors, or do not have enough influence.
Nature has German, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean versions. How many of those authors do you think only speak English?
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?