The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 29,137
- 12,993
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
That's the funny thing about evidence. By definition, it's true.
Upvote
0
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.
That's the funny thing about evidence. By definition, it's true.Interesting how you equate "evidence" with "truth."
That's the funny thing about evidence. By definition, it's true.
One doesn't interpret facts. They are just facts. The important things about hypotheses is, they have to be testable. When they are tested, and the evidence confirms their predictions, that's a fact. When this is done repeatedly, the hypothesis is regarded as true and is then a theory.Do those who interpret it know it's true?
One doesn't interpret facts. They are just facts. The important things about hypotheses is, they have to be testable. When they are tested, and the evidence confirms their predictions, that's a fact. When this is done repeatedly, the hypothesis is regarded as true and is then a theory.
Those who moved immunology from a hypothesis to a workable theory would disagree with you. So would the hundreds of millions of people whose lives were saved by their theory.That's a lot of work, just to replace something that is wrong with something that is wrong.
So would the hundreds of millions of people whose lives were saved by their theory.
I can't think of a scientific theory that killed anyone.For every life saved by science, how many have been taken?
To be fair, there have been theories that were held up as scientific at one point to justify murder on a number of scales. Eugenics, for example.I can't think of a scientific theory that killed anyone.
To be fair, there have been theories that were held up as scientific at one point to justify murder on a number of scales. Eugenics, for example.
As you probably know, Darwin wrote that even letting weaker people die amounted to an "overwhelming evil." (The Descent of Man) And later Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that eugenics was scientifically wrong, as well as being evil. Removing harmful recessives would require many generations of very strong controls on marriage.To be fair, there have been theories that were held up as scientific at one point to justify murder on a number of scales. Eugenics, for example.
There is no scientific theory of abortion rights. How silly.
I wasn't aware of Darwin's opinion on the matter.As you probably know, Darwin wrote that even letting weaker people die amounted to an "overwhelming evil." (The Descent of Man) And later Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that eugenics was scientifically wrong, as well as being evil. Removing harmful recessives would require many generations of very strong controls on marriage.
This feels like you're splitting hairs, since it was accepted as a science alongside other similar "sciences" such as phrenology. So while it may be a discredited science, it at one time enjoyed scientific approval to a certain degree.It was never a theory, but a social campaign posing as science. Remember, a theory is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly verified by evidence. Nothing of the kind happened with eugenics. Moreover, many eugenicists were opposed to even forcible sterilization. Dr. William Tinkle, a founder of the Institute for Creation Research, was typical in suggesting that sterilization of people he assumed to be "inferior" should be voluntary, although he thought such people should not be allowed to marry.
The issue there is, once something has entered the public imagination as a "science" it takes on a certain authority. So while the nazi campaign relying on it may have been discredited within the scientific literature, that hadn't become a widespread understanding until much later. It still enjoyed acceptance among US and British academics and political figures. Though this all comes down to the demarcation problem, since there isn't always a hard defined line between science and psuedoscience.By the time the Nazis picked up the idea, the entire subject had been debunked by science.
Seems a bit obvious, especially since any discussion of what is an isn't a "right" is outside the scope of science. Unfortunately, popular imagination seems to think "science" is a far broader field than it is rather than recognizing that it is all about limiting the scope of research to the testable.There is no scientific theory of abortion rights. How silly.
Today's winner.Seems a bit obvious, especially since any discussion of what is an isn't a "right" is outside the scope of science. Unfortunately, popular imagination seems to think "science" is a far broader field than it is rather than recognizing that it is all about limiting the scope of research to the testable.
Actually, phrenology wasn't a recognized theory, either. It was a hypothesis, which made a good number of predictions. But none of them turned out to be verified when tested.This feels like you're splitting hairs, since it was accepted as a science alongside other similar "sciences" such as phrenology.
That would be like saying slavery and segregation are Christian values, since some Christian groups asserted that these were God's will for some people.So while it may be a discredited science, it at one time enjoyed scientific approval to a certain degree.
Which is entirely apart from what qualifies as a scientific theory.The issue there is, once something has entered the public imagination as a "science" it takes on a certain authority.
That's why I brought up the demarcation problem, because realistically science consists of what people believe science to be. There are no hard, clearly defined lines that say "this is science" and "this isn't science." There's often a blurring at the edges, and if something enjoys broad acceptance as a science then whether or not it fits however you're defining science it must be considered within the realm of science.Actually, phrenology wasn't a recognized theory, either. It was a hypothesis, which made a good number of predictions. But none of them turned out to be verified when tested.
That would be like saying slavery and segregation are Christian values, since some Christian groups asserted that these were God's will for some people.
We're talking about scientific theories here, not different people's idea of what science is.
Which depends on who we ask, though it seems to me that if something enjoys widespread acceptance as a science for any period of time even if it doesn't fit our modern understanding of what science consists of it was scientific.Which is entirely apart from what qualifies as a scientific theory.
Yes, and I'm certainly not pointing at things accepted as science being used as justification for murder as a criticism of science per se. Rather, I'm pointing it out because there is often an idealized picture of science as if it isn't just as ripe for abuse as any other human system of thought. It produces extremely useful information, but idealizing it is dangerous. That is of course completely ignoring the large pink elephant in the room of just how terribly effective science has made warfare in the 20th/21st century and instead purely focusing on how purported sciences have been used to justify evil.There certainly have been faulty scientific theories. Phlogiston, for example. The theory made a number of predictions, all of which were verified by evidence. But it turns out that oxidation was a better fit with the evidence. Even though phlogiston was a reasonably useful theory, it was replaced by oxidation.
But that didn't kill anyone, either. So the question remains; have there ever been a scientific theory that actually killed anyone? As you see, there are quite a number of them that have saved hundreds of millions of lives.
There is no scientific theory of abortion rights.
How silly.
Technology can do that. But theories do not. You're confusing the two. Theory makes technology possible, but it doesn't kill.Science doesn't need theories to maim and kill.
No. Science is a method of learning about the physical universe. It's not a matter of opinion.That's why I brought up the demarcation problem, because realistically science consists of what people believe science to be.
For example, kinetic theory is science. Phrenology was never science.There are no hard, clearly defined lines that say "this is science" and "this isn't science."
No, that's not how it works. You don't have elections to decide what science is.There's often a blurring at the edges, and if something enjoys broad acceptance as a science then whether or not it fits however you're defining science it must be considered within the realm of science.
You're talking about something entirely different than science.Which depends on who we ask, though it seems to me that if something enjoys widespread acceptance as a science for any period of time even if it doesn't fit our modern understanding of what science consists of it was scientific.
There's nothing idealized in the notion that we can systematically learn about the world. It's just a method. The problem is that for many laymen, science is visualized as something like a religion. It's not like that at all.Rather, I'm pointing it out because there is often an idealized picture of science as if it isn't just as ripe for abuse as any other human system of thought.
You're talking about technology. Science is finding out. Technology is application. It's true, of course that technology has made immunizations much more effective than the primitive vaccine Pasteur used. But the theory has saved hundreds of millions of lives.That is of course completely ignoring the large pink elephant in the room of just how terribly effective science has made warfare in the 20th/21st century and instead purely focusing on how purported sciences have been used to justify evil.
Oh? Sure seems that way when looking at the philosophy of science.No. Science is a method of learning about the physical universe. It's not a matter of opinion.
According to whom?For example, kinetic theory is science. Phrenology was never science.
No, there aren't elections. But it's not as if Moses came down from the mountain with clearly spelled out boundaries of what is and isn't science.No, that's not how it works. You don't have elections to decide what science is.
On whose definition?You're talking about something entirely different than science.
That's an idealization of how science is supposed to work, but in fact there's a mix of philosophy and systematic research involved. And exactly where one crosses the line from "science" into "not science" is a major question of epistemology.There's nothing idealized in the notion that we can systematically learn about the world. It's just a method. The problem is that for many laymen, science is visualized as something like a religion. It's not like that at all.
I don't think we can neatly separate out science and technology, especially with the role of scientific research in the development of new technologies.You're talking about technology. Science is finding out. Technology is application. It's true, of course that technology has made immunizations much more effective than the primitive vaccine Pasteur used. But the theory has saved hundreds of millions of lives.
Arguable, though I can understand where you're coming from.Can the same scientific knowledge that saves lives be used to take them? Sure. But of course, that's not science or scientific theory.
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?