Example: For about 2000 years, medicine was based on the idea that there are 4 humors ...
I'm going to respectfully decline to answer your question, Philo.
I'm perturbed at the sudden backing down of what valid science is considered to be.
If you use this site's search engine, and type in "valid science" in quotes, you'll get 25 pages in reply.
Here's one of the older posts, using the term w/o the need to clarify:
I suspect some tomfoolery is going on around here.
...... somehow, I don't think that validity within science depends upon comments from some past CF poster or from Behe.
I don't personally know any scientists. I've studied quite a few, though.Do you know anyone, including yourself, who practices valid science?
(And who is that in your avatar?)
That's not a well-defined question until you define what you mean by 'valid' in this context.Have all [and are all] scientific theories been valid ones?
The criteria for a scientific theory and scientific validity have changed over time.Asking about the validity of something should be binary.
I don't know if this is useful or not, but what you said reminded me of the difference between a married couple getting an annulment versus getting a divorce. In the former case, it's determined that the marriage was never valid to begin with. In the latter, it's determined that the marriage was valid, but has "gone bad", just as a valid scientific theory can "go bad" with further research.The criteria for a scientific theory and scientific validity have changed over time.
If you buy a train ticket for a journey today, it is considered valid for a journey today, but it may not be considered valid for a journey tomorrow. You might also find that what you thought was a valid ticket for a journey today turns out not to be valid when you try to use it. Is it valid? was it valid?
It depends. More context is necessary to give a binary answer.
That's not a well-defined question until you define what you mean by 'valid' in this context.
It depends. More context is necessary to give a binary answer.
I see that term "scientific validity" used all the time without the need to clarify
And I don't feel I have to clarify it when I use it either.
... just as a valid scientific theory can "go bad" with further research.
Does it really have to be this way? Why can't you be more like Paul in your comportment, like when he was on Mars Hill?
I'm not saying you shouldn't get irritated, but does every point of discussion have to be a brick wall with you?
Could we leave God, the Bible, theology, and religion out of this thread please and just talk pure science?
So what do you think they mean by it? Is it what you mean when you use it?I see that term "scientific validity" used all the time without the need to clarify
And I don't feel I have to clarify it when I use it either.
Not exactly. Further research may lead to a discovery that falsifies the theory, or may show how the theory explains the hitherto unexplained.I'm not familiar with a theory "going bad with further research."
I'm under the impression that all research has been exhausted on a hypothesis; then the hypothesis is labeled a "theory."
From there, it would take a "discovery," not "further research," to discard a valid theory.
I don't know, you may be right. Phrenology was a hypothesis that "went bad". I suppose it wasn't a formal theory.I'm not familiar with a theory "going bad with further research."
I'm not sure all research is ever exhausted. Something weird: last summer my car wouldn't start. I don't know much about cars, but I knew the likely culprits were the battery, the alternator or the starter. I went on some car mechanic forums to see if I could find some info on how to diagnose the problem. I was amazed when I came across this one thread where seemingly knowledgeable mechanics were arguing with each other about the relationship between the battery and the alternator. I'm like "Seriously? This is 2023. We've put men on the moon, and the workings of the gas combustion engine aren't completely well-established?"I'm under the impression that all research has been exhausted on a hypothesis; then the hypothesis is labeled a "theory."
I think those are aren't mutually exclusive. Further research could lead to a discovery, and an unexpected discovery could lead to the desire for further research.From there, it would take a "discovery," not "further research," to discard a valid theory.
And I stipulated that good science is tentative. When new scientific discoveries are made--especially in the medical realm--old ideas and practices will likely be invalidated.And during that time, was it not considered valid science?
That's why I stipulated "at one time" in the question.
What I've seen in the past couple of years is that certain groups don't want cures or change. In the 80s when non alcoholic fatty liver was introduced, alcoholics were the majority with fatty liver and now kids have it. Can you trust the science of big tobacco and big sugar and whatever else corporations want to sell us?When new scientific discoveries are made--especially in the medical realm--old ideas and practices will likely be invalidated.
Can you trust the science of big tobacco and big sugar and whatever else corporations want to sell us?
I voted.Can I trust you to vote?
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?