My Theory Challenge Poll

[AV1611VET]

I'll say yes, because in order to be considered a scientific theory it has to fit the known evidence and survive rigorous testing and peer review. The underlying hypothesis has to be scientifically valid.

Now there is an honest answer!

How about an honest vote now please?

 

[rambot]

I assume all terminology etc was taken care of before the label "theory" went on.



I'm not going to post a list of every single theory throughout history from Atomic Theory to the Weak Ties Theory.

This post is so dumb.

Why should trust that you even want to engage in a discussion? I have seen no evidence in this post (and thread) that you want a good faith discussion. You just seem to watch to kvetch about other people not wanting to play your bad faith arguments.

I'm getting the impression some people aren't too proud of their documentation.

I'm sure most (if not all) of these theories were, at one time, all over the newspapers, science magazines, and whatnot.

Some are even behind paywalls.

Others made headlines because their "fathers" got Nobel prizes and etc.

Now, all of a sudden, when I ask about them, I'm getting provisos, requests for definitions, and other such junk.

What are you guys hiding?

If I can be honest, nothing is getting hidden. It is that you are refusing to grasp things.

Posters are explaining their problems with your question and instead of having some humility, you're just complaining about THEM as if their, rather important (nee crucial) points don't matter.

 

[rambot]

Now there is an honest answer!

How about an honest vote now please?

Every answer that you've received has been honest. You just don't like it because it's not binary.

 

[AV1611VET]

Every answer that you've received has been honest. You just don't like it because it's not binary.

Asking about the validity of something should be binary.

 

[rambot]

Asking about the validity of something should be binary.

Not if you don't describe, in ANY way, what that thing is, nor show demonstrable evidence that you do understand it.

And then get petulent when being ASKED to describe it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not if you don't describe, in ANY way, what that thing is, nor show demonstrable evidence that you do understand it.

And then get petulent when being ASKED to describe it.

If you need ME to describe a theory to you, you're in big trouble.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Have all [and are all] scientific theories been valid ones?

What does 'valid' mean in this instance? For my part, I have to begin by considering the following (like they taught me to do in that Research Methods class I struggled through...)

Research Validity - Types and Examples - Research Method

Validity is a fundamental concept in research, referring to the extent to which a test, measurement, or study accurately reflects or assesses

researchmethod.net

And then, to think of examples where theories in science were dicey:

The misleading evidence that fooled scientists for decades

From human ‘gills’ to reproducing rock, evidence hasn’t always pointed scientists in the right direction.

theconversation.com

​

So, is what I've linked above the sort of thing you had in mind, AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, is what I've linked above the sort of thing you had in mind, AV?

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 also should note that OnceDeceived thinks it is completely ok when Behe's and Gene's agendas match hers, but somehow it isn't ok when Dawkins's doesn't.

Let's just ignore the fact that Behe and Gene do not practice valid science (Behe even said so in the Kitzmiller trial) and that Dawkins does.

How convenient of Deceived to sweep that under the rug.

I suspect some tomfoolery is going on around here.

 

[jacks]

I voted "No". Many theories had no real validity. Being widely accepted and valid are not the same thing. For example the theory behind Bloodletting was never a valid theory,(except for maybe a placebo effect) though it was widely accepted. .

 

[AV1611VET]

I voted "No". Many theories had no real validity. Being widely accepted and valid are not the same thing. For example (except for maybe a placebo effect), Bloodletting was never a valid theory, though it was widely accepted. .

Thank you, Jacks!

Good to see you around!

When you gonna start a challenge thread of you're own!?

 

[jacks]

When you gonna start a challenge thread of you're own!?

I don't think I'm emotionally strong enough to take all the flak!

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think I'm emotionally strong enough to take all the flak!

No. You're just smarter than I am!

God bless and have a good day!

 

[pgp_protector]

Not if you don't describe, in ANY way, what that thing is, nor show demonstrable evidence that you do understand it.

And then get petulent when being ASKED to describe it.

If the thread doesn't go their way, they probably just ask the mods to shut it down.

 

[rambot]

If you need ME to describe a theory to you, you're in big trouble.

I need you to describe WHAT YOU THINK A THEORY IS to me. Like a scientific definition. As I've said I see no evidence you know

 

[AV1611VET]

I need you to describe WHAT YOU THINK A THEORY IS to me. Like a scientific definition. As I've said I see no evidence you know

What I think a theory is has nothing to do with this challenge.

What I think it is shouldn't cause you to vote YEA or NAY.

 

[SelfSim]

I need you to describe WHAT YOU THINK A THEORY IS to me. Like a scientific definition. As I've said I see no evidence you know

@AV1611VET should stop beatin' round the bush here .. He's already demonstrated his scientific ignorance by describing what he thinks a theory is in post #78 of the 'Prove a Scientific Theory?' thread .. (ie: before he created this thread) .. as follows:

... A scientific theory is a temporary scientific belief awaiting override ...

 

[rambot]

@AV1611VET should stop beatin' round the bush here .. He's already demonstrated his scientific ignorance by describing what he thinks a theory is in post #78 of the 'Prove a Scientific Theory?' thread .. (ie: before he created this thread) .. as follows:

OK. So he has no clue.

It took him 78 posts IN HIS OWN THREAD to define his terms?

I'm not that much of a sadist so....toodles out of this one.

 

[rambot]

What I think a theory is has nothing to do with this challenge.

What I think it is shouldn't cause you to vote YEA or NAY.

Sigh.

How do you think you can have a fruitful conversation with another human if the main subject of the sentence does not have shared definition?

It begs for a debate of strawman after strawman

 

[jayem]

Have all [and are all] scientific theories been valid ones?

My training and career was in medicine. If valid means a correct and accurate and explanation, then the answer is no. Example: For about 2000 years, medicine was based on the idea that there are 4 humors (fluid substances) in the human body--blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile (whatever this is. ) Good health results when the 4 humors are all in balance. Illness occurs when one or more humor is out of balance. For instance, infection/inflammation was thought to be the result of an excess of blood. So the logical treatment is to open a vein with a lancet and bleed the patient. Repeated bleeding is what killed George Washington, who likely had a bacterial throat infection. Humoral medicine persisted until the advent of cellular pathology and bacteriology in the mid 1800s. But the take-home message here is that good science is tentative. It admits that it's imperfect and new discoveries may overturn long-held beliefs. Which to me, makes good science far superior to relgious folklore, legends, myths, and doctrines that are claimed to be infallible.

 

[AV1611VET]

It begs for a debate of strawman after strawman

Or a vote.