Scientific Theories

[TheBear]

How much importance or emphasis should we place on scientific theories? I hear things like, "It's only a theory." I see where people put quotation marks around the word, "theory". It seems that some people have reduced a scientific theory to nothing more than a wild guess or pure speculation, with nothing to support it.

I'd like to sift through this matter, and get to the bottom of what is really going on.

Thanks,
John

 

[Josh777]

well my theory on that is that in theory you have to use the word theory to sound smart when you have no proof to back up your idea therefore when proven wrong you can say it was just a theory.Now if you belive these things so strongly why do you have to hide behind the word theory? i have never heard anyone use that word in reguards to the bible.

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances; often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonym see HYPOTHESIS
.

 

[TheBear]

Right.

For the purpose of this thread, I would like to focus specifically on scientific theories.



Thanks,
John

 

[Stormy]

How much importance or emphasis should we place on scientific theories? I hear things like, "It's only a theory." I see where people put quotation marks around the word, "theory".

I am sure I am guilty of doing exactly what you claim. But please know that this is only when I am speaking to someone who himself does not know the meaning of the word.

Theory is not fact. It is often not even fully supported by the facts. But it IS an intelligent, honest, human effort to explain a given phenomenon within the realm of Science.

Science by its own nature has limitations. It will never be allowed to acknowledge All the truth. Therefore when theorizing basic structure of our Universe and life there will be gaps.

Science is to be trusted. It does not try to cover up the obvious. It is only when you speak with individuals outside of Science that the word "Theory" gets distorted.

 

[TheBear]

A key factor to keep in mind is that the term "theory" is used by scientists in a manner different from common usage. For most contexts, a theory is just a vague and fuzzy idea about how things work - in fact, one which has a low probability of being true. This is where we get the complaint that something in science is "only a theory" and hence shouldn't be given a great deal of credibility. For scientists, however, a theory is a conceptual structure which is used to explain existing facts and predict new ones.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Josh777
well my theory on that is that in theory you have to use the word theory to sound smart when you have no proof to back up your idea therefore when proven wrong you can say it was just a theory.Now if you belive these things so strongly why do you have to hide behind the word theory? i have never heard anyone use that word in reguards to the bible.

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances; often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonym see HYPOTHESIS
.

Well you can't use Scientific theory with the bible in anyway the bible is based on metaphysical a scientific theory is based on physical/natural.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Stormy
I am sure I am guilty of doing exactly what you claim. But please know that this is only when I am speaking to someone who himself does not know the meaning of the word.

Theory is not fact. It is often not even fully supported by the facts. But it IS an intelligent, honest, human effort to explain a given phenomenon within the realm of Science.

Science by its own nature has limitations. It will never be allowed to acknowledge All the truth. Therefore when theorizing basic structure of our Universe and life there will be gaps.

Science is to be trusted. It does not try to cover up the obvious. It is only when you speak with individuals outside of Science that the word "Theory" gets distorted.

That isn't completely true a theory can find the truth to stuff, but if someone doesn't want to accept the truth that science finds because it doens't use the bible well they don't have to accept the truth. You are right a scientific theory can't find proof, but it can't find the answers but you don't have to agree with the answers. Scientist doesn't have limitations, but nature has limitations we can find all the answers to the universe in time with science.

 

[Stormy]

Scientist doesn't have limitations, but nature has limitations we can find all the answers to the universe in time with science.

This is your "Theory" of the capabilities of Science.

It is not fact.

If you keep making broad statements such as this concerning science... I will have to believe that your opinion also is colored by Faith.

 

[lithium.]

"Broad statements such as this concerning science"

Well science can do about anything that scientisit want but it has to be done with the physical/natural, and its true in time we will learn almost everything about the universe. Since we are really close to figuring out the Unified Field Theory and that will give use the answers to almost everything in science that we are missing.

You are right we can't have facts but we have answers. The metaphyical/supernatural has nothing to do with science so yeah to alot of christians there will never be any truth because they would like science to include the bible but science can't do that so you are right there will never be truth to some people.

But people can use the stuff that science finds about the natural to figure out what the supernatural really is.

"I will have to believe that your opinion also is colored by Faith"

No it's not faith we know that one day we will know almost all of the universe one day it will not be any time soon. Thats the difference between religion, and science. Religion can't answer the questions to all the stuff in the universe but science can try and most of the time find evidence to back up the theories.

 

[lithium.]

BTW I never said anything about fact or proof scientific theories will never be fact/proof they will just give use answers.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by TheBear
How much importance or emphasis should we place on scientific theories? Thanks,
John

Not much, because when new information comes alone then they change the "theory" to line up with the new information. Also, people with "theorys" tend to put a lot of effort into trying to prove what they pre suppose to be true. I would prefer a situation where there is no pre suppositions.

One example would be in Hong Kong. There were some people who were developing a web site. So they had a survey for the young people to find out what sort of stuff interested them. There was an amazing 1/3 of the youth in Hong Kong that said: NOTHING interested them. That is almost a sign of clinical depression for some people. So here they found information without seeking after it, in fact it something they were not expecting at all.

Scientists tend to fudge the results to get the figures to say what they want. There was a case of a drug that they were testing. After 6 weeks the people who took the drug did better than the people who did not take the drug. So they went to the FDA and got approval from the government to make tons of money off of their drug. But as it turned out after 3 months on the exact same study, the people who did not take the drug did better than those who were on it. In fact, it turns out the drug did more harm then good. The drug is still on the market and is still being used today for long term, when it is clearly only of questionable use for short term use.

Those who believe in creation build on a foundation began by Moses 3500 years ago. We never change our "theory" we simply add to and build upon the work of those who went before us. We take over where they left off.

The scientist keeps building on the work of others also, but they have to keep changing their "theory" from day to day and week to week as new information is discovered and comes to light.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Not much, because when new information comes alone then they change the "theory" to line up with the new information. Also, people with "theorys" tend to put a lot of effort into trying to prove what they pre suppose to be true. I would prefer a situation where there is no pre suppositions.

One example would be in Hong Kong. There were some people who were developing a web site. So they had a survey for the young people to find out what sort of stuff interested them. There was an amazing 1/3 of the youth in Hong Kong that said: NOTHING interested them. That is almost a sign of clinical depression for some people. So here they found information without seeking after it, in fact it something they were not expecting at all.

Scientists tend to fudge the results to get the figures to say what they want. There was a case of a drug that they were testing. After 6 weeks the people who took the drug did better than the people who did not take the drug. So they went to the FDA and got approval from the government to make tons of money off of their drug. But as it turned out after 3 months on the exact same study, the people who did not take the drug did better than those who were on it. In fact, it turns out the drug did more harm then good. The drug is still on the market and is still being used today for long term, when it is clearly only of questionable use for short term use.

Those who believe in creation build on a foundation began by Moses 3500 years ago. We never change our "theory" we simply add to and build upon the work of those who went before us. We take over where they left off.

The scientist keeps building on the work of others also, but they have to keep changing their "theory" from day to day and week to week as new information is discovered and comes to light.

The theories are not changed as much as you think cause the data has to be looked, and most of the time the data isn't good enough so nothing is changed.

 

[Stormy]

Correct me if I am wrong... but it seems at some point Science can reward a theory with more credibility by calling it LAW. Examples being the LAW of gravity and the LAW of Thermodynaics. So if Science was as sure of the Theory of Evolution as many of the poster on this forum then... their debating among themselves would end and they would all agree with the LAWS of Evolution. This has not happened.

Well science can do about anything that scientisit want but it has to be done with the physical/natural, and its true in time we will learn almost everything about the universe. Since we are really close to figuring out the Unified Field Theory and that will give use the answers to almost everything in science that we are missing.

Seesaw this sounds like the basis of a new thread that you could open for our discussion.

According to Michio Katu, a theoretical physicist at City College, City University of New York, those in pursuit of a unified field theory seek "an equation an inch long that would allow us to read the mind of God."

I am very interested.

 

[lithium.]

I am very interested

You should be it will be a big break in science/physics it will feel the holes that we are missing. I can't wait until its figured out.

Correct me if I am wrong... but it seems at some point Science can reward a theory with more credibility by calling it LAW. Examples being the LAW of gravity and the LAW of Thermodynaics. So if Science was as sure of the Theory of Evolution as many of the poster on this forum then... their debating among themselves would end and they would all agree with the LAWS of Evolution. This has not happened.

From what I understand no theory becomes a law.

 

[lithium.]

I will just say this the theory will let us see how a god (doens't have to be chrstian god LOL) would create the univese since gods are perfect we have to get the theory perfect. So when we figure out the Unified Field Theory we will know how a god would create a universe like ours.

 

[Stormy]

seesaw: It may surprise you...

But I do not cancell out all other religions as believing in false gods. There is only one God. The difference is not in God but in how we, as humans, perceive God. I remain firm in my perception and believe that God gifted us with his Son to teach the world of the need for universal LOVE.

That is why I am proud to say that I am a Christian.

 

[lithium.]

seesaw: It may surprise you...

It doesn't surprise me you seem to be a nice and wonderful, and proud christian. And I think its great.

 

[Stormy]

It doesn't surprise me you seem to be a nice and wonderful, and proud christian. And I think its great.

:o Your making me blush.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Stormy
:o Your making me blush.

Opps I'm sorry.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by seesaw
The theories are not changed as much as you think cause the data has to be looked, and most of the time the data isn't good enough so nothing is changed.

So you admit the theories do change even if it is not much and your data often is not good.

We do not have those problems with creation. The Bible is given to use in inspiration from God and so it is 100% relyable. There maybe a problem in man who are not inspired trying to understand the Bible. Or it can be a challange to apply it to your life. But the data and the "theory" remain consistant and unchanged at least as far as being relyable. Of course we grow in understanding. Just like a 6 th grade science class is not going to be on the same level as a grad level class.

You have people on here with out even a 6 th graders understanding of creation trying to act like they are grad school experts.