Test Your Knowledge of What "Theory" Means
RetroProphet
Scientific hypotheses are rated according to their
credibility; as more and more data support a
scientific hypothesis, the greater our confidence
in it.
If that hypothesis fits into a common pattern,
successfully interlocking with established theories,
then it gets another big plus. If that hypothesis
has no credible competition, despite much work in
the area, then our confidence in it begins to soar.
If that hypothesis also supplies us with numerous
insights into nature, which are confirmed by
further observation and testing, then it might
attain the status of a "scientific theory."
Note that a scientific theory ranks very high
in credibility, has been tested repeatedly,
and serves as a successful framework for integrating
and explaining a class of diverse, natural phenomena.
IT MUST NOT BE CONFUSED WITH THE LAYMAN'S USE OF
"THEORY" WHICH REFERS TO HALF-BAKED SPECULATION
OR GUESSWORK.
Consequently, the complaint that evolution is
merely a theory is a little like saying that an
athlete is merely a gold-medal winner!
Rick Hurd
faith. The theory that there is a God is that if a person tries to lead
a righteous life in this life he will be shown mercy by God in the
next. The theory of evolution is based on faith because those who
believe in it must have faith that they will eventually find proof of
how life began, which so-far hasn't been proven.
Those who have faith that there is a God cannot understand as yet how
God began. Those who have faith in evolution also cannot understand how
life began. Perhaps, I think, that those who have faith in evolution
will find out for themselves that there is a God before they understand
how life began.
Joe Nadds
Well said. I guess I am guilty of interchanging "theory" and
"hypothesis" in some of my posts. Now that I am educated properly, it
will not happen again.
See, Aaron, I can be reasonable....
Joe N.
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
> Note that a scientific theory ranks very high
> in credibility, has been tested repeatedly,
> and serves as a successful framework for integrating
> and explaining a class of diverse, natural phenomena.
>
> IT MUST NOT BE CONFUSED WITH THE LAYMAN'S USE OF
> "THEORY" WHICH REFERS TO HALF-BAKED SPECULATION
> OR GUESSWORK.
>
Agreed, I would add that it should not be confused with religion, as
they are two different disciplines. In science, you take what you
believe to be true (based upon observation) and continually try to prove
it false. In religion, you take what you believe to be true (although it
cannot be observed) and continually try to prove it true. The classic
definition of faith:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the
evidence of things not seen."
-- Heb.1:11
bestRegards, Guy.
Rick Hurd
RetroProphet_mem...@newsguy.com (RetroProphet) wrote:
<snip>
> Note that a scientific theory ranks very high
> in credibility, has been tested repeatedly,
> and serves as a successful framework for integrating
> and explaining a class of diverse, natural phenomena.
> IT MUST NOT BE CONFUSED WITH THE LAYMAN'S USE OF
> "THEORY" WHICH REFERS TO HALF-BAKED SPECULATION
> OR GUESSWORK.
Agreed, I would add that it should not be confused with religion, as
they are two different disciplines. In science, you take what you
believe to be true (based upon observation) and continually try to
prove
it false. In religion, you take what you believe to be true (although
it
cannot be observed) and continually try to prove it true. The classic
definition of faith:
Religion: "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or
conscientious devotion." (The American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language, Fourth Edition.)
Evolution, for some, is a religion.
Guy R. Briggs
> RetroProphet_mem...@newsguy.com (RetroProphet) wrote:
<snip>
>> In science, you take what you believe to be true (based
>> upon observation) and continually try to prove it false.
>> In religion, you take what you believe to be true (although
>> it cannot be observed) and continually try to prove it
>> true. The classic definition of faith:
>
> Religion: "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or
> conscientious devotion." (The American Heritage Dictionary of the
> English Language, Fourth Edition.)
>
> Evolution, for some, is a religion.
>
Absolutely. When one stops questioning the scientific theory, and
starts looking, instead, for evidence that it's true - it has crossed
over.
bestRegards, Guy.
RetroProphet
>>> In science, you take what you believe to be true (based
>>> upon observation) and continually try to prove it false.
>>> In religion, you take what you believe to be true (although
>>> it cannot be observed) and continually try to prove it
>>> true. The classic definition of faith:
>>
>> Religion: "A cause, principle, or activity pursued
>> with zeal or conscientious devotion." (The American
>>
>> Evolution, for some, is a religion.
>>
> Absolutely. When one stops questioning the scientific
>theory, and starts looking, instead, for evidence that
>it's true - it has crossed over.
>
>bestRegards, Guy.
Granting that science ought to be pursued with the
aim to prove its beliefs false, why should religion
be considered a valid pursuit though it does not
devote itself to proving its beliefs false?
Both pursuits are supposed to be devoted to
discovering truth.
Show me the religion that encourages efforts to
determine if any of its non-observable assumptions
are in fact non-observable because they are
not real. Show me the religion that does not
rather warn against doing so at the risk of
suffering dire consequences, a distinct prejudice
against truth-seeking, and one notably not shared
by science.
Say what you like about science, but it has often
corrected religion-inspired nonsense; can an actual
deity really not mind that its ambiguously revealed
truths are the cause of theological chaos?
By "ambiguously revealed" I mean the chosen mode
of deity communiucation: words written and spoken
by men.
I have suggested that the reality of gods is not
beyond testablity. The history of religion can be
seen as an ongoing experimental test of the reality
of gods, that has yielded a great deal of evidence
that bears upon the hypothesis that since all gods
that have lost their last believer have not
demonstrated their reality, this not being consistant
with any religion's predicted behavior of their
deity when spurned, no gods actually exist.
There are no counter-examples at all; this theory
is holding up flawlessly.
There are no god-asserting religions today that
have enough faith to put theirs to the test in the
manner you find so admirable of science done properly.
Irony is, it is quite popular today for religionists
to wind up denegrating science they disagree with
as being the result of...religious thinking.
Absurd.
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
<snip>
>>> Evolution, for some, is a religion.
>>
>> Absolutely. When one stops questioning the scientific
>> theory, and starts looking, instead, for evidence that
>> it's true - it has crossed over.
>
> Granting that science ought to be pursued with the
> aim to prove its beliefs false, why should religion
> be considered a valid pursuit though it does not
> devote itself to proving its beliefs false?
>
Because if it did, it would be science - not religion.
And science doesn't give us very good answers to questions like "Why
are we here?" and "Is there any purpose to life?" and "Is this all
there is?"
>
> Both pursuits are supposed to be devoted to
> discovering truth.
>
Agreed 100%, tho' they go about it in different ways. IMHO, we can't
do without either one.
<snip>
> ... can an actual deity really not mind that its
> ambiguously revealed truths are the cause of
> theological chaos? By "ambiguously revealed" I
> mean the chosen mode of deity communiucation:
> words written and spoken by men.
>
ITMSOT, it's an integral part of the plan - the goal of which is to
see if we generally choose right over wrong when left completely to our
own devices. For that to work, we actually have to be left to our own
devices.
bestRegards, Guy.
Mike W
>> RetroProphet wrote:
>>> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>>>> Evolution, for some, is a religion.
>>> Absolutely. When one stops questioning the scientific
>>> theory, and starts looking, instead, for evidence that
>>> it's true - it has crossed over.
>> Granting that science ought to be pursued with the
>> aim to prove its beliefs false, why should religion
>> be considered a valid pursuit though it does not
>> devote itself to proving its beliefs false?
> Because if it did, it would be science - not religion.
>
> And science doesn't give us very good answers to questions like
> "Why are we here?" and "Is there any purpose to life?" and "Is this
> all there is?"
Which science? Which religion?
Science and Faith
Once Science said to Faith:
"My eye can see all that is in this world;
The Entire world is within my net.
I am only concerned with material things,
What have I to do with spiritual matters?
I can strike a thousand melodies,
And openly proclaim all the secrets that I learn."
Faith said:
"With your magic even the waves in the sea are set ablaze,
You can pollute the atmosphere with foul, poisonous gases.
When you associated with me, you were light,
When you broke off from me, your light became fire.
You were of Divine origin,
But you have been caught in the clutches of Shaytan.
Come, make this wasteland a garden once again.
Borrow from me a little of my ecstasy,
And in the world set up a paradise.
From the day of creation we have been associates,
We are the low and high tunes of the same melody."
http://www.muslimjihad.com/
Allahma Iqbal
Guy R. Briggs
> Guy R. Briggs wrote:
>> Because if it did, it would be science - not religion.
>>
>> And science doesn't give us very good answers to questions
>> like "Why are we here?" and "Is there any purpose to life?"
>> and "Is this all there is?"
>
> Which science? Which religion?
>
Pick your choose.
It's kinda like discussing the fine arts - opera vs. oil painting.
Opera is better, you might say, because you can hear it and know it
exists. You might suggest that if oil paintings really existed, they
could be heard, so that we might know for a fact they were art. But
nobody has ever heard an oil painting, therefore they aren't really art
and don't really exist.
IOW, the fact that religion is experienced in a completely different
way than science doesn't mean that religion isn't truth.
bestRegards, Guy.
Mike W
>> "Mike W" wrote:
>>> Guy R. Briggs wrote:
>>> Because if it did, it would be science - not religion.
>>>
>>> And science doesn't give us very good answers to questions
>>> like "Why are we here?" and "Is there any purpose to life?"
>>> and "Is this all there is?"
>> Which science? Which religion?
> Pick your choose.
Meaning, "Your choice" or perhaps "Focus on your ability to choose"?
I like the latter -- very complicated, very difficult to consider.
> It's kinda like discussing the fine arts - opera vs. oil painting.
> Opera is better, you might say, because you can hear it and know it
> exists. You might suggest that if oil paintings really existed, they
> could be heard, so that we might know for a fact they were art. But
> nobody has ever heard an oil painting, therefore they aren't really
> art and don't really exist.
Interesting analogy & getting back to the original premise (I think).
> IOW, the fact that religion is experienced in a completely
> different way than science doesn't mean that religion isn't truth.
No disagreement there but I haven't discovered a way to describe the
religion I'd call truth. Yeesh, ARM has made me realize even gravity isn't
as much of a truth as I'd once thought i.e. things fall down, except when
there's a wind exerting another force, except when there's centrifugal
force, except when it's metal and magnetism's force is a factor. It's only
a matter of time before there's another exception and the supposed truth
that all things fall down is muddied even more.
Dave Fuller
news:11ga0es...@news.supernews.com...
Wind does not change the fact that larger bodies attract smaller bodies; a
layman's understanding of the theory of gravity. It is simply that the
effect of the wind is stronger than the attraction. As soon as the wind
goes away, the fall resumes.
Dave
Mike W
>>>> Which science? Which religion?
>>> Pick your choose.
Hmmm... you could be even more specific & say something about mass, I guess.
Larger might be too vague. Have we nailed a truth? Of course I can't see
how science might help me when deciding whether I actually should be trying
to say anthing about truth. I could see morality, ethics & religion taking
stabs at the latter though.
Mike
Dave Fuller
You are right. Larger is not a good choice of words; I should have used the
word mass.
I think you are trying to say, and I will put it in my words, that science
helps us understand certain aspects of life, but is inadequate in others.
For example, it helps us understand why stepping out of a three story window
is probably not a wise move. But, science does not shed much light on
whether it is right or wrong to climb into bed the pyt next door.
Dave
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
>> Pick your choose.
>
> Meaning, "Your choice" or perhaps "Focus on your ability to
> choose"?
>
My father's way of saying , "Your choice."
<snip>
>> IOW, the fact that religion is experienced in a completely
>> different way than science doesn't mean that religion isn't
>> truth.
>
> No disagreement there but I haven't discovered a way to
> describe the religion I'd call truth.
>
In my analogy, you use a different physical sense to appreciate opera
than you do oil painting. In that same way, to investigate religion you
should use a spirtitual sense - instead of the physical senses which
scientists rely on.
bestRegards, Guy.
RetroProphet
>> ... can an actual deity really not mind that its
>> ambiguously revealed truths are the cause of
>> theological chaos? By "ambiguously revealed" I
>> words written and spoken by men.
>>
>ITMSOT, it's an integral part of the plan -
>the goal of which is to see if we generally choose
>right over wrong when left completely to our
>own devices. For that to work, we actually
>have to be left to our own devices.
>
>bestRegards, Guy.
>
I will grant that revealing truths in a manner
that makes it impossible to objectively distinguish
whether they are divinely-revealed or man-made
may be considered "leaving us to our own devices"
I fail to see why it is a good plan for truth
to be purposefully obscured in this manner.
Choosing right from wrong requires accurate
information about what is right and wrong.
Seems that under this plan of which you speak,
folks are as likely to be derailed by guessing
wrong about who is telling the truth about truth,
so to speak, as by the "wrong" choices they
might make based on those assumptions.
Why wouldn't it be a better plan for God to
remove all ambiguity as to whether there was
a God and what exactly He considers good and bad?
Under such a plan, I am still free to choose to
obey or not, would fairly deserve any penalties
for disobedience, and could not possibly be misled
to damnation by men claiming false things about
what God considers good and bad.
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
>> ITMSOT, it's an integral part of the plan - the goal of
>> which is to see if we generally choose right over wrong
>> when left completely to our own devices. For that to work,
>> we actually have to be left to our own devices.
>
> I will grant that revealing truths in a manner
> that makes it impossible to objectively distinguish
> whether they are divinely-revealed or man-made
> may be considered "leaving us to our own devices"
> I fail to see why it is a good plan for truth
> to be purposefully obscured in this manner.
>
Suppose that, in the home where you grew up, there was the
commandment: "Thou shalt not steal cookies from the cookie jar."
Wouldn't you agree that the commandment was easier to keep when Mom was
in the kitchen than it was when she was gone and nobody would notice the
missing cookie?
That's the basic concept.
Now take it a step further. You're in the kitchen with no way of
telling if Mom even exists. There's a cookie jar there, and you have
only a vague feeling that there's something wrong about taking a cookie.
So being a highly motivated indivudual, you do some research on what
ingredients go into this particular kind of cookie and the nutritional
value of each. At length, you decide that these cookies are not
something you want to put into your body and opt for a piece of fruit
instead. Your sibling, not being quite so motivated, simply steals a
cookie.
If the point of the above is to reward one behavior and punish the
other, I agree with you: it is ambiguous and arbitrary. OTOH, if the
point of the above is to isolate those individuals who, by nature, care
enough about doing the right thing to gather all the facts and then make
an informed decision regarding right and wrong - and stick by it - then
it isn't arbitrary at all.
>
> Choosing right from wrong requires accurate
> information about what is right and wrong.
> Seems that under this plan of which you speak,
> folks are as likely to be derailed by guessing
> wrong about who is telling the truth about truth,
> so to speak, as by the "wrong" choices they
> might make based on those assumptions.
>
Perhaps. But ITMSOT, you get rewarded for making the effort to
discover truth. Thus the poor slob born into circumstances which would
prevent him from ever hearing the name of Christ, much less joining the
one true Church, but who consistently follows his own conscience is in a
much better position than the 6th-generation Mormon, born in Utah, who
never does anything /more/ than follow his own conscience.
IOW, it's all about forward progress.
>
> Why wouldn't it be a better plan for God to
> remove all ambiguity as to whether there was
> a God and what exactly He considers good and bad?
>
Defeats the purpose of the plan. Before we came here, we lived with
Him - and there was no ambiguity whatsoever about what He considered
good and bad. But we've moved past that stage of progression into this
one.
>
> Under such a plan, I am still free to choose to
> obey or not, would fairly deserve any penalties
> for disobedience, and could not possibly be misled
> to damnation by men claiming false things about
> what God considers good and bad.
>
You've been there and done that. The proof is that you're now at the
next stage of the test.
bestRegards, Guy.