|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/20/2007 : 21:37:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by ktesibios
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Newspeak.
|
Horsepuckey. That the definition of a technical term isn't identical to the definition of the same word in common usage doesn't mean that the technical usage is deceptive. It means that interpreting the technical term by the standards of common usage is incorrect.
This can also happen when the same word is used as a term of art in two different disciplines. For example, when I first started reading the Bad Astronomy forum (now the BAUT forum) and the Apollohoax forum, I found it very hard to understand JayUtah's use of the term "phase angle" in discussing Apollo photographs.
The problem was that I'm an electronics tech by trade, "phase angle" has a specific meaning in electronics and I was instinctively applying that meaning to the term. It wasn't until I grasped that "phase angle" has a very different meaning when you're discussing lighting that I was able to understand what Jay was saying.
|
I understand what you are saying, but you speak of a "phrase" within a discipline. Could you define the two phrases in the context of their disciplines?
What I am speaking of is the inverse usage of a long defined word. I believe the word theory is about 400 years old from the French.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 21:40:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
THEORY:An unproven conjecture.
THEORY:A coherent statement that attempts to explain observed phenomena.
Wikionary
Notice how the customary meaning is inversed? |
Yes, but we've always been at war with Eastasia.
Wikipedia's entry begins:The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion. You, Jerome, are just trying to ignore the context again. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 21:56:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I understand what you are saying, but you speak of a "phrase" within a discipline. Could you define the two phrases in the context of their disciplines? |
Way to add an R.| What I am speaking of is the inverse usage of a long defined word. I believe the word theory is about 400 years old from the French. |
How did the French use it? In the scientific sense, theory had ceased to mean guess by the time Newton did much of his work, and it's maintained that same meaning for over 300 years.
Ah, here we go:Sense of "principles or methods of a science or art (rather than its practice)" is first recorded 1613. That of "an explanation based on observation and reasoning" is from 1638. Context matters, Jerome. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 22:06:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Ah, here we go:Sense of "principles or methods of a science or art (rather than its practice)" is first recorded 1613. That of "an explanation based on observation and reasoning" is from 1638. Context matters, Jerome.
|
So, how do you equate speculation and contemplation with fact?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 22:08:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I understand what you are saying, but you speak of a "phrase" within a discipline. Could you define the two phrases in the context of their disciplines? |
Way to add an R. |
I was referring to the phrase "phase angle".
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 22:18:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
So, how do you equate speculation and contemplation with fact? |
I don't. What would make you think I did? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 22:21:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
So, how do you equate speculation and contemplation with fact? |
I don't. What would make you think I did?
|
This is the talk: evolution is a theory and a fact.
I will ask you:
Is evolution a fact?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 22:34:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
So, how do you equate speculation and contemplation with fact? |
I don't. What would make you think I did?
|
This is the talk: evolution is a theory and a fact. |
Oh, fercryinoutloud.
"Evolution" is a label given to the real-life observation that creatures change over time in heretable ways. "Theory of evolution" is the label given to the explanation for why such changes occur. They are not synonyms, nor do the meanings describe the same thing: they are not "equal" in any way other than spelling.
Once again, Jerome: context is important.
Next thing I know, you'll be trying to tell me that the orbit of Jupiter is a set of really big bones that hold the planet in place. Or that an electric guitar has no protons or neutrons in it. After all, you already tried to tell me that the Fourth Amendment provides protection for the essential you-ness of the citizens, so your refusal to examine context is not without precedent. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 22:45:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
So, how do you equate speculation and contemplation with fact? |
I don't. What would make you think I did?
|
This is the talk: evolution is a theory and a fact.
I will ask you:
Is evolution a fact?
|
Evolution is indeed a fact and a theory. Hell, even creationists agree that evolution happens. Why? Because it has been observed. That makes it a fact. They just don't agree on the scale.
The theory part is about the mechanisms of evolution and its being central to explaining the diversity of life on this planet.
And that's as far as I will go with that right now, because the different usage of the word “theory” is just as available to you Jerome as it is to anyone here. It is my belief that you understand what people are saying, that you understand that common usage is not the same as the use of the word a scientific context and you are simply arguing to argue.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 22:57:45 [Permalink]
|
I am just trying to clarify.
Evolution is a fact.
Evolution is a theory.
Theory means an unproven conjecture. (not fact)
Theory means a coherent statement that attempts to explain observed phenomena. (possible fact)
I still do not see where evolution is a fact; unless we use the broad strokes of most biological function as the definition of evolution. This still does not square the reasoning behind calling it a fact and a theory.
I honestly perceive this line of thinking as both newspeak and doublethink. This has no bearing on the question of the evidence of evolution, only the use of words in talking about evolution.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2007 : 23:13:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Evolution is a fact. |
Yes, the frequency of alleles changes in a population of organisms over time. It does do this. That's a fact. We can see it happen, and measure it.Yes, the "theory of evolution" explains why such allelic changes take place.| Theory means an unproven conjecture. (not fact) |
Not in a scientific context, it doesn't.| Theory means a coherent statement that attempts to explain observed phenomena. (possible fact) |
Yes, an explanation which has passed tons of tests and continues to be strong can be considered to be, itself, factual for most intents and purposes (but still a single failure can mean such a fact is wrong).| I still do not see where evolution is a fact; unless we use the broad strokes of most biological function as the definition of evolution. |
How many more times do we need to cite the scientific definitions of "evolution" and "theory" before you'll "see" it?| This still does not square the reasoning behind calling it a fact and a theory. |
That's because you're ignoring the different contexts of the two usages of the same word.| I honestly perceive this line of thinking as both newspeak and doublethink. This has no bearing on the question of the evidence of evolution, only the use of words in talking about evolution. |
And you perceive things that way because you don't understand, and because things you don't understand you seem to try to throw into the worst possible light you can think of. That's why you think evolution being both theory and fact is newspeak, and that's why you think global climate change is a scam. You appear to be scared to death of things you don't "see," and seek to demonize them as a way of discounting them.
(Just my honest perception.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 08:26:49 [Permalink]
|
Dave,I fully understand the science behind MMGW, only the data does not fit the conclusion; thus I speculate the reasons for drawing conclusions that do not fit the data. With this speculation one can predict what future steps governments will take based on these conclusions. When the predictions come true, the speculation on the reasons gain substantial validity.
The use of the same word with inverse definitions in the same context of conversation is newspeak. In the discussion of evolution this done done with two words: evolution, and theory. To claim science uses words in a precise manner and then claim that words, in context, are inverse definitions of their original usage is doublethink.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 09:45:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave,I fully understand the science behind MMGW, only the data does not fit the conclusion... |
Wait. What data doesn't fit the conclusion?| ...thus I speculate the reasons for drawing conclusions that do not fit the data. With this speculation one can predict what future steps governments will take based on these conclusions. When the predictions come true, the speculation on the reasons gain substantial validity. |
Except that your premise, that the data doesn't fit, has not been shown to be true.| The use of the same word with inverse definitions in the same context of conversation is newspeak. |
That isn't happening here.| In the discussion of evolution this done done with two words: evolution, and theory. To claim science uses words in a precise manner and then claim that words, in context, are inverse definitions of their original usage is doublethink. |
In the context of science, neither "evolution" nor "theory" are being used with inverse definitions. "Evolution" has two meanings within biology (or, more precisely, "evolution" is what we see and the "theory of evolution" is what explains what we see), and "theory" has only one meaning. The idea that these words are being used with opposite meanings in the same context is an invention of your mind, and is completely divorced from the realities of the language. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 09:52:30 [Permalink]
|
Jerome:
I honestly perceive this line of thinking as both newspeak and doublethink. |
I just showed my 17 year old son this thread to see if he could understand why evolution can be both a fact and a theory at the same time. After reading through it he laughed. He couldn't understand what you don't understand Jerome.
Observed evolution = fact.
Mechanisms that cause evolution to happen = theory
How much more simple can it be then that?
There is no newspeak or doublespeak going on here. What is going on is an almost aggressive unwillingness on your part to grasp a very simple concept.
You are just wrong. And if this thread goes on for fifteen pages and you continue to argue that something can't be a fact and a theory at the same time, you will still be wrong.
And your inability to grasp a simple concept will not matter one hoot in the total scheme of things.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
www.notjustatheory.com
Topic Locked
