|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/21/2007 : 10:52:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
| 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. |
You seem to be saying to conflicting things here. Are you saying we use words in science which are different from their original usage outside of science? Or did you mean that in science, we use the same word in two different ways?
|
What I am saying is that the language used to talk about evolution obscures what a fact is and thus is misrepresenting within the discussion.
We have a word; theory, that under the most favorable definition is a speculation of the complementation of observable facts being equated with a fact in the discussion.
We have a word; evolution, that is described as a theory and a fact. Again obscuring meaning by using the same word in a discussion with different meanings in similar contexts.
With the crux being anyone questioning this form of language usage is a fool with the inability to understand.
|
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 |
 |
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 10:57:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I guess you meant to say you believe in the conjecture of creation.
|
Whatever the scientists say, they can't be wrong. Just get a consensus and mix it in with a theory and *poof* you've now got empirical. Love how that science works.
|
Now, that's how religion works. Science is the one people whine and bitch about when it doesn't agree with their ancient tribesmen's book(s). |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 07/21/2007 : 12:27:13 [Permalink]
|
Jerome:
With the crux being anyone questioning this form of language usage is a fool with the inability to understand. |
Oh, it's okay to ask what that's about. Where you become a fool is when you demonstrate an inability to understand by dismissing all explanations because they don't agree with your side of a manufactured argument.
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 13:03:25 [Permalink]
|
I am not sure why I bother attempting to eradicate your cognitive dissonance, but here goes:Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
What I am saying is that the language used to talk about evolution obscures what a fact is and thus is misrepresenting within the discussion. |
That may be true, since we use the same word to describe the process and the explanation. This is why everybody is attempting to explain the context to you. The word evolution refers to either, or to both, depending on context. I would consider apologizing on behalf of all scientists, but I don't think this is a very difficult concept to grasp. | We have a word; theory, that under the most favorable definition is a speculation of the complementation of observable facts being equated with a fact in the discussion. |
Have you been paying attention? Clearly not. The SCIENTIFIC definition of theory is very different from the vernacular. | We have a word; evolution, that is described as a theory and a fact. Again obscuring meaning by using the same word in a discussion with different meanings in similar contexts. |
This does not seem to be a difficult concept for anybody else to grasp. Are you being deliberately obtuse? | With the crux being anyone questioning this form of language usage is a fool with the inability to understand. |
Apparently.
It is important to note, however, that a theory can never be a fact; thus, when we talk about the fact and the theory of evolution, they are two different ideas. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 13:28:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
We have a word; theory, that under the most favorable definition is a speculation of the complementation of observable facts being equated with a fact in the discussion. |
Speculation? Until you understand that the scientific community does not use the word theory to mean speculation, something that is unsure, this conversation can go no further. You seem to repeatedly reject this however, why I'm not sure. But at this point it's like talking to a brick wall. You don't accept that a theory isn't about speculation, and it seems like you never will, no matter what anyone does. In fact, I'd probably rather talk to a brick wall. At least then I have something I can bang my head against.
|
What is the scientific definition of theory?
I used the oldest one attributed as a scientific term.
| 1592, "conception, mental scheme," from L.L. theoria (Jerome), from Gk. theoria "contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at," from theorein "to consider, speculate, look at," from theoros "spectator," from thea "a view" + horan "to see." 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. |
Thanks Dave
If you now say that science has redefined the term to mean fact: this is the definition of newspeak.
If you use the same term in the same conversation with different meanings this is either doublethink or an intentional misrepresentation.
What is the current scientific definition of theory?
|
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 - 07/21/2007 : 13:35:36 [Permalink]
|
| Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution. |
Where, in The Origin of Species?
I read Darwin stating that if many transitional stages of evolution were not found in the fossil record that his theory should be discounted.
Stating that Darwin established the fact of evolution when in his own writings he states that evidence is needed; is a blatant falsehood.
|
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 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/21/2007 : 14:19:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
What is the scientific definition of theory?
I used the oldest one attributed as a scientific term.
*snip*
If you now say that science has redefined the term to mean fact: this is the definition of newspeak.
|
Look up the word computer in a dictionary made before 1940. Words change over time, as society does, Jerome. Deal with it. It has nothing at all to do with "newspeak" because all of language changes over time.
|
Are you contending that science has changed the meaning the term theory?
Is so, what is the current definition?
|
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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 15:00:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Are you contending that science has changed the meaning the term theory? |
The word has changed meaning over time, just like the meaning of 'agnostic' and 'gay' and 'Xerox.' Suck it up and deal, Jerome. Today's English words often have meanings different from the original root words from centuries or millenia ago. But when Newton spoke of a theory, he certainly wasn't talking about speculation or a hunch.| Is so, what is the current definition? |
The 1638 meaning is the one scientists use today, as has been explained to you several times already. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/21/2007 : 15:04:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Ricky
What is the scientific definition of theory?
I used the oldest one attributed as a scientific term.
*snip*
If you now say that science has redefined the term to mean fact: this is the definition of newspeak.
|
Look up the word computer in a dictionary made before 1940. Words change over time, as society does, Jerome. Deal with it. It has nothing at all to do with "newspeak" because all of language changes over time.
|
Are you contending that science has changed the meaning the term theory?
Is so, what is the current definition?
|
That has been given to you ad nauseum and you've chosen to ignore it. Up yours Jerome; fucking look it up for yourself.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 15:06:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
With the crux being anyone questioning this form of language usage is a fool with the inability to understand. |
No, you could have questioned it and accepted the answers. You chose to argue with the answers, inventing problems where none existed and ignoring the contexts necessary for comprehension. You don't have an inability to understand, Jerome - it looks more like a refusal to understand. |
- 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 : 15:08:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.The 1638 meaning is the one scientists use today, as has been explained to you several times already.
|
That definition does not equate to fact.
Why would science; which is precise in its terms, use the same word in the same conversation to mean different things?
|
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 - 07/21/2007 : 15:12:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
That has been given to you ad nauseum and you've chosen to ignore it. Up yours Jerome; fucking look it up for yourself.
|
Then why does science use the same term in the same conversation with two meanings?
Science tends to be precise; why in this case is science presenting a two words with different definitions in the context of one conversation.
|
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 - 07/21/2007 : 15:23:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
With the crux being anyone questioning this form of language usage is a fool with the inability to understand. |
No, you could have questioned it and accepted the answers. You chose to argue with the answers, inventing problems where none existed and ignoring the contexts necessary for comprehension. You don't have an inability to understand, Jerome - it looks more like a refusal to understand.
|
What you have the inability to understand is the usage of the same word with different meanings in the context of a single conversation is not scientific and definitely not precise, particularly when the word is used with both meanings.
This done not done with not only one word, it is done with two words concerning the science of 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 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
www.notjustatheory.com
Topic Locked
