|
Intelligent Design Theory (pg. 27)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Desiderata |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Changing 1 plank every day for a year would eventually get you a different ship. The question is, when is it sufficiently "different" enough to be considered not the same as the one before it?
I am having a hard time understanding why people don't get what you're saying.
It would be entirely ridiculous to take scientific theory as the absolute, infallible truth. The Big Bang Theory is a pretty good theory as far as I know, but since there is no way of ever REALLY proving what happened, you cannot take it as the be all and end all of theories. It is possible that there are some flaws to it. Sure, you can trust that it's the best possible explanation and that it may in fact be perfect in explaining what happened, but there is a chance that it may not be.
There once was a time that people believed that the Sun rotated around Earth. Some believed this to be the indisputable truth. Obviously that was wrong.
Anyway, I think srussell's point is that yes, theories are probably a pretty damn good explanation and very well may be completely right, but it would be kind of foolish to assume that to be the case. There have been theories that have been disproved (read previous example), and there are theories that have been "refined" (read plank question). |
I will let PKC touch this one, if he wants to. |
|
|
| Desiderata |
| Since this is the Philosophy of Science, it would depend if the plank you changed everyday for a year was a replacement plank that looked/acted the same as the one discarded before it or if it is a completely different plank giving the metaphor boat a different look/function. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Changing 1 plank every day for a year would eventually get you a different ship. The question is, when is it sufficiently "different" enough to be considered not the same as the one before it?
I am having a hard time understanding why people don't get what you're saying.
It would be entirely ridiculous to take scientific theory as the absolute, infallible truth. The Big Bang Theory is a pretty good theory as far as I know, but since there is no way of ever REALLY proving what happened, you cannot take it as the be all and end all of theories. It is possible that there are some flaws to it. Sure, you can trust that it's the best possible explanation and that it may in fact be perfect in explaining what happened, but there is a chance that it may not be.
There once was a time that people believed that the Sun rotated around Earth. Some believed this to be the indisputable truth. Obviously that was wrong.
Anyway, I think srussell's point is that yes, theories are probably a pretty damn good explanation and very well may be completely right, but it would be kind of foolish to assume that to be the case. There have been theories that have been disproved (read previous example), and there are theories that have been "refined" (read plank question). |
You hit the nail on the head. Apparently everyone else in this thread needs a nail hit into their head to understand a point of view other than their own.
Nobody is confusing what a "theory" means in science. Nobody is claiming that any of the theories talked about in this thread are false. Nobody is claiming any other theories are better than the ones posted in this thread. All I am saying, is that there is a difference between a theory and absolute truth, whether it be a scientific theory or not.
I like Theresa's example of the Big Bang Theory. It fits, it works well to explain the origin of the Universe, but it does not provide an infallible truth regarding the origin of our universe. Nevertheless, the Big Bang Theory is a "scientific theory" so why don't you all take a little time, ponder that one over, and realize that a "scientific theory" does not necessitate its truth.
Also, Desiderata, you're only letting PKC handle that one because you're not intelligent enough to make any kind of logical argument regarding...well pretty much anything. You just keep saying the same thing over and over. "There's a difference between a theory and a scientific theory." WE KNOW. You're not providing anything to this thread other than redundancy. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Desiderata
Since this is the Philosophy of Science, it would depend if the plank you changed everyday for a year was a replacement plank that looked/acted the same as the one discarded before it or if it is a completely different plank giving the metaphor boat a different look/function. |
Yes, except for the metaphor was comparing the altering of a scientific theory to the rebuilding of a ship. Obviously if you're changing the theory, you're not replacing parts of it with the exact same parts.
Why don't you just leave this debate up to the people that are mentally capable of having one. |
|
|
| D-res |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Changing 1 plank every day for a year would eventually get you a different ship. The question is, when is it sufficiently "different" enough to be considered not the same as the one before it? |
That's clear. That would be like how evolution was amended and adjusted ever so slightly when genetics was discovered and showed the theory (read: fact) to be true, but through a more complex process than previously understood.
When modern chemistry was realized, alchemy was thrown out the window except by a few fringe groups. That's a sufficiently different theory. They both deal with mixing a bunch of together and heating it up, but they're vastly different ideas. We wouldn't call it Alchemy 2.0. It's a different theory.
| quote: |
I am having a hard time understanding why people don't get what you're saying. |
People are getting it just fine. He/she either doesn't understand what's being thoroughly explained to them or they're nitpicking at their own apparent lack of understanding of the discrepancy.
| quote: | It would be entirely ridiculous to take scientific theory as the absolute, infallible truth. The Big Bang Theory is a pretty good theory as far as I know, but since there is no way of ever REALLY proving what happened, you cannot take it as the be all and end all of theories. It is possible that there are some flaws to it. Sure, you can trust that it's the best possible explanation and that it may in fact be perfect in explaining what happened, but there is a chance that it may not be.
There once was a time that people believed that the Sun rotated around Earth. Some believed this to be the indisputable truth. Obviously that was wrong. |
And there are infinite examples of illiterate, unindustrialized neanderthals thinking all kinds of crazy , that proves nothing. You realize when people thought the earth was flat or plagues were an act of god, they couldn't observe on the macro and micro scales we can now. Complex mathematics was nonexistent. Never before has knowledge been as widely available as it is now. This has allowed us the tools to develop our understanding of what the holy hell is really going on. Theories developed today have had the opportunity to undergo a lot of scrutiny, and they've stood up to it or adjusted.
| quote: | | Anyway, I think srussell's point is that yes, theories are probably a pretty damn good explanation and very well may be completely right, but it would be kind of foolish to assume that to be the case. |
What is foolish about accepting what is easily the most thorough and precise explanation of reality over all other known alternatives?
| quote: | | There have been theories that have been disproved (read previous example), and there are theories that have been "refined" (read plank question). |
Great obvservation |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
And PKC, in the article you quoted before, it even says that a "Scientific Theory" is "As close to proven as anything in science can be."
Even if all observations point to a theory the explain some phenomena, whether it be gravity, evolution, etc. that does not make it absolute truth. Newton's theory of Gravity was a scientific theory, but Einstein's theory of relativity fit better. Thus, Newton's theory of Gravity was proven to be incorrect. What's not to say that the same thing could happen to the Theory of Relativity? That's all I've been trying to say.
And Desiderata, before you chime in with one of your gems, yes, I do understand what that a scientific theory has a different meaning than the normal use of the word "theory." |
|
|
| Desiderata |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
You hit the nail on the head. Apparently everyone else in this thread needs a nail hit into their head to understand a point of view other than their own.
Nobody is confusing what a "theory" means in science. Nobody is claiming that any of the theories talked about in this thread are false. Nobody is claiming any other theories are better than the ones posted in this thread. All I am saying, is that there is a difference between a theory and absolute truth, whether it be a scientific theory or not.
I like Theresa's example of the Big Bang Theory. It fits, it works well to explain the origin of the Universe, but it does not provide an infallible truth regarding the origin of our universe. Nevertheless, the Big Bang Theory is a "scientific theory" so why don't you all take a little time, ponder that one over, and realize that a "scientific theory" does not necessitate its truth.
Also, Desiderata, you're only letting PKC handle that one because you're not intelligent enough to make any kind of logical argument regarding...well pretty much anything. You just keep saying the same thing over and over. "There's a difference between a theory and a scientific theory." WE KNOW. You're not providing anything to this thread other than redundancy. |
You finally got the point though didn't you? And PKC told you also so did NRGNite ( I forget his Handle )They all said the same thing as I did and yes PKC is way more schooled in this subject than I am. The problem with the Big Bang is it leaves a gap open for Creationism as I stated early in this Thread. Also, I stated a book is now out called 'The Grand Design' written by a few Scientists that talk about the M-Theory, which was derived from the String Theory stating that the universe is full of strings that bind things together, and depending on what vibration they vibrate on determine if they will be a proton, Neuron, or even Gravity. You have to understand that A Grand Design of EVEYTHING is something Einstein wanted to accomplish more than anything in his life time. If this Theory holds up as it is still being tested, it could be the absolute truth you are talking about, we are closer to the absolute truth of the origin of the whole Universe than we have ever been in the history of Humans which is not very long on the Evolutionary Chart. I was just trying to drill something in your head but by no means am I ignorant. |
|
|
| Redd |
but it's still a theory
god is the only real truth |
|
|
| Desiderata |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Yes, except for the metaphor was comparing the altering of a scientific theory to the rebuilding of a ship. Obviously if you're changing the theory, you're not replacing parts of it with the exact same parts.
Why don't you just leave this debate up to the people that are mentally capable of having one. |
Dude, that Post was a total joke, it was all Rhetoric!! :rolleyes:
I can NOT believe you took that serious.
:haha: :haha: :haha:
 |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by D-res
Never before has knowledge been as widely available as it is now. This has allowed us the tools to develop our understanding of what the holy hell is really going on. Theories developed today have had the opportunity to undergo a lot of scrutiny, and they've stood up to it or adjusted. |
You're completely right, but at the rate technology and science has been advancing recently, it would be perfectly reasonable to believe that we're missing something which we haven't yet discovered, or that there are flaws that the Theory of Relativity doesn't explain correctly. Theories can change, often drastically, so to say the Theory of Relativity (although, again, I agree with it, and realize that it is the most accurate explanation) is an absolute truth is silly. Yes, it is our best explanation right now. No, that doesn't mean it always will be.
| quote: | What is foolish about accepting what is easily the most thorough and precise explanation of reality over all other known alternatives?
|
That's not foolish at all. And like I've said time and time again, I agree with these theories. I'm merely pointing out the fact that it is possible for these theories to be proven wrong. There's many astrophysicists today, even, that are questioning Einstein's Theory of Relativity. What's the point of science if not to advance? Going by what you're saying, it seems as if you're saying "Oh, well this works best, so there's no real point in trying to find any other possible explanation." |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Desiderata
Also, I stated a book is now out called 'The Grand Design' written by a few Scientists that talk about the M-Theory, which was derived from the String Theory stating that the universe is full of strings that bind things together, and depending on what vibration they vibrate on determine if they will be a proton, Neuron, or even Gravity. You have to understand that A Grand Design of EVEYTHING is something Einstein wanted to accomplish more than anything in his life time. If this Theory holds up as it is still being tested, it could be the absolute truth you are talking about, we are closer to the absolute truth of the origin of the whole Universe than we have ever been in the history of Humans which is not very long on the Evolutionary Chart. I was just trying to drill something in your head but by no means am I ignorant. |
Trying to drill something into my head that I already knew, and already explained my understanding of more than once. I appreciate the unneeded effort you put into that.
Also, the theories that you're talking about could dramatically alter the Big Bang Theory, and could have implications on the Theory of Relativity as well. So, basically all you're doing is proving that I'm right. A theory is only "true" until they find a better one. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Desiderata
Dude, that Post was a total joke, it was all Rhetoric!! :rolleyes:
|
I guess I didn't recognize it as a joke, as it wasn't funny at all. |
|
|
|
|
