|
Intelligent Design Theory (pg. 30)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| D-res |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
So the answer is no. Not all scientific theories are infallible.
You therefore agree with srussel and myself.
Conversation over. |
potential fallibility is one of sciences best qualities. |
|
|
| Desiderata |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
You must be in love with PKC. Why don't you wait until he says something else, then you can posit some "new" ideas. |
All, the ideas I have Posted that were my own have were Posted with nothing to do with PKC until you didn't understand Theory in Science. But that is old news...move a long now to a new subject. |
|
|
| Desiderata |
| quote: | Originally posted by D-res
It doesn't. Relativity breaks down at small scales. It's meant to explain planetary and cosmic movement and time dilation. If you're talking about quantum scales, relativity has no relevance.
|
I will admit if I am wrong here but M-Theory doesn't disprove Relativity. Wouldn't they just be at different spectrums of things, but each working accordingly, that is if M-Theory holds up as it is only about 20+ years. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by D-res
potential fallibility is one of sciences best qualities. |
+1, and that is what makes science science. If you've read the works of many people in the Philosophy of Science field, one of the main parts that a theory must hold for it to be considered scientific is that it is, in fact, fallible. If there's no possibility of a scientific theory being proven wrong, then it's not a true scientific theory.
If everyone was like you, and just accepted the current best theories in place, science would never progress. You're basically arguing for the stagnation of science through complacency.
It's pretty clear that you don't understand the Philosophy of Science, so there's really no point in your arguing something that you'll never be able to win. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
@ D-Res - Actually, pretty much the nuts of what I was aiming for. :gsmile:
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
The ship thing started when I pointed out that theories can be amended or even disproven altogether with the discovery of new knowledge, etc. PKC said something along the lines of "If you replace one plank in the ship, is it not the same ship?" He was (I think) trying to say that even if these theories do change, or if parts of them change, they're still the same theory. |
It's unlike PKC to walk such a plank unless he knew that ship was destined to be torpedoed, in the first place. Replacing decaying wood on the deck is a bit different than a whole-sale improvement in the the placement and design of ballast tanks to better accommodate asymmetrical loading and off-loading; a metaphor of my own creation to illustrate some of the tectonic advancements in scientific understanding which roughly parallel 20th Century improvements in industrial ship design.
My point isn't that PKC is wrong in the general arguments that he's advancing but that his adoption of the ship as a metaphor to convey them doesn't hold enough water to maintain its balance by virtue of the fact that, in attempting to simplify his argument, it looks as though he's made it more complex and unwieldy. |
|
|
| Desiderata |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
+1, and that is what makes science science. If you've read the works of many people in the Philosophy of Science field, one of the main parts that a theory must hold for it to be considered scientific is that it is, in fact, fallible. If there's no possibility of a scientific theory being proven wrong, then it's not a true scientific theory.
If everyone was like you, and just accepted the current best theories in place, science would never progress. You're basically arguing for the stagnation of science through complacency.
It's pretty clear that you don't understand the Philosophy of Science, so there's really no point in your arguing something that you'll never be able to win. |
I can have this cleared up now that we have an intelligent person speaking to help me understand instead of 3rd grade insults that I am copying PKC with LOVE...I only did that near the end to see if you would answer his question to you, and you never did but claimed you already knew what he meant. If you could speak clearly I might have agreed with you early on but you just insult and I fired back. Tag your it, no tag your it...I'm rubber your glue etc...I didn't mean to go into a bitch fit over this but you played your part as well. |
|
|
| Desiderata |
|
|
|
| Desiderata |
| quote: | Originally posted by D-res
you're* |
Yup:p |
|
|
| D-res |
| quote: | Originally posted by Desiderata
I will admit if I am wrong here but M-Theory doesn't disprove Relativity. Wouldn't they just be at different spectrums of things, but each working accordingly, that is if M-Theory holds up as it is only about 20+ years. |
It doesn't disprove it because they attempt to explain two entirely different things |
|
|
| Desiderata |
| quote: | Originally posted by D-res
It doesn't disprove it because they attempt to explain two entirely different things |
So it's not a Theory until a better Theory comes along, that was all I was trying to say.
I knew I was right to a degree but needed to make sure. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Changing 1 plank every day for a year would eventually get you a different ship. |
Not it if has a million planks.
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
The question is, when is it sufficiently "different" enough to be considered not the same as the one before it? |
When it significantly alters the theory.
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
I am having a hard time understanding why people don't get what you're saying. |
Because he’s wrong. He asserted, for instance, that the theory of relativity hasn’t been proven. Which isn’t true.
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
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). |
we know exactly what he’s saying. |
|
|
|
|
