Comment Re:Evolution "THEORY" ARGGGGHHHH (Score 1) 326
I agree - I find the use of the phrase "just a theory" almost as annoying as the phrase "Scientific Fact".
There are no facts in science unless they are definitional. There are:
a) hypotheses (educated guesses that can be tested)
b) theories (refined hypotheses that have stood up to testing so far)
c) "laws" (theories that have become generally accepted as accurate, but may later turn out to be imperfect - e.g., Newton's Laws as originally written prior to Quantum and Relativistic Physics).
d) definitions (the value of pi or e are only "facts" because we've defined them to mean something.)
e) assumptions (e.g., every physical-observable effect has a physical-observable cause)
This doesn't mean I don't respect Theories or "Laws" of science -- only that I understand them for what they are, as I'm sure you do as well. I'd just prefer that you not react to the misuse of the phrase "just a theory" by using a phrase that the common person will equally misinterpret, such as "Scientific Fact".
==>Andrew!
"A philosopher once said, 'It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same results'. Well, they do not... Yet science goes on in spite of it..."
"What is necessary 'for the very existence of science', and what the characteristics of nature are, are not to be determined by pompous preconditions, they are determined always by the material with which we work, by nature herself."
"In fact, it is necessary for the very existence of science that minds exist which do not allow that nature must satisfy some preconceived conditions, like those of our philosopher."
- Richard Feynman, _The_Character_of_Physical_Law_
There are no facts in science unless they are definitional. There are:
a) hypotheses (educated guesses that can be tested)
b) theories (refined hypotheses that have stood up to testing so far)
c) "laws" (theories that have become generally accepted as accurate, but may later turn out to be imperfect - e.g., Newton's Laws as originally written prior to Quantum and Relativistic Physics).
d) definitions (the value of pi or e are only "facts" because we've defined them to mean something.)
e) assumptions (e.g., every physical-observable effect has a physical-observable cause)
This doesn't mean I don't respect Theories or "Laws" of science -- only that I understand them for what they are, as I'm sure you do as well. I'd just prefer that you not react to the misuse of the phrase "just a theory" by using a phrase that the common person will equally misinterpret, such as "Scientific Fact".
==>Andrew!
"A philosopher once said, 'It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same results'. Well, they do not... Yet science goes on in spite of it..."
"What is necessary 'for the very existence of science', and what the characteristics of nature are, are not to be determined by pompous preconditions, they are determined always by the material with which we work, by nature herself."
"In fact, it is necessary for the very existence of science that minds exist which do not allow that nature must satisfy some preconceived conditions, like those of our philosopher."
- Richard Feynman, _The_Character_of_Physical_Law_
