Time to clear the decks...

[Swa]

Well done for shutting down conversation. Just shows evolution as more of a farce. Seeing as I can't respond there I'll just do it here.

The rest of your post was a whole heap of nonsense attempting to equate the scientific method with law. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, lad.

Great, claim it makes no sense because you didn't understand it. Read it again CAREFULLY and you'll see I was explaining different kinds and levels of proof, not equating science with law as you claim.

I mentioned nothing about religion.

Didn't have to. Your motives were clear when you referred to me as dense.

You seem to be digging yourself a large moron-hole. Again...

Looked in a mirror lately?

Stop talking gibberish.

A fact is observed reality.

Gravity and evolution are facts.

A theory explains facts.

Theories of gravity and Evolution.

Even if the theory is falsified, the facts remain.

Just can't seem to help it can you? Please keep digging.

They've been pretty useful in building the world you live in.

You mean the world we live in? Further proves my point.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

The InterWeb, where anyone can show of his ignorance and his pride in it to everyone else

Agreed, should also take a look in the mirror.

Proof as it's used in law has no bearing on science, so that's irrelevant.

Nope it's not. You're also making the mistake of seeing it as a comparison to science.

Fixed that for you.

Also, it's not a cop-out to say science doesn't "prove things", it's a humble admission that we can't claim to have absolute, irrefutable knowledge about things.

Erm... it's a cop-out... no way around that one. Thing is that the very people who claim science doesn't prove things claim that evolution is proven, doesn't sound very humble to me.

You are trying to live an ideology. Fact is that real life is not black or white. Scientists have to prove things in order to get research grants for instance or show medicines to be effective. Talk to any scientist and you'll find that science in practice does not work according to your ideal tautology of how it should because it just does not correlate with what we know about reality.

The Theory of Evolution has been standing pretty strong for 150+ years. Scientists have been working on trying to falsify it for all that time and haven't been able to.

If you think that you are under an illusion.

No, they don't, ever, as alloytoo also pointed out. Laws are observed natural phenomena, which people try to explain starting with a hypothesis. Then if evidence, repeated experiment and peer-reviews show that the hypothesis is on the right track, it becomes a theory.

Nope you're wrong. FACTS are observed phenomena. Theories explain how or why these phenomena happen. Perhaps you are confusing the two. Theories that explain why something happens can't become laws but theories that explain how it does actually can.

Consider this example. An apple falls to the ground, this is a fact. Many apples fall to the ground so the hypothesis is formed that this is the norm. Other unsupported objects also fall to the ground so a theory is formed that all objects not exerting an opposing force will gravitate towards the earth. Nothing is observed that violates this so theory becomes a law.

So hypothesis -> theory -> law
Yes there is indeed a hierarchy in science . Don't think of this as whole theories becoming laws. Theories go into greater detail than laws so theories still remain after part of them become laws. Hypotheses, theories and laws can change or be falsified. Facts remain if observations/measurements are accurate.

The evidence, experiment and peer-review part is also an ideology. Research the variety of different reasons why theories get support or sometimes become abandoned. You'll also then find how some theories have little to no evidence or experiment supporting them.

We used to get VAST amounts of trolling sockpuppets posting really insulting stuff. Create new clone - make insulting thread - get banned - rinse and repeat.

You think it is bad now? You should have seen the nightmare before the rules.

If you think that is any different from the VAST amounts of trolling sockpuppets posting really insulting stuff now you're suffering from delusion. And not everybody seems to agree with you either >>>

There was a suggestion that PD be removed completely, this was part of the solution, iirc. I didn't agree with it at the time, and I still don't, as precisely what you are saying is happening - The mad ****s are simply spilling over into the rest of the forum, while well meaning noobs can't join in.

It's a bit like DRM: solves nothing, irritates people, and causes more of what it tries to prevent.

 

[alloytoo]

Well done for shutting down conversation. Just shows evolution as more of a farce. Seeing as I can't respond there I'll just do it here.


Great, claim it makes no sense because you didn't understand it. Read it again CAREFULLY and you'll see I was explaining different kinds and levels of proof, not equating science with law as you claim.


Didn't have to. Your motives were clear when you referred to me as dense.


Looked in a mirror lately?


Just can't seem to help it can you? Please keep digging.


You mean the world we live in? Further proves my point.


Agreed, should also take a look in the mirror.


Nope it's not. You're also making the mistake of seeing it as a comparison to science.


Erm... it's a cop-out... no way around that one. Thing is that the very people who claim science doesn't prove things claim that evolution is proven, doesn't sound very humble to me.

You are trying to live an ideology. Fact is that real life is not black or white. Scientists have to prove things in order to get research grants for instance or show medicines to be effective. Talk to any scientist and you'll find that science in practice does not work according to your ideal tautology of how it should because it just does not correlate with what we know about reality.


If you think that you are under an illusion.


Nope you're wrong. FACTS are observed phenomena. Theories explain how or why these phenomena happen. Perhaps you are confusing the two. Theories that explain why something happens can't become laws but theories that explain how it does actually can.

Consider this example. An apple falls to the ground, this is a fact. Many apples fall to the ground so the hypothesis is formed that this is the norm. Other unsupported objects also fall to the ground so a theory is formed that all objects not exerting an opposing force will gravitate towards the earth. Nothing is observed that violates this so theory becomes a law.

So hypothesis -> theory -> law
Yes there is indeed a hierarchy in science . Don't think of this as whole theories becoming laws. Theories go into greater detail than laws so theories still remain after part of them become laws. Hypotheses, theories and laws can change or be falsified. Facts remain if observations/measurements are accurate.

The evidence, experiment and peer-review part is also an ideology. Research the variety of different reasons why theories get support or sometimes become abandoned. You'll also then find how some theories have little to no evidence or experiment supporting them.


If you think that is any different from the VAST amounts of trolling sockpuppets posting really insulting stuff now you're suffering from delusion. And not everybody seems to agree with you either >>>

In science "Laws" are conditions appear to hold true every time we observe or measure them. (That is no guarantee that they will hold true for future conditions that we may encounter)

An excellent example of this is gravity.

Newton provided us with a "Law" of gravity, a constant acceleration confirmed through every measurement he took.

We now know that the 'law' only holds for earth, that the "law" of gravity on the moon is very different. (Newton's laws have been refined for more universal application)

None the less, this puts "Laws" in the catagory of observed phenomena.

Observed phenomena are explained by (and may be predicted by) theory.

A timeline would go like this:

1. Phenomena observed
2. "Law" observed from consistant phenomena
3. Hypothesis suggests explanation
4. Evidence collected
5. Hypothesis confirmed or rejected. (including overturning law)
6. Theory derived.
7. Predictions made. (At this stage 'laws' may be derived/refined)
8. Theory strenghened /Falsified.

 

[Swa]

Newton provided us with a "Law" of gravity, a constant acceleration confirmed through every measurement he took.

We now know that the 'law' only holds for earth, that the "law" of gravity on the moon is very different. (Newton's laws have been refined for more universal application)

Newton's law of universal gravitation is the same on the moon as on earth, that's why it's called universal. It's also called the inverse square law. You're likely thinking of the force of gravity which is expressed in the unit "newton." Regardless 1 newton on earth is still the same as 1 newton on the moon so it holds true as well but the force of gravity on earth is ~9.6N while on the moon it's ~1.6N. It's the same law used to calculate it on the moon as on earth.

You're probably thinking of general relativity. This takes into account other forces like motion and the fact that gravity is not actually dependent on point mass but if these are excluded Newton's law holds true for gravity in the solar system with remarkable accuracy.

None the less, this puts "Laws" in the catagory of observed phenomena.

Observed phenomena are explained by (and may be predicted by) theory.

A timeline would go like this:

1. Phenomena observed
2. "Law" observed from consistant phenomena
3. Hypothesis suggests explanation
4. Evidence collected
5. Hypothesis confirmed or rejected. (including overturning law)
6. Theory derived.
7. Predictions made. (At this stage 'laws' may be derived/refined)
8. Theory strenghened /Falsified.

I don't know where you get this. You can't "observe" laws without first observing and collecting facts and then forming theories how these work. If you did and the law was correct it would be a miraculous guess and we are told science isn't about guesses.

Something tells me you're arguing semantics here and misconstruing the meaning of words to suit your idea. If your definition is correct then hypotheses and theories fall into the category of "observed phenomena" as well. Facts are observed phenomena and not hypotheses, theories and laws.

 

[alloytoo]

Newton's law of universal gravitation is the same on the moon as on earth, that's why it's called universal. It's also called the inverse square law. You're likely thinking of the force of gravity which is expressed in the unit "newton." Regardless 1 newton on earth is still the same as 1 newton on the moon so it holds true as well but the force of gravity on earth is ~9.6N while on the moon it's ~1.6N. It's the same law used to calculate it on the moon as on earth.

You're probably thinking of general relativity. This takes into account other forces like motion and the fact that gravity is not actually dependent on point mass but if these are excluded Newton's law holds true for gravity in the solar system with remarkable accuracy.

My point being that the law of gravity (g) on earth is different from lunar gravity, and that constaints may appear to be universal may not (as you so kindly pointed out) always be.

I don't know where you get this. You can't "observe" laws without first observing and collecting facts and then forming theories how these work. If you did and the law was correct it would be a miraculous guess and we are told science isn't about guesses.

Nonsense. Laws are observations of phenomena that 'appear' to be universal and constant.

Newtons Law of gravity describes HOW gravity works, it remains a description of observation. It does not explain WHY gravity works.

Something tells me you're arguing semantics here and misconstruing the meaning of words to suit your idea. If your definition is correct then hypotheses and theories fall into the category of "observed phenomena" as well. Facts are observed phenomena and not hypotheses, theories and laws.

Semantic games are Techne's preview.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Nope it's not. You're also making the mistake of seeing it as a comparison to science.

The context and application of the word aren't the same. If you mean by "proof" that it fits in with what theory predicted, then it's not the same as saying it's irrefutably true, in an absolute sense.

Nope you're wrong. FACTS are observed phenomena. Theories explain how or why these phenomena happen. Perhaps you are confusing the two. Theories that explain why something happens can't become laws but theories that explain how it does actually can.

Consider this example. An apple falls to the ground, this is a fact. Many apples fall to the ground so the hypothesis is formed that this is the norm. Other unsupported objects also fall to the ground so a theory is formed that all objects not exerting an opposing force will gravitate towards the earth. Nothing is observed that violates this so theory becomes a law.

So hypothesis -> theory -> law
Yes there is indeed a hierarchy in science . Don't think of this as whole theories becoming laws. Theories go into greater detail than laws so theories still remain after part of them become laws. Hypotheses, theories and laws can change or be falsified. Facts remain if observations/measurements are accurate.

I worded it badly, apologies. Laws describe repeatedly observed natural phenomena, or facts. It remains a description of the WHAT that's being observed. It does not attempt to explain the WHY, the mechanisms or processes at play. So no, a theory doesn't become a law, and a law doesn't come from a theory. They are parts of different categories in the taxonomy of science.

The evidence, experiment and peer-review part is also an ideology. Research the variety of different reasons why theories get support or sometimes become abandoned. You'll also then find how some theories have little to no evidence or experiment supporting them.

Those are pretty central parts of the scientific method, not a random ideology followed by mad scientists who live in dungeons breeding luminous rats.

 

[Swa]

My point being that the law of gravity (g) on earth is different from lunar gravity, and that constaints may appear to be universal may not (as you so kindly pointed out) always be.

The point is that it's NOT. The law of gravity is the same on the moon as on the earth. If it wasn't then it couldn't be a law by definition. I think you're confusing things here. The force of gravity is different but that's a completely different topic and the force of gravity can be determined in both cases using the law of gravity.

Newtons Law of gravity describes HOW gravity works, it remains a description of observation. It does not explain WHY gravity works.

Exactly, they describe observations. They are NOT observations themselves. You ARE arguing semantics here and more than that misconstruing meanings and logic. More commonly known as arguing for the sake of argument so I won't waste any further time with it.

The context and application of the word aren't the same. If you mean by "proof" that it fits in with what theory predicted, then it's not the same as saying it's irrefutably true, in an absolute sense.

In reality there are no absolute irrefutable proofs. Nonetheless some proofs can come pretty close. That the earth is round and gravity exists are among these. The whole point was that these things can't really be compared. They have more support than the theory of gravity. Even this has been shown to maybe not be so accurate yet it has more support than evolution which has more support than the theory of evolution. Comparisons only serve as subversion.

I worded it badly, apologies. Laws describe repeatedly observed natural phenomena, or facts. It remains a description of the WHAT that's being observed. It does not attempt to explain the WHY, the mechanisms or processes at play. So no, a theory doesn't become a law, and a law doesn't come from a theory. They are parts of different categories in the taxonomy of science.

No biggie. You're still leaving out HOW though. Some theories explain how things happen much like laws do. They can therefor not be seen as completely different categories. Problem with definitions are that even scientists don't follow these conventions. Some will interchangeably use the terms or different sciences will have mainly laws or theories. The empirical sciences have more laws than the natural sciences and at the same time is more proven so it can be seen as "laws > theories > hypotheses" and indeed scientists often do use them this way. The trend nowadays is also to name things as theories rather than laws.

I don't get why the fuss about semantics and idealistic definitions though. Surely what matters most is truth?

Those are pretty central parts of the scientific method, not a random ideology followed by mad scientists who live in dungeons breeding luminous rats.

Not what I am saying. Ideology does not mean random. Things that effect them are politics, money, careers, beliefs and often personal pride among just a few. Science in reality is not a framework but functions within a framework.

 

[cyghost]

You ARE arguing semantics here and more than that misconstruing meanings and logic. More commonly known as arguing for the sake of argument so I won't waste any further time with it.

oh, the irony

 

[alloytoo]

The point is that it's NOT. The law of gravity is the same on the moon as on the earth. If it wasn't then it couldn't be a law by definition. I think you're confusing things here. The force of gravity is different but that's a completely different topic and the force of gravity can be determined in both cases using the law of gravity.

Before Newton provided the mathematics for the universal law of gravity, the fact that things simply fell to earth would have been consider the state of things, to wit "the law". Later when Galileo proved that things fall at the same rate, that would have been the law.

My point being that for the umpteenth time that the "LAW" is an observation which appears to hold universally true, but which may only be localized.

Exactly, they describe observations. They are NOT observations themselves.

But they are not explanations

You ARE arguing semantics here and more than that misconstruing meanings and logic. More commonly known as arguing for the sake of argument so I won't waste any further time with it.

I'm sorry if you fail to grasp the distinction between an observation and an explanation.

 

[Swa]

Before Newton provided the mathematics for the universal law of gravity, the fact that things simply fell to earth would have been consider the state of things, to wit "the law". Later when Galileo proved that things fall at the same rate, that would have been the law.

My point being that for the umpteenth time that the "LAW" is an observation which appears to hold universally true, but which may only be localized.

*sigh* shifting the goalpost

But they are not explanations

I'm sorry if you fail to grasp the distinction between an observation and an explanation.

They are not explanations of WHY. And you are the one that confused observation and explanation.