Quote:
Originally posted by aeon@Jan 31 2004, 09:52 AM
Evolution is a theory...not a fact & should be taught as a theory - it can't even satisfy the basics of accepted scientific theory; it relies on being parsimonious almost exclusively. How the hell is something human's can't observe consistantly replicatable & if you can't replicate it, how is it potentially falsifiable through empirical means...
I despise the latte sippin' twits who buy into science as a fact...they're no different than religious fanatics. They'll swallow anything science feeds them & stroke their own sheepish brain under the delusion of being "educated/enlightened".
Darwin loves me, this I know - for the beagle tells me so.
Scientism...the new religion.
best of luck -
aeon
|
So you read some drivel over on
www.creationscience.com and think you have it all figured out, huh? Somehow the readings of a few nutjobs at the fringe gives you a superior view and insight into scientific methodology?
With even a modicum of understanding of science you would realize that
all science is theory. Einstein properly labeled his two great works "The Special Theory of Relativity" and "The General Theory of Relativity". Even today, 400 years after the fact we refer to Newton's works on gravity as 'The theory of "Universal Gravitation" '. If I remember correctly one of the three published teachings of Richard Feynman called "The Feynman Lectures on Physics" includes a discussion on "the atomic theory of matter". Not "atomic fact" but "atomic theory". Not "relativity fact" but "relativity theory".
So what do you say? Should we not discuss general and relativity theory or the atomic theory of matter because of your concerns with them being "just theories"? Should we abolish all discussion of black holes and quarks in the schoolroom? Should we go back to the days of Aristotle when so much of science was simple classification? "This is a mammal", "this is a star".
Evolution not falsifiable? Really. The evolutionary theory existed long before the discovery of DNA and DNA comparison techniques. What if a pig and a human were more closely related by DNA comparison than humans and chimps? Wouldn't that have thrown a cog in the whole apparatus of evolution? What if whale DNA had turned out to be more fish-like than mammal-like? Hmmm.
Science does not proclaim itself in facts. It proclaims itself in theories. Science must be taught his way. That is what science is. So you wish to exclude one particular theory because it disagrees with your world-view?
And what to think of groups of people who disavow the atomic theory, quantum theory, or relativity theory on philosophical grounds? Ban those subjects in the classroom too? We would listen to a group of Bible thumping parents in Kansas who want to ban Einstein's theory of special relativity in the classroom on the grounds that it is "just a theory"?
You ask "How the hell is something human's can't observe consistantly replicatable & if you can't replicate it, how is it potentially falsifiable through empirical means"? Take the case of relativity theory and it how it leads to the prediction of black holes. How much empirical data do humans have on black holes? What is the totality of our knowledge on black holes in the universe? Great, we've found some things in space that look like what we were expecting to find given current theory on black holes. Oh, yeah .. look at Cygnus X-1. Great! Look at those particle ejection jets at the poles. Cool. We were expecting to see those. But they remain that - theoretical. You keep working through the equations to see if the theory is in fact consistent with the rest of known science. Sometimes it is. Awesome. Sometimes it isn't. Back to the drawing board.
I understand that you are not supposed to eat from the forbidden tree of knowledge. Well, don't and that's fine for you. Why do you expect everyone else to live that way though?
Last edited by Colin at Jan 31 2004, 11:06 AM