Quote:
Originally posted by aeon@Jan 31 2004, 11:22 AM
before you go stroking your own intellectual microphallus too much skippy...you might read what I wrote...scientific theory is not fact.
|
Here is what is all too obvious from your posts. You did not say that the concept of theory should be taught or that a discourse on, say, Popper's works on scientific methodology should be taught in the classroom. You did not say that relativity or atomic physics should be taught as "theory not fact".
Despite the fact that the subject of the thread is evolution, if it were really your contention that "what a theory is" should be taught in the classroom you would have refered to that general principle rather than just saying that evolution "is not a fact".
The scientific paradigms you refer to such as "consistantly replicatable" (sic)are nothing more than guidelines. Guidelines which are broken all the time. Much of physics today cannot be considered consistently replicable. Mathematics derived from axioms leads to predictions of exotic objects which cannot be directly observed. Verification is a tricky subject. One can use the equations of general relativity to approximate the path of a spaceship in the nearby gravitational field of two rotating black holes. How does one verify it's accuracy? But now what? Have we left the realm of science or are we still in it? I'd say we're still in it and so does every physics journal out there.
Last edited by Colin at Jan 31 2004, 12:06 PM