Exposing the Fallacies of Science/Atheist-ism & Proving Intelligent Design!

[Jello]

nope. its a stupid question. [COLOR="White"]and yes, the object falling is an observable fact. as is the speed at which it falls, etc. causal explanations for why it falls, i.e. gravity, are not fact. [/COLOR]

What? Physicists consider gravity to be fact as do the majority of biologists consider evolution to be fact.

[Jello]

In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

[miller-time]

Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

the theory of evolution (ie natural selection) is different from the observation of evolution. gravity is a theory that explains how objects fall (towards one another) and falling objects are the observation or fact. gravitational theory is the model used to explain the data.

[Jello]

the theory of evolution (ie natural selection) is different from the observation of evolution. gravity is a theory that explains how objects fall (towards one another) and falling objects are the observation or fact. gravitational theory is the model used to explain the data.

What? Evolution isn't natural selection... LOL Gravity is a theory of how objects fall towards one another? This is sad...

[TennesseeFan]

Yes, all the benefits and organization that helps all the 'lesser' people in Third World countries are not contradictions to natural selection at all.

[Jello]

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world.

Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

[boozehound]

Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

look, the word fact can have multiple usages, as it does in science. see the link I provided to see some of them, including Kuhn's relatively interesting perspective of science as paradigm. It even has a link to an explanation of your current conundrum. Ill reprovide it for you.

That doesnt change that fact's proper and basic usage in science is as data/observation. In the case of the old ass gould news article (its ****ing discover magazine, cmon now), hes using it in the colloquial sense. That being said, some people use the term fact instead of law to mean a theory so well tested and grounded that its basically incontrovertible, such as gravity, natural selection, thermodynamics, etc.

[Jello]

look, the word fact can have multiple usages, as it does in science. see the link I provided to see some of them, including Kuhn's relatively interesting perspective of science as paradigm. It even has a link to an explanation of your current conundrum. Ill reprovide it for you.

That doesnt change that fact's proper and basic usage in science is as data/observation. In the case of the old ass gould news article (its ****ing discover magazine, cmon now), hes using it in the colloquial sense. That being said, some people use the term fact instead of law to mean a theory so well tested and grounded that its basically incontrovertible, such as gravity, natural selection, thermodynamics, etc.

Now you're attacking a scientist that has a phD in these subjects because he publishes an article in discover.
Wrong. Natural selection is a theory. Evolution is fact. Gravity is fact. Any attempts to explain how it works through mechanisms is a theory.

[Jasi]

C'mon, you're both right but you use different meanings of the words "evolution" and "fact", stop it.

[Jello]

C'mon, you're both right but you use different meanings of the words "evolution" and "fact", stop it.

No he's wrong. He made an absolute statement, now he's backpedaling.

[boozehound]

Now you're attacking a scientist that has a phD in these subjects because he publishes an article in discover.
Wrong. Natural selection is a theory. Evolution is fact. Gravity is fact. Any attempts to explain how it works through mechanisms is a theory.

No disrespect intended. Although he is a little overhyped due to his popular lit (much like jared diamond or brian fagan), hes a brilliant evolutionary scientist, no doubt. My point is simply that bringing a ****ing magazine article rather than something peer-reviewed is weak. Nothing is more powerful than a theory (in that laws are theories and sometimes not distinguished). People seem to forget that theory means something entirely different in science than in the vernacular.

[Jello]

No disrespect intended. Although he is a little overhyped due to his popular lit (much like jared diamond or brian fagan), hes a brilliant evolutionary scientist, no doubt. My point is simply that bringing a ****ing magazine article rather than something peer-reviewed is weak. Nothing is more powerful than a theory (in that laws are theories and sometimes not distinguished). People seem to forget that theory means something entirely different in science than in the vernacular.

Look. You made the statement

also, you need to quit using the word fact. in science, fact means a piece of measurable data or, basically, the basic unit to be explored. it does not mean "proven beyond question" or something like that.

I said

Not true

Which was confirmed by a scientist more qualified than you and the prevailing scientific community.

[boozehound]

No he's wrong. He made an absolute statement, now he's backpedaling.

**** you and backpedal it right up your ass. He can call it a fact all he wants, his point is this "in science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

Fact is only used in this sense with dealing with nimrods who dont understand scientific terminology properly. In science, fact means the most basic of understandings, observable/measurable data. Now, if you would read the link about this, you would see that the uses like Gould's are not only incredibly rare, but are in direct response to attacks on the "theory" of evolution.

[boozehound]

Look. You made the statement

I said

Which was confirmed by a scientist more qualified than you and the prevailing scientific community.

can you bother to read any of the wiki links I provided? Fact means basic observable data in 99% of scientific usages. OK? Jebus Christo

besides, the way that fool tennesseefan was using it was entirely inconsistent with either proposed usage. so, he still needs to quit using it/modify how he uses it.

[boozehound]

can you bother to read any of the wiki links I provided? Fact means basic observable data in 99% of scientific usages. OK? Jebus Christo

besides, the way that fool tennesseefan was using it was entirely inconsistent with either proposed usage. so, he still needs to quit using it/modify how he uses it.

since you cant be bothered to click a link.

When scientists say "evolution is a fact" they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical, and when this is what scientists mean, then "evolution" is used to mean observed changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations.
Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) [8] even though this cannot be directly observed. This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with other primates.

The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes a similar point:
Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.[18]
Philosophers of science argue that we do not know anything with absolute certainty: even direct observations may be "theory laden" and depend on assumptions about our senses and the measuring instruments used. In this sense all facts are provisional.[1][19]