I never said that theory means unproven. In order to qualify as a theory, an assertion has to be falsifiable. It is impossible to prove a theory, only disprove it. The theory of evolution is very robust, but it maybe disproven in the future. There is no continuum of robustness of theories which ultimately leads to facthood. You people that are insisting that evolution is a fact are displaying an embarrassing lack of intellectual honesty.
In the third post in this thread, it was mentioned that the question was partly motivated by the title of a book by Massimo Pigliucci. I just finished reading an article by him in “Free Inquiry” (Summer, 2003) which addresses this. He says:
I agree with this point of view.
Pigliucci, by the way, is the top debater I know of who defends evolution against creationists.
'scuse me while I :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Scientism would be the revering of scientists themselves. Sciencism is what is being grasped at, although it has been missed.
The authoritarian academic social model has, in fact produced scientism now and then. The work of the “great man” is beyond question. It’s bad science. But it happens. It is seldom the case that those same social factors are used to discredit bad science, or superstition pretending to be science. What is usually happening is that non-scientists are trying to convince themselves that the thirty and forty year old scientific theories they recall from early education are still valid, and useful. Some of them are, some are not.
Sciencism would be the belief that nothing has value unless it can be measured, recorded, described, and predicted by the logical and experimental protocols of the scientific method. There are very few people who actually believe that. Many people think scientists are smart people who know lots of stuff, and can always find out the answer to questions. Unfortunately, some of them have jobs associated with science. They’re wrong, too.
Science cannot decide what is good, and what is evil. Science does not consider what is not of the world. Faith may move mountains, but it doesn’t build bridges, or space ships. Science and faith are not as antithetical as many people wish they were. But you can’t do scientific testing on something, and have faith in it too. Theologically you are committing blasphemy, which is a poor beginning, and scientifically, you are an incompetent observer because of previous bias, which is a bad start as well.
I shall have faith in God, and use science to discover the nature of the world He made. I will love His children, because it is a good thing to do. I will try to learn how to feed more of them, and provide for them in better ways, with science, because that is a good thing to do as well.
But I will not be a sciencist, or a Creationist. Those are just different ways of whoring yourself out to gain influence over others.
Tris
“We better get back, cause it’ll be dark soon, and they mostly come at night, mostly.” ~ Newt, Aliens ~
Is that the only response you can come up with? Like I said, grow up.
Good quote, bullfighter.
What’s all the fuzz about evolution being a theory? I thought most (if not every) evolutionist agreed on it being a theory, albeit the most plausible one. I feel that way too. It is nonsensical to call evolution theory a fact. The truth of evolution theory cannot be ascertained in the same way you can check whether the sun is shining at this moment. There is only a lot of data for which evolution is a very plausible interpretation. Creationism is a theory, too, which (in certain forms, like ‘God put all the fossils there’) cannot be completely disproven. But it is currently too senseless to merit further consideration as a scientific theory.
I can understand that the U.S. debate on evolution versus creationism is far more heated given the very strong pressure from right-wing Christianity to get creationism on the curriculum. Nonetheless I still think it is a form of intellectual dishonesty (or a non-scientific move) to ‘win’ the debate by promoting evolution to fact and relegating creationism to the realm of mere theory. The power of the scientific method rests on the recognition that all we have are theories which are more or less supported by facts.
And for the record: no scientific theory can be proven. Only mathematical theories can be proven, in the strict sense of the word. I advise you to read Popper on verification and falsification of theories.
While I personally think evolution is a fact (that is, I think it is true), the word “fact” is not scientific terminology. When trying to counter the creationist argument that evolution is “just a theory” I think it is counterproductive to say “no it is a fact.” This feeds the creationist perception that scientists are dogmatic and that science is like religion.
Instead it seems better to point out that in science the word “theory” is often applied to very well established principles (such as the theory of relativity) and that in this case virtually all biologists (with the exception of a tiny handful of strongly religious people) agree that evolution did take place. It is not at all controversial within the scientific community because the evidence supporting it is considered overwhelming.
I apologize for not being clearer in my post. I made two points, which are not necessarily related. The first was specific to you, the second was more general.
Considering your entire arguement was a victory dance I don’t really need much of a reply:
However, if you insist:
Arguable at best. This is basicly saying that its OK if we lose as long as we don’t fight dirty. Creationists have been runnin roughshod over science as a result. A minor step outside the halls of science to inject a little reality doesn’t irk me so much as it does others. We’re talking about people who would shotgun wiccans and rebirth the Cromwellian era here.
Same as above. I don’t think action is worthy of the above perjoratives. People have played nice with creationists and it doesn’t work. The problem stem from the fact that people are now so wound up by creationist propaganda that simple discussion of evolution to most people is like discussing a controversial scientifiic sugggestion, instead of a discussing a possible aspect of said thoery.
Give it a rest or take it to the pit. You’re a fine one to be talking about intellectual immaturity with such unfounded insults.
There’s people a lot better than both of us who disagree with your insulting assertion.
‘In science “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.’
Stephen J. Gould.
Congratulations in indulging in exactly the kind of behavior that qualifies as cultic scientism.
They are true, they are theories. Thus, they are AMENABLE TO REVISION! This means that they are not “facts” in the sense of the cultic scientistic approach, which says that “scientific facts are true, period, end of statement.”
“Fact” is not even in my vocabulary when I write papers for peer-reviewed journals.
“Theory” is.
“Hypothesis” is.
“Model” is.
“Fact” is not. “Fact” is the language of dogmatism, not skepticism.
Dogface, a belated thanks to you and Planet. Whetever else has been said in this thread, you answered my OP most satisfactorally. And that’s not just a theory. 
Same with evolution. You wanna tell me that has not changed over the years? The difference is that if you write a paper on gravitons you don’t have an uncomfortably large percentage of the population claiming that gravity does not exist because its “just a theory”.
So Stephen J. Guold was a dogmatist? Read the quote noted above, its is from an artilce he wrote called “Evolution, Fact and Theory”.
Thanks for Dogface, Tusculan and Bullfighter for articulating what I was trying to say. Miskatonic, I was pissed at you because you put words in my mouth, or set up a straw man or whatever. I never said that evolution is untrue or nonexistent because it is a theory. I am a biochemist, not a creationist, for crissakes. You made some faulty assumptions. I don’t know where this rhetoric of saying something is “just a theory” comes from. I think theories are a higher order of creation than facts, and the theory of evolution is one of the best and most inspiring theories. It is a theory nonetheless. Once you try to claim than the theory of evolution is no longer falsifiable, it is no longer a theory, it is now in the realm of religion or “cultic scientism.”
As far as trying to win by fighting dirty, that is a lost cause. Don’t wrestle in the mud with the pigs.
Never once did I suggest that the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable. In fact I can think of few theories that have had to be re-written as much as evolution (this is an element of falsifiability, the felxibility of change. I merely pointed out that the term ‘theory’ is misunderstood in regards Given the sheer number of changes that have happened to the theory over the past few years I’d say that’s plenty insane. At the same time, as Gould and others point out, there is a point at which something is so effectively evident that constantly justifying it becomes a complete waste of time. At that point it does beomce what science would consider to be a “fact”. Of course, there is the possibility of eveolution not being true, but its nearly at the same chance that objects my float up. Denying the factual existance of evolution for the sake of avoiding the word “fact” is, in my opinion a bit of psuedo-intellectual attempt at scientific agnosticism. It is not the same as fighting pigs, as you imply, it is pragmatism.
Roger_Mexico:If you are a biochemist then you should know that the words “fact” adn “theory” are not mutually exclusive.Theories explain facts(and I didn’t make that line up.It is almost a mantra amongst biologists and other scientists I have communicated with on this issue).Evolution IS a FACT.Natural Selection and Punctuated equilibrium are theories.
I was under the impression that theories explained how facts got to be facts, as well as predicting how future facts will appear.
That an apple fell is a fact because, after all, you just saw it happen. If you try to deny the fact that an apple fell, your companions will look at you as if you were nuts. Anyhoo, the theory of gravity attempts to explain why the fact is what it is, and if you drop more apples and they behave in a manner your theory predicts, and no apple behaves otherwise, then your theory is robust.
That animals and plants exist is an obvious fact. Explaining how they came to exist requires a theory. So far, evolution predicts all the details and there are no glaring exceptions (admittedly there are minor disputes over pieces of evidence, requiring refinement of the theory) and it invites less complexity than creationism, so I’m for evolution.
As for fighting dirty, I say go for it. Us science-types will never change the minds of creationist-types. At best, we can hold them at bay (i.e. out of the high-school science classes) long enough for them to die out. And hopefully, even if the creationists indoctrinate their own children, when those children grow up, they’ll realize how isolated they are and dismiss their parents’ dogma.
Roll on, science! I want my flying car!
Almost, except that evolution is the “fact” here and Natural Selection is the “theory” which explains evolution.We know that evolution happens just as we know that the apple falls from the tree.Darwin’s theory of natural selection, thus far(and with many refinements amde over the years) best explains how evolution works(with apologies to Gould).
tdn: I think you’re missing the point. First you have to establish that there’s actually some scientist who worships science. I don’t see it happening.
Monty, I suppose the point is arguable, but I see scientists and non-scientists alike make all sorts of existential claims based on nothing other than no one has scientifically been able to or attempted to demonstrate this. If that isn’t an outright appeal to science as an oracle for truth, I don’t know what is. They don’t have to have a bible to be a religion.
But I’ve gone down this road before, and I get people saying, “Well I’m a scientist and I don’t do that!” or start flinging the True Scotsman around. The important part of science is its recognition as a method, but the danger comes in with the rather obvious (to me, anyway) follow-up question: method for what? How people answer that says much more than the lip service they pay to notions like “Science never proves anything”.