What beliefs have I stated? I only looked up the definition of theory on your suggestion.. The words "proof" and "fact" are not in the definition.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
The Paracast - UFO's & Paranormal
- Thread starter Thir13teen
- Start date
What beliefs have I stated? I only looked up the definition of theory on your suggestion.. The words "proof" and "fact" are not in the definition.
What's your point? "Doctrine" and "law" are not enough?
Maybe this will help you understand the meaning of "theory" in the scientific world.
Here's an excerpt if you don't feel like clicking.
"Tanner further explained that a scientific theory is the framework for observations and facts. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don’t change. Tanner likens theories to a basket in which scientists keep facts and observations that they find. The shape of that basket may change as the scientists learn more and include more facts. 'For example, we have ample evidence of traits in populations becoming more or less common over time (evolution), so evolution is a fact but the overarching theories about evolution, the way that we think all of the facts go together might change as new observations of evolution are made,' Tanner told Live Science."
Your statement reminds me of this. When I was a teenager I once attended an institution on a Sunday morning. There was a gentleman waving a black book in his hand and lecturing the audience. He continually stated with conviction that the planet Earth was only 6000 years old.
I whispered to my friend that I was skeptical about what the guy was saying. He overheard me and then also flipped it around and announced it is up to me to be skeptical about science. I recall thinking this guy plus all the people attending who were nodding their heads in agreement were idiots. I have never been back to any Sunday morning institution since.
Last edited:
What exactly is your point when you say the words proof and fact aren't there? Proofs and facts are smaller elements of a scientific theory. The theory is bigger.
Munjibunga made the suggestion to look up the definition of theory. I did. "Proof" and "fact" were not words that were used in the definition. I posted as much. That is all.
But I will say that is the last time I do anything Munjibunga suggests. Now that is a FACT. Unless of course I do, then I get to make up a new set of facts.
It's clear you were implying something by saying proof and fact aren't in the definition. Can you share what that is? Or don't. It's up to you.
I understand that and I think I'm on the same page, I just wouldn't deny something exists just because I don't have proof of it.
I wasn't really replying to you - or anybody else for that matter. But I do believe science is very young, I don't think we know everything there is to know, not even close, that is why I try to keep my mind open and don't judge or underestimate people with different ideas. I mean the universe is billions of years old! I think it will be at least another 5000 years to figure out 1/8 of what is out there, specially since we don't know what is out there.
You can believe in things that make sense to you and still have no evidence, that doesn't make it superstition, observation and hypotheses are a big part of science, you see something, try to explaining it with the little knowledge you have, create an hypothesis and then try to prove it. Every scientific achievement was once called superstition or magic, a lot of them didn't have evidence to explain the phenomenon yet it made sense enough to somebody do enough research to find the evidence. Things appear to us unexplained then we try to explain them, then we find evidence.
Anyway that is just my opinion, not trying to start an argument or anything.
Last edited:
You're on exactly the same page.
To deny something exits is a claim.
X does not exist is a claim.
I do not believe X exists, is not a claim.
Evidence based belief is much simpler than people realize.
I don't deny the existence of leprechauns, unicorns, ufo's, sentient cheese doodles, Thor, the loch ness monster, Zeus, bigfoot, or aliens controlling the government. I'd have to prove those things don't exist if I want to be intellectually honest while claiming they don't. I simply don't believe. It's that easy.
I get it, and I agree that we have much more to learn about the universe and everything in it. We just have different standards for believing something. Every belief I hold is tentative and allows for changes in understanding or, in other words, I don't actually "believe" anything. Belief without evidence is superstition, even if what you believe turns out to be true. If you set low standards for belief, you pave the way for abuse of those beliefs. Take a look at the Middle East right now.
If you read the piece I linked earlier, you'll see that what you're describing in your second paragraph is actually called a hypothesis. It's fair to call that a hunch. But a scientist isn't going to believe the hypothesis until observation and experimentation have borne it out. If it turns out to be factual, it becomes part of a theory, or collection of facts and observations surrounding the hypothetical phenomenon.
What they don't realize is that any good scientist is a skeptic, even to the point of being skeptical of other scientists' work.
Evidence for what? Let's talk about something specific.
I believe that if you see something flying you cannot identify, then you saw a UFO.
Disclaimer: I am a member of the Skeptics Society
.
Disclaimer: I am a member of the Skeptics Society
.
I don't agree, either. A theory is an idea or concept. Let's take the Theory of Relativity, for example. Although much of it is proven fact, there are still parts that are not settled. It therefore remains a theory.
