What the Right doesn’t get about “scientist and science” Part 1

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by rdean, Oct 15, 2010.

  1. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,013
    Thanks Received:
    6,878
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,883
    First, let’s look at the difference between “theory” and “scientific theory”.

    Definition of Theory
    An unproven conjecture; an expectation of what should happen, barring unforeseen circumstances

    In other words, you imagine something will happen and it may or may not, depending on circumstances you weren’t expecting.

    Definition of Scientific Theory:
    A well-tested concept that explains a wide range of observations.

    In other words, a “well tested” concept based on actual repeatable tests and observations.

    And how do we get to the “scientific theory”? We use a method known as, “The Scientific Method”. The following is a simplified description:

    Definition: The scientific method is a series of steps scientists take to acquire, test, and describe the natural world.

    Step 1: Ask questions in the form of a hypothesis

    Step 2: Look for patterns in observations

    Step 3: Formulate a theory

    Step 4: Design experiments to test theory

    So the question becomes, “If you can “observe it”, then why is it only a theory? Appearances can be deceiving.

    Sometimes, there is no direct observation. Until we are able to create video such as this, we thought sea urchins and starfish were very slow moving and sedentary creatures. After speeding up the video, we now know they are extreme hunters with voracious appetites. Previously, this was only a "theory".

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3W4OCnHyCs[/ame]

    Some events are so slow moving, they can’t be “taped” but only studied by looking and understanding the available evidence.

    Two examples are evolution and plate tectonics.

    Evidence proving plate tectonics are mountains and faults, ocean floors raised thousands of feet above sea level and the tiny observations from satellites, geology and many other “bits” of example.

    Evidence proving evolution are fossils, where the fossils (geological location) are found, genetics, Disease, birth defects and fetal development among others.

    Any alternate theories must be scrutinized by the methods listed above.
     
  2. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    :rofl:

    What dictionary do you use? Merriam Webster makes no distinction between the definition of "theory" and "scientific theory," and none of the definitions fall in line with your "well tested" concept definition.


    Theory - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

    Scientific theories are not "well tested" in the sense you are attempting to use the words, they are simply accepted explanations that are not contradicted by observed facts. Funny thing about scientific theories, new evidence can always come along to disprove them. Laws are even subject to revision when people pay enough attention, and those generally fall into the "well tested" category you are trying to shoehorn theories into.

    Lab-Sized Earthquakes Challenge Basic Laws of Physics | Wired Science | Wired.com

    This is why I like science, because we can find out that the stuff we knew for centuries was wrong.

    I bet you have no idea, since all you are doing here is repeating the definition found in the most basic, grade school level, textbook about science.

    It was? Who first proposed this "theory?" What evidence did they provide to back up their hypothesis?

    What does any of this have to do with the right not getting science? If you represent the "left" you have just demonstrated a complete lack of qualifications to educate anyone about science, because you do not get it at all. How can you call others for not getting something you do not understand?
     
  3. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    Oh shit..... there's gonna be a 'part 2'. I may need to consider putting rdean on ignore.... just in case stupidity is communicable.
     
  4. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    I inoculate myself by reading, I highly recommend it.
     
  5. Revere
    Offline

    Revere BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    Messages:
    7,427
    Thanks Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Watching you in my profile page
    Ratings:
    +415
    You mean, you can't predict earthquakes across any time period, but you can predict climate change?
     
  6. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    I hope you're not recommending I actually read his shit? :eek:
     
  7. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,013
    Thanks Received:
    6,878
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,883
    I would be interested in who wrote that ridiculous article. Maybe it was planted as a joke?

    For centuries, physicists have thought that the amount of force needed to start a book sliding across a table is equal to the force from friction that keeps book and table stuck together. That frictional force is determined by a number called the coefficient of friction, which is the ratio between the forces pushing sideways and pushing down (basically, how much the book weighs).

    Scientists have known for at least decades about static friction and kinetic friction. Because I was shown that in a physics class 20 years ago at least. The amount of force to start a stationary object moving (static friction) is greater than the amount of force needed to keep it moving (kinetic friction). It's really easy to prove. Put some of those Teflon cups on chair legs. Push the chair. It takes some effort to get it moving, but once it is moving, it's very easy to keep moving.

    So your point is that scientists "learn stuff"? Religion just reads the same old nonsense over and over again. Science is always learning and "finding out".
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2010
  8. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    rdean, almost gets the basic steps right, but fails:

    Here, try this site, for those working on science fairs:


    Steps of the Scientific Method

    What he and so many others that truly believe they are the defenders of science, is the ability to replicate the findings, and challenge the conclusions. Something that some now want to call, 'denying truth.' :cuckoo:
     
  9. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,013
    Thanks Received:
    6,878
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,883
    The "scientific method" is a guideline. It can be more than 4 steps or 8 steps or 800 steps. It's not like the Bible where there are only 10 Commandments.
     
  10. Sheldon
    Offline

    Sheldon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,215
    Thanks Received:
    1,328
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,330
    An rdean "scientists and science" thread and no mention of 6 percent? You're slipping, dude.
     

Share This Page