Proof - Many Scientific Terms Are Widely Misunderstood

[Quantum Windbag]

Hilarious.
That's the same link as mine!

Damn, it is. I guess that makes me as stupid as you in posting links.

Doesn't change the fact that evolution does not predict future events, yet it is still a valid scientific theory, which is why the definition is faulty.

Stupid scientists!

How is it the scientists fault that we both posted a bad definition? Do you always blame other people for your mistakes?

 

[idb]

Damn, it is. I guess that makes me as stupid as you in posting links.

Doesn't change the fact that evolution does not predict future events, yet it is still a valid scientific theory, which is why the definition is faulty.

Stupid scientists!

How is it the scientists fault that we both posted a bad definition? Do you always blame other people for your mistakes?

I was accepting your judgement that it was a scientific definition when you told me that I should get my definition from a scientific source and then posted that particular link.
Don't tell me you were wrong!
Is it YOUR fault?!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Stupid scientists!

How is it the scientists fault that we both posted a bad definition? Do you always blame other people for your mistakes?

I was accepting your judgement that it was a scientific definition when you told me that I should get my definition from a scientific source and then posted that particular link.
Don't tell me you were wrong!
Is it YOUR fault?!

I already said I was wrong, and you blamed the scientists.

 

[idb]

How is it the scientists fault that we both posted a bad definition? Do you always blame other people for your mistakes?

I was accepting your judgement that it was a scientific definition when you told me that I should get my definition from a scientific source and then posted that particular link.
Don't tell me you were wrong!
Is it YOUR fault?!

I already said I was wrong, and you blamed the scientists.

In that case...stupid Windbag!!!

You win at last!

 

[westwall]

Sure it can.

No it cannot, all it can predict is that things change, it cannot predict what that change will be. If you want an example of a theory that can predict future events watch your weather report on TV tonight.

It can predict that change will occur in response to environmental conditions and pressures.
That's the basis of evolution theory.

Care to cite an example.

 

[westwall]

Some more examples that actually include the Theory of Evoultion.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Face it @ibd, your source was wrong. Stop relying in internet dictionaries to define scientific terms and look to scientists to explain them.

Because of the way Republicans misuse, abuse and twist science, this thread should be in the "Politics" section but-----but back to the subject, Astrophysicist Dave Goldberg has a theory about the word theory:


2. Theory

Members of the general public (along with people with an ideological axe to grind) hear the word "theory" and equate it with "idea" or "supposition." We know better. Scientific theories are entire systems of testable ideas which are potentially refutable either by the evidence at hand or an experiment that somebody could perform. The best theories (in which I include special relativity, quantum mechanics, and evolution) have withstood a hundred years or more of challenges, either from people who want to prove themselves smarter than Einstein, or from people who don't like metaphysical challenges to their world view. Finally, theories are malleable, but not infinitely so. Theories can be found to be incomplete or wrong in some particular detail without the entire edifice being torn down. Evolution has, itself, adapted a lot over the years, but not so much that it wouldn't still be recognize it. The problem with the phrase "just a theory," is that it implies a real scientific theory is a small thing, and it isn't.


.

And yet climate science insists on presenting us with papers that say global warming will both cause more rain and less rain. More snow and less snow. What is the definition of an "untestable hypothesis"?

 

[idb]

No it cannot, all it can predict is that things change, it cannot predict what that change will be. If you want an example of a theory that can predict future events watch your weather report on TV tonight.

It can predict that change will occur in response to environmental conditions and pressures.
That's the basis of evolution theory.

Care to cite an example.

Not really.

 

[westwall]

It can predict that change will occur in response to environmental conditions and pressures.
That's the basis of evolution theory.

Care to cite an example.

Not really.

How about addressing the untestable hypothesis definition then.

 

[idb]

Care to cite an example.

Not really.

How about addressing the untestable hypothesis definition then.

Are you saying that evolution is untestable?

 

[westwall]

Not really.

How about addressing the untestable hypothesis definition then.

Are you saying that evolution is untestable?

Currently, no it isn't. But I was specifically referring to climatology and the fact that they always take both sides of any prediction, which makes their hypothesis untestable. So. I asked you, (and Star too) what is the definition of an untestable hypothesis?

 

[idb]

How about addressing the untestable hypothesis definition then.

Are you saying that evolution is untestable?

Currently, no it isn't. But I was specifically referring to climatology and the fact that they always take both sides of any prediction, which makes their hypothesis untestable. So. I asked you, (and Star too) what is the definition of an untestable hypothesis?

Aaah, you're talking about climate change now.
It seems to me that climate change could be falsifiable in theory but it's such a complicated mechanism, and on such a large scale, that for all practical purposes it can't realistically be tested.
Presumably the individual mechanisms can be - the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere for example.
Assuming, for the purposes of this example, that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes more heat to be trapped then the real problem is to predict the effect of this.
Its effect could only realistically be tested by using recorded data in models.
The accuracy of these tests will rely on the quality of the data and models.

Which I'm pretty sure is where we are at as far as the dispute about climate change is concerned.

 

[Vikrant]

Are you saying that evolution is untestable?

Currently, no it isn't. But I was specifically referring to climatology and the fact that they always take both sides of any prediction, which makes their hypothesis untestable. So. I asked you, (and Star too) what is the definition of an untestable hypothesis?

Aaah, you're talking about climate change now.
It seems to me that climate change could be falsifiable in theory but it's such a complicated mechanism, and on such a large scale, that for all practical purposes it can't realistically be tested.
Presumably the individual mechanisms can be - the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere for example.
Assuming, for the purposes of this example, that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes more heat to be trapped then the real problem is to predict the effect of this.
It could only realistically be tested by using recorded data in models.
The accuracy of these tests will rely on the quality of the data and models.

Which I'm pretty sure is where we are at as far as the dispute about climate change is concerned.

Good point! And I believe, in the northern hemisphere, if my memory is correct, the temperature has risen by an average of 1.5F or something like that since we started recording temperatures.

 

[Star]

Care to cite an example.

Not really.

How about addressing the untestable hypothesis definition then.

Everything is an "untestable-hypothesis" until it's tested - for example; when Cheney/Bush/Rice etc. sweet talked a minority of the American public into thinking there were WMD's in Iraq they ignored the...

...7. Statistically Significant...

Mathematician Jordan Ellenberg wants to set the record straight about this idea:

"Statistically significant" is one of those phrases scientists would love to have a chance to take back and rename. "Significant" suggests importance; but the test of statistical significance, developed by the British statistician R.A. Fisher, doesn't measure the importance or size of an effect; only whether we are able to distinguish it, using our keenest statistical tools, from zero. "Statistically noticeable" or "Statistically discernible" would be much better.
​

...which is what climate deniers do, it may have something to do with the apparent hard wired in conservative brain structure and their inability to cope with conflicting information.
.

 

[Old Rocks]

No it cannot, all it can predict is that things change, it cannot predict what that change will be. If you want an example of a theory that can predict future events watch your weather report on TV tonight.

It can predict that change will occur in response to environmental conditions and pressures.
That's the basis of evolution theory.

Care to cite an example.

Easy. "The Beak of the Finch" Jonathan Weiner.
[ame]http://www.amazon.com/The-Beak-Finch-Story-Evolution/dp/067973337X[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not really.

How about addressing the untestable hypothesis definition then.

Everything is an "untestable-hypothesis" until it's tested - for example; when Cheney/Bush/Rice etc. sweet talked a minority of the American public into thinking there were WMD's in Iraq they ignored the...

...7. Statistically Significant...

Mathematician Jordan Ellenberg wants to set the record straight about this idea:

"Statistically significant" is one of those phrases scientists would love to have a chance to take back and rename. "Significant" suggests importance; but the test of statistical significance, developed by the British statistician R.A. Fisher, doesn't measure the importance or size of an effect; only whether we are able to distinguish it, using our keenest statistical tools, from zero. "Statistically noticeable" or "Statistically discernible" would be much better.
​

...which is what climate deniers do, it may have something to do with the apparent hard wired in conservative brain structure and their inability to cope with conflicting information.
.

You just screwed up whatever point you were trying to make in this thread, and proved that you are more than willing to misuse science to score political points.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It can predict that change will occur in response to environmental conditions and pressures.
That's the basis of evolution theory.

Care to cite an example.

Easy. "The Beak of the Finch" Jonathan Weiner.
[ame]http://www.amazon.com/The-Beak-Finch-Story-Evolution/dp/067973337X[/ame]

That has nothing to do with predicting the future, which is why I insisted on a broader definition of theory.

 

[westwall]

Not really.

How about addressing the untestable hypothesis definition then.

Everything is an "untestable-hypothesis" until it's tested - for example; when Cheney/Bush/Rice etc. sweet talked a minority of the American public into thinking there were WMD's in Iraq they ignored the...

...7. Statistically Significant...

Mathematician Jordan Ellenberg wants to set the record straight about this idea:

"Statistically significant" is one of those phrases scientists would love to have a chance to take back and rename. "Significant" suggests importance; but the test of statistical significance, developed by the British statistician R.A. Fisher, doesn't measure the importance or size of an effect; only whether we are able to distinguish it, using our keenest statistical tools, from zero. "Statistically noticeable" or "Statistically discernible" would be much better.
​

...which is what climate deniers do, it may have something to do with the apparent hard wired in conservative brain structure and their inability to cope with conflicting information.
.

Not in science. If you make a prediction of how a particular experiment is going to work...and it doesn't, that means your hypothesis failed and you need a new one. If, on the other hand, you claim that an experiment will give one result...AND it will also give the OPPOSITE result.... that is an "UNTESTABLE HYPOTHESIS".

So...once again, mr. English teacher....what is the DEFINITION OF AN UNTESTABLE HYPOTHESIS?

 

[westwall]

It can predict that change will occur in response to environmental conditions and pressures.
That's the basis of evolution theory.

Care to cite an example.

Easy. "The Beak of the Finch" Jonathan Weiner.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Beak-Finch-Story-Evolution/dp/067973337X]The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time: Jonathan Weiner: 9780679733379: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

You are supposed to be able to predict what type of evolution will occur.....not that something WILL occur.

 

[idb]

Care to cite an example.

Easy. "The Beak of the Finch" Jonathan Weiner.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Beak-Finch-Story-Evolution/dp/067973337X]The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time: Jonathan Weiner: 9780679733379: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

You are supposed to be able to predict what type of evolution will occur.....not that something WILL occur.

So, would a prediction of something that has occurred but has not been found yet qualify?

For a simple example, a prediction about a common ancestor which is unknown at the time, but is subsequently discovered.
Would that fit the definition?

 

[westwall]

Easy. "The Beak of the Finch" Jonathan Weiner.
The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time: Jonathan Weiner: 9780679733379: Amazon.com: Books

You are supposed to be able to predict what type of evolution will occur.....not that something WILL occur.

So, would a prediction of something that has occurred but has not been found yet qualify?

For a simple example, a prediction about a common ancestor which is unknown at the time, but is subsequently discovered.
Would that fit the definition?

It certainly qualifies as PART of the hypothesis. This is an example of how the scientific method works. Many scientists had been working on the theory of Plate Tectonics. No one though could figure out the MECHANICS of the process.

J. Tuzo Wilson thought long and hard and came up with the hypothesis of "transverse faults" to explain how it worked. He then described what they would look like, and more importantly how they could be found and identified through seismic analysis.

He was proven absolutely correct in every respect. Everything that he predicted WOULD (note, science doesn't deal in "shoulds" that is the realm of charlatans) be there, was.

All it would have taken for his hypothesis to fail was for one of his predictions to be shown false, he would have then started over and come up with a better one.

Climatology has had multiple predictions shown to be false. That's why they no longer make measurable predictions.

So....once again...what is the definition of an "untestable hypothesis"?