Disprove Global Warming!!!

[jpappy789]

And pesticide pollution was nothing until Rachel Carson brought it up in Silent Spring but just because she publicized it doesn't mean it wasn't true up until that point, or even after it...I fail to see your point RedDawg...:huh:

 

[bettabrat]

quote quote i think we should all listen to this man after all global warming was nothing till he made a movie and put it in theatres ====
""It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it. - Al Gore, Vice President""

I was waiting for an Al Gore quote opcorn:

 

[Wycco]

I was waiting for an Al Gore quote opcorn:

Well then:

I love California, I practically grew up in Phoenix.

- Al Gore

 

[jpappy789]

:rofl:

You can't win 'em all

 

[H3D]

What you are describing is a hypothesis not a theory. The definition you lay out for theory is what the "lay" person uses in every day life to describe what theory means and in no way correlates to what "theory" means to a scientific community.

The misuse of the word "theory" is often dug up by people with little or no understanding of science to attempt to invalidate a scientific theory.

In science to be called a theory instead of a hypothesis means it has to have a major conscensus among scientists. It must have been backed up by data repeatedly. Basically in science- to be called a theory instead of a hypothesis it has to be generally accepted as a truth.

Actually I believe my description was pretty accurate. A hypothesis is an opinion. A theory is an accepted opinion. A theory may be "backed up with data" (Not always the case). It may also be generally accepted as true. However that does not make the theory itself is true.

While I don't feel like I misused the words at all I find it ironic that many people amongst the scientific community try to impugn others intelligence in an attempt to make them feel small in attempt to get them to shy away from an argument instead of trying to prove their point with evidence to support their claims.

The only difference between a "law" and a "theory" in science is that a "law" we don't specifically know "why" something happened.

That doesn't mean that a theory or a law in science can't be wrong- although usually the only time they "change" is when we discover something new and understand we didn't know the full picture before hand.

Nonetheless, it is important to understand that in SCIENCE theory is not the same as street parlance- and if something is labeled "theory" then it means that there experimental data and lots of evidence to back it up... otherwise it's just a hypothesis.

While that may be the only difference, it is a HUGE difference. Without knowing why something happened you can never really be sure that your data actually supports your theory.

I think it is also very important to understand that there have been MANY and I mean MANY scientific theories disproved. Having data to back your theory does not mean that theory is true, it just means you have data to support your theory.

 

[H3D]

Wait, wait, wait... What?!?!? Are you serious with this statement? We can see speciation with our own eyes, happening in real, recordable time. Genetic sequencing has only bolstered the argument for the validity of evolution as a theory, and we as hobbyists of all people, who can see genetic diversification and selection happen within our own tanks, are hardly the ones to be arguing this point. As far as I'm concerned, evolution is fact until a more plausible and well backed up point of view comes about.

Again sorry to go off topic. I think you have confused evolution (fact) with the theory of evolution (theory). See just because some things have evolved (fact) that does not mean everything evolved from one thing (theory). No one is asking you to change your opinion on the matter, however unless you can prove the theory of evolution is fact my statement remains sound.

If you want to teach my kids that the earth is 6000 years old, I reserve the right to teach your kids that the sky is just the inside of a giant tortoise shell. Creation myths are just that... MYTH! And to give credence to one necessitates that all of them be covered.

Sorry for derailing my own thread, but I wasn't about to let that inference go unchallenged.

Who said anything about the earth being 6,000 years old? I am not trying to push my beliefs on anyone. I am only pointing out that there is a huge difference between facts and theories. Furthermore be it "myth" or theory there is little difference in the commonality that one thing had to have existed that there is no explanation for.

 

[looney417]

I only read the last few posts, cause theres 16 pages of this stuff but.

I think the thing to take home about the theory of evolution (usually the fact and theory is used interchangably) was that everything did come from something (more primative). I dont think the theory ever states that it came from ONE THING (like a first "living organism" but could suggest multiple "first organisms" arising from different situations, not part of the theory??). I haven't done my research. Another thing is that some populations dont evolve anymore, because it's genepool has reached some superiority over any other phenotype. great examples are sharks, sharks have not changed since the age dinosaurs. This does not mean evolution is none existent.



H3D sounds like a good speaker.

Again sorry to go off topic. I think you have confused evolution (fact) with the theory of evolution (theory). See just because some things have evolved (fact) that does not mean everything evolved from one thing (theory). No one is asking you to change your opinion on the matter, however unless you can prove the theory of evolution is fact my statement remains sound.



Who said anything about the earth being 6,000 years old? I am not trying to push my beliefs on anyone. I am only pointing out that there is a huge difference between facts and theories. Furthermore be it "myth" or theory there is little difference in the commonality that one thing had to have existed that there is no explanation for.

 

[Wycco]

Actually I believe my description was pretty accurate. A hypothesis is an opinion. A theory is an accepted opinion. A theory may be "backed up with data" (Not always the case). It may also be generally accepted as true. However that does not make the theory itself is true.

You first said:

Sorry to go off topic but in science a "theory" is just an accepted opinion. It's not something that has been proven with scientific data. The theory of evolution is just an opinion and there has been little to no evidence proving it to be true.

A paragraph with three sentences- all three are wrong. A theory is not just an accepted opinion- that's using the layman's terms not the scientific definition. It does have to be proven with scientific data. Completely off topic, but evolution has lots of evidence.



Back to your more recent post. Yes, a theory and a law in science can be disproved- it takes one proof or exception to disprove a theory or law in science. That's all just one. The fact that they are still called laws or theories points to the fact that with our current knowledge no such proof has been found and is therefore generally treated as true.

But no, it's not an ABSOLUTE TRUTH- science shouldn't be confused with religion where a group of people tell everyone "this is what happened- you should just believe it and anyone with conflicting proof is sent from the evil spirits and therefore wrong".

Our knowledge is constantly evolving- usually when a generally accepted theory or law is updated it's not usually from being flat-out-wrong but rather from having an incomplete picture.

Take Newton and Gravity- the apple falls to earth. We now know earth isn't at the centre of all gravity. And, whereas it is true, earth does pull gravitationally on all objects- it is incomplete because ALL objects of mass have gravity. Everything can potentially be disproved. From Newton's perspective all things did appear to fall to earth- but due to lack of technology and data at the time he couldn't possibly know the big picture. Doesn't make it irrelevant- it was extremely relevant.


Usually though it is through updating after being able to see more data. A theory or law is always going to be "to the best of our knowledge".

Nonetheless, regardless of whether something can be disproved or not- there is a HUGE difference between a hypothesis and a theory. I could hypothesise that all red cars run red lights after witnessing it happen one time. Wouldn't have multiple data to back it up- and it could quickly be proven to be untrue.

To be called a theory in science it has to have been backed up with data, observation and experimentation multiple times.

I think the problem occurs when people try to say "science has been wrong before" and therefore refusing to believe something that has very strong evidence or proof based on irrational ideological, political or theological beliefs.


When you dismiss a scientific theory as "just a theory" it's hard to be taken seriously. A theory in science is an "accepted truth". So people with a little scientific knowledge WILL roll their eyes when you say "it's just a theory".

 

[Que]

While I don't feel like I misused the words at all I find it ironic that many people amongst the scientific community try to impugn others intelligence in an attempt to make them feel small in attempt to get them to shy away from an argument instead of trying to prove their point with evidence to support their claims.

You must not be talking to respected members of the community then.
I find that most in the scientific community really do know what they are talking about not only because of the years of study, experimentation and research they have done but because they know that what they present from all the study, experimentation and research they have done is going to be scrutinized (peer reviewed) by people within the scientific community to the Nth degree. Scientists like to prove other scientists wrong so knowing the details, terms, etc. is of the utmost importance. Being able to translate that into understandable terms and ideas that the masses can understand is not an ability that many in the scientific community can do. These people have had to explain their ideas, research and experiments to many people within the community and so are well practiced in argument amongst peers long before explaining something to the masses. I can easily see where a person from the scientific community could be seen as talking down to someone or having little patience with someone who doesn't have the knowledge or ability to understand what they are talking about but I find most of them love to talk about what they are doing or have accomplished.

Q

 

[H3D]

A theory is not just an accepted opinion- that's using the layman's terms not the scientific definition. It does have to be proven with scientific data.

I think you are missing my point. The scientific data is irrelevant as it cannot ever prove the "scientific theory" to be true. Without being able to prove the truth of their statement(s), a theory is in reality nothing more than an opinion.

Yes, a theory and a law in science can be disproved- it takes one proof or exception to disprove a theory or law in science. That's all just one. The fact that they are still called laws or theories points to the fact that with our current knowledge no such proof has been found and is therefore generally treated as true.

Treated as true is not the same as being true.

But no, it's not an ABSOLUTE TRUTH- science shouldn't be confused with religion where a group of people tell everyone "this is what happened- you should just believe it and anyone with conflicting proof is sent from the evil spirits and therefore wrong".

Actually science is not much different than religion. Science is a group of people telling everyone this is what happened and you should just believe it regardless of the notion that science cannot prove the truth of their statements.

Our knowledge is constantly evolving- usually when a generally accepted theory or law is updated it's not usually from being flat-out-wrong but rather from having an incomplete picture.

So when science is wrong, and it has been very often, science is not really wrong...

Take Newton and Gravity- the apple falls to earth. We now know earth isn't at the centre of all gravity. And, whereas it is true, earth does pull gravitationally on all objects- it is incomplete because ALL objects of mass have gravity. Everything can potentially be disproved. From Newton's perspective all things did appear to fall to earth- but due to lack of technology and data at the time he couldn't possibly know the big picture. Doesn't make it irrelevant- it was extremely relevant.

I never said science wasn't relevant. But guess what? Newton's Theory of Gravity was WRONG! And it is a perfect example of why scientific data never proves the truth of the theory's assertion.

A theory or law is always going to be "to the best of our knowledge".

Exactly! That's called an opinion!

Nonetheless, regardless of whether something can be disproved or not- there is a HUGE difference between a hypothesis and a theory. I could hypothesise that all red cars run red lights after witnessing it happen one time. Wouldn't have multiple data to back it up- and it could quickly be proven to be untrue.

I agreed there was a difference. One was an opinion, one was an accepted opinion.

To be called a theory in science it has to have been backed up with data, observation and experimentation multiple times.

I think the problem occurs when people try to say "science has been wrong before" and therefore refusing to believe something that has very strong evidence or proof based on irrational ideological, political or theological beliefs.

Very strong evidence does not equal truth. I can believe something is not true regardless of whether I can prove it's not true, just as you can believe a theory is true even though you cannot prove it to be so.

When you dismiss a scientific theory as "just a theory" it's hard to be taken seriously. A theory in science is an "accepted truth". So people with a little scientific knowledge WILL roll their eyes when you say "it's just a theory".

I never said I dismissed scientific theory. The problem I have with scientific theories is that they are asserted as truth without being truth.

Scientist can roll their eyes at me all day, but that does not make their theories any more true.

Again sorry for going off topic...This is the last you'll here from me on this matter.