Why do people always forget the word 'theory' in the theory of evolution? [Spirituality & Religion]

@Pfuzylogic Laws actually aren’t as high up as theories are, on the scale of things 🤷‍♂️

As for truth - science isn’t really in the business of truth. It’s in the business of refining a certain kind knowledge through a certain kind of process. Perhaps it trends towards truth, but that’s almost incidental. Primary goal is [i]useful[/i] knowledge that brings empirical results - and the metaphysical concerns might as well not exist.

@QuixoticSoul
Science is based on observation and yet scientists create stories based on what they think they observe.
They even redefine the word observation.
Case in point with Gaia and data collected on April 25, 2018.
It showed a lot of Science not to be based on fact.

@Pfuzylogic Those stories are useful when they generate results.

Experiments that disprove theories are also important.

All of that is part of the methodology that moves science forward.

Nearly every theory has been superseded at some point. That’s ok. That’s how it’s supposed to be.

@QuixoticSoul
The problem is that it gives “Science” an appearance of authority that it doesn’t possess. It is just a best guess and you have to prove it wrong with the facts around. They are starting to question the idea of black holes currently. So many believers in science shudder at all of the foundations of their belief being challenged.

@Pfuzylogic Science has a momentous amount of authority, being literally the only game in town with any sort of track record at improving our understanding of the universe. Nothing else has even come close.

If there comes across evidence that black holes don’t exist (and you’re dramatically overstating things, btw), that’s fine. New theories to explain our observations will arise, which may be more or less successful. The black hole doubter seems to think the phenomenon is actually explained by anti-matter stars, or something. Pretty esoteric either way.

@QuixoticSoul
You are putting facts out there that are different than what I found. You might check the “new science” out. Any scientist that is worth anything will admit they know 1 % of what is out there.
In other words the stories made up I.e. the Big Bang are just stories that guess at our beginnings. Unless you [b]believe[/b] in the Big Bang but isn’t that the point of Science....to avoid belief.

@SW-User The smart scientist admits now they know very little. They make up stories on what they think happened based on the evidence of what is available.

@Pfuzylogic Oh, there is a lot of observable evidence that suggests Big Bang happened. But if something else comes along, that’s great. And cosmology is a notoriously active and underdeveloped field - it is very much in its infancy and this is well understood. Only you find this surprising.

I hope we’re not at 1% - I hope it’s less.

@QuixoticSoul I am repeating what I heard on the Science Channel on PBS.
There is no reason for scientists to cut their own feet unless they are trying to get away from the old practices of The 60s and 70s.

@Pfuzylogic [quote]new science[/quote]

Science is a set of methods for asking questions of the universe, and assessing how much confidence we can have in the answers.

As Steven Novella said:
What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?


Are you claiming to have a new set of methods for achieving that?

@Pfuzylogic [quote]the stories made up[/quote]

if only it weren't for that pesky evidence

@newjaninev2
I am not inviting you on this thread no matter how welcome you feel. I have already seen you abouse scientific terms and pawn off later that they were valid.
Shoo shoo!

@Pfuzylogic You watch a program on speculative science and think everything is upended - come on, that's vaguely comical. And even if it is - which does sometimes happen, well, that's simply tremendously exciting, like when the bohr model of the atom was superseded by quantum mechanics.

But that model, while it was in use, generated a lot of great results and models - it was tremendously useful, even if its flaws were immediately apparent. Science is, above all, a methodology - not just a set of current crop of theories. It's a moving process.

You really seem to be making it out to be something it's not, both more and less than it is. I suggest you cover the fundamentals.

@Pfuzylogic I don't need your invitation. Now, how about responding to the points I made?

@SW-User Why do you need an alternative just because something is BS. Make something up for yourself. You will do just as good of a job as the “authoritative brilliant scientists”.

@Pfuzylogic [quote]abouse scientific terms and pawn off later that they were valid[/quote]

Incoherent... perhaps you could clarify it?

@newjaninev2
I am sure you will make it obvious later my “scientist”. You are brilliant but I recommend the deep boots.

@Pfuzylogic I really am unsure whether your antagonism is directed towards science, scientists, or reality in general... you seem determined to avoid all three

@newjaninev2
Nice deflection.
You are a tough one to listen to when you add your “extras”.

@Pfuzylogic Deflection away from what?

@newjaninev2
Why so defensive?
You have a reputation to protect?

@Pfuzylogic You make a comment that has no obvious referent, I ask you to clarify your comment, and you find that defensive? Really? Something of a [i]non sequitur[/i], isn't it?

@newjaninev2
Should I help you with a few words before you start, the scientific ones.