Theory or Fact?

Codrus said:
so if something happens once but cant be reproduced it isnt fact? or doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

edgray said:
you'll have to give an example here.

But yes basically that's the case. If something was observed once, and it couldn't be confirmed by any other method of testing, it most likely didn't happen.

There is a good reason for this. The natural world is made up of laws and systems that behave in a certain way. We know, for example, the chemical composition of water, and it's dymanics. We can predict where its going to go and what its going to do in every situation.

If someone says the water in front of them one day just jumped into the sky and flew off, chances are they were on something pretty strong. We know this because it goes against the laws of that substance's behaviour and the laws of the environment around it.
Click to expand...

your going to hate me for this...but, going by my question "so if something happens once but cant be reproduced it isnt fact? or doesn't exist?"

The Great Pyramids: we can't reproduce them the same way they did, or understand how they were constructed with the lack of technology of the time period

The Planet Earth: as far as we know its the only one of its kind...and we cant make another one. can we prove how it was created?...if so, why dont more people believe it?

You: you can not be reproduced as a whole...you can be cloned, but that is only a blank copy, not exactly identical, there is only 1 you

Edward Leedskalnin's Coral Castle: 9 ton, perfectly balanced and aligned stone door set in place by one man...we still cant do it
Kuda Bux: a man who could still see while blind folded (im not saying he did,..but others are)
​

Swami Laksmanjoo: according to witness,..he mastered nature...(im not saying he did,..but others are)

Tat Wale Baba: Born about 1890...looked 35 in the 70's,..predicted he would be shot and killed...he was (im not saying he did,..but others are)

probably not what you were looking for..but here you go..me playing devils advocate...explain away swami
 
Codrus said:
your going to hate me for this...but, going by my question "so if something happens once but cant be reproduced it isnt fact? or doesn't exist?"
Click to expand...

Ok right away I can tell you that all of these can be observed and verified that they actually exist. Apart of course from the bottom three.

For example, when you're talking about the Pyramids, it's not in the realm of scientific inquiry. Science is the study of the natural world, not the study of building, engineering or architecture. Science is interested in what they're made of, and how that happened.

Of course Archaeology is interested in The Pyramids for sure, but that's not one of the hard sciences.

Even tho they're out of the realm of scientific inquiry, just for kicks, let's have a look ;)

Codrus said:
The Great Pyramids[/I][/U]: we can't reproduce them the same way they did, or understand how they were constructed with the lack of technology of the time period
Click to expand...

It isn't sciences job to explain this really though, it's historians and I guess engineers.

The pyramids are 100% verifiable as they have been observed for a long, long time. Their composition has been studied.

Codrus said:
The Planet Earth: as far as we know its the only one of its kind...and we cant make another one. can we prove how it was created?...if so, why dont more people believe it?
Click to expand...

Earth is 100% verifiable.

There is also another potential Earth: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/29/earth-like-planet-gliese-581g

And a gigantic universe to explore, where we'll probably find even more.

And yes, it's understood how the Earth was formed. We know what the Earth is made of, and what it would take to create it. All of this is built upon massive amounts of scientific discoveries made through observation and testing.

People don't believe it because they misunderstand science and they are confronted with something that shatters their belief system. Not to mention the propaganda used against science when this happens.

Codrus said:
You: you can not be reproduced as a whole...you can be cloned, but that is only a blank copy, not exactly identical, there is only 1 you
Click to expand...

This is really a philosophical statement.

As a side, cloning and reproduction is very well understood: http://dalje.com/en-world/scientist-creates-sperm-in-a-lab/269122

Codrus said:
Edward Leedskalnin's Coral Castle: 9 ton, perfectly balanced and aligned stone door set in place by one man...we still cant do it
Click to expand...

This is an engineering question.

Codrus said:
Kuda Bux: a man who could still see while blind folded (im not saying he did,..but others are)

Swami Laksmanjoo: according to witness,..he mastered nature...(im not saying he did,..but others are)


Tat Wale Baba: Born about 1890...looked 35 in the 70's,..predicted he would be shot and killed...he was (im not saying he did,..but others are)

probably not what you were looking for..but here you go..me playing devils advocate...explain away swami​
Click to expand...


This covers these:
the_data_so_far.png​
 
round and round we go..where we stop no one knows...

so, your saying that science isnt used in engineering or archeology or history?
but that wasnt your or my original question/answer
so if something happens once but cant be reproduced it isnt fact? or doesn't exist?
Click to expand...
yes, pyramids are there because they are substantial..we can touch them, study them...but make another one
same for the earth...make one etc. with the others

as far as for the supernatural..65%+ of the population believe in God..and following what i have been saying this entire time which gets swept aside....if the majority of people believe something..it is fact to them, science or no science
 
Dana said:
Just because science says its so... doesnt mean its true.
Click to expand...

If it's been tested, verified, and peer reviewed then yes, it most likely is.

Codrus said:
round and round we go..where we stop no one knows...

so, your saying that science isnt used in engineering or archeology or history?
Click to expand...

No. Applied science is different from hard science. Engineering of course often applies science in it's methods as it has to obey the natural laws of the universe to be successful.

Codrus said:
but that wasnt your or my original question/answer
Click to expand...

read at the bottom of this. Your definition of fact is larger than that use of it in science. I'm just getting a little lost with that. To understand a fact, have a read at the example at the bottom of this post.

Codrus said:
yes, pyramids are there because they are substantial..we can touch them, study them...but make another one
same for the earth...make one etc. with the others
Click to expand...

Again, talk of pyramids and the Earth like this goes back to the misunderstanding of a fact in science. My example at the bottom again shows this.

Codrus said:
as far as for the supernatural..65%+ of the population believe in God..and following what i have been saying this entire time which gets swept aside....if the majority of people believe something..it is fact to them, science or no science
Click to expand...

Well given that science is the study of the natural world the supernatural is kind of out of it's remit. The two really can exist side by side. The Supernatural world is really a philosophical area I think, because it cannot be tested and verified. By it's very definition, it is beyond the natural world.

It's a shame people get the two confused. A belief in God, for example, is great, there really isn't anything wrong with believing that. But it shouldn't get in the way of understanding science.

Anyway, we're getting so far off the original topic now. Which was the definition of a fact in scientific terms. None of what you've been asking has much to do with that. Right, I've thought of an example.

Man has an apple in his hand, holds it out and drops it. The apple falls to the floor. He repeats the process, same happens. This is a fact. He tries is at a different height, and with different objects. The same continues to happen. These are more facts. Repeatable and verifiable.

He then thinks "ooh, I bet if I climb that tower and drop the apple, it will again fall to the floor." From the facts above, he has produced a hypothesis.

Now he climbs the tower, and drops the apple to find he was right. He has proved his hypothesis.

Taking that process on through more testing and more hypotheses, he then discovers this is all due to a phenomenon he calls gravity. And the process continues ad infinitum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
These guys say it better than me:

Just as in philosophy, the scientific concept of fact is central to fundamental questions regarding the nature, methods, scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.
Click to expand...
 
edgray said:
but the phenomena you describe could a) be explained and b) be replicable under the right conditions.
Click to expand...

You missed my point Ed. If nobody saw it except one person did it actually happen? That's the idea you were trying to convey imo.
 
edgray said:
I have absolutely no idea where you're coming from Guyzerr. What on Earth are you trying to get at?
Click to expand...
I don't want to go any deeper cuz as it stands right now it's happened just once. If it happens twice it could be something real. :D
 
Guyzerr said:
You missed my point Ed. If nobody saw it except one person did it actually happen? That's the idea you were trying to convey imo.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's an unverified observation. So it's not a fact.

For example, my father-in-law was jogging with his wife. She tripped and fell to the ground but wasn't hurt. He swears that she floated to the ground. That God caught her and set her down gently. I suggested to him that his perception might be flawed. Perhaps in his panic things appeared to run in slow motion. Sometimes it's difficult to properly perceive time. Perhaps she didn't feel pain because her brain was full of endorphins. This is called a runner's high. My father-in-law was greatly offended and claimed it was a fact she floated to the ground. But claiming it is fact doesn't make it so. An unverified observation is not a fact.

Does that mean he's wrong... she didn't float to the ground? I highly doubt that she did since that would defy the law of gravity. It's a trillion times more likely that his perception was in error. But my point isn't so much whether it happened or not. My point is that it is not a fact that it happened.

One more point, my mother-in-law says she floated too. So is that confirmation? No. What is needed to verify this observation is an actual video (not doctored) and stop watch.
 
Back
Top