memento_mori
Active Member
I don't have to back it up per say. What is a scientific theory to you? We observe something, then we use logic and testing (if possible) to explain what we see. When we come up with something that fits the facts, we put the theory stamp on it. Later, when we can prove this theory, it graduates to law. Our universe is something we can observe. Its origins cannot be tested. If a creator existed, and made all of these wonderful things we see, it would fit all of the facts. Hence ‘scientific theory.’ I know it sounds absurd to you, but I think it is similar to the absurdity you would have expected if 3000 years ago if somebody told you people lived underneath the world, and didn't fall off.
scientific theory defined by dictionary.com is a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable" , but i was thinking you'd come up with some kind of crazy fossil or something, or God's myspace account. So it does fit all the evidence I guess (barely), but it's not falsifiable. It's intentionally explained so that we have no idea how to disprove it until it dies. And with out this risk of being wrong, it's just a pretty way of looking at things. Like string theory. At least the Big Bang makes use of making predictions and observing radio waves from outer space, as advertised on this snazzy $14.99 t-shirt from xkcd - A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language - By Randall Munroe
The graph on the back of the shirt is data from the COBE mission, which looked at the background microwave glow of the universe and found that it fit perfectly with the idea that the universe used to be really hot everywhere. This strongly reinforced the Big Bang theory and was one of the most dramatic examples of an experiment agreeing with a theory in history -- the data points fit perfectly, with error bars too small to draw on the graph. It's one of the most triumphant scientific results in history.
and sure, it could still be a coincidence that we predicted the radiowaves, they're really part of something else. some people would go far to say God is sending us radiowaves to throw us off, so the real believers are the ones left standing on judgment day. but the big bang still sounds like the most reasonable explanation we've got, after all, it did the predicting.
Nope. Not this guy. An incomplete theory is always in a state of flux as it is being formed. Almost by definition, it is either evolving (ha-ha), or being ignored. There is no shame in the time it takes to build an idea. It takes time, data, and information. When things come along that look different than you expected, you have to re-asses, re-calculate, and continue on. I’m very cool with that.
What I do look at as a bad thing is the idea of this incomplete theory being looked at and taught as law. It hasn’t even finished the first step, but people have such great faith in the idea, that they are unwilling to entertain a complete theory on the subject.
taught as law, as if we know what's going on. do we ever really know anything? that's another debate. but let's assume there's some kind of certainty close enough to knowing that we can teach it as law. i think scientific laws, even the ones that contradict religous principles, have gone under enough trial and error to be taught as laws, since they're some of the most certain principles we have.
and about the incompleteness of science- by its nature, science is going to be conducted so long as we have the power. it could be forever. once upon a time we discovered the speed of light. we thought that was all there was to physics. we were wrong. but i'll make a bold statement- with what the incomplete theory of science has so far, is more reliable than what creationism or religion has done for understanding the universe.
Hmmm... Well, I think the best way for me to describe what I think about this is that I disagree with the spirit of what you're saying. Human error is a fact of life, and must be taken into account in everything that we do. As our technology and background information become more developed, we are constantly calibrating our information, but I still don't see science as being based on a belief that we will be wrong. :confused It's possible I just don’t understand what you're saying, but it's equally possible that we simply disagree.
we will be wrong, unless we try our best to get the most accurate results possible. then we can be less wrong, until maybe one day we're 100% right.