Science
Science
Out of context: Reply #510
- Started
- Last post
- 1,008 Responses
- Science1
The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.
- oh god we're going to have all sorts of shitty spoof accounts now aren't weset
- well considering it says "invited by ____" next to the new username, this will be short livedmoldero
- Touché QBNmoldero
- It would be weird if something was only true if you believed in it.qoob
- I suspect there're a few QBNers who live by that creed, qoob.detritus
- Thus why mostly everything in science is called a theory. say about 90-80%
dont forget its occult origins btw.yurimon - Also, what was scientifically true last week, may not be scientifically true this week.Morning_star
- there is true science and political motivated science which is design for outcome not truth like pr.yurimon
- ^^ that's the beauty of it. We're not sure of anything! If we're wrong, we'll adjust.ESKEMA
- But you really need to convince me your new theory is better, otherwise I'll stick to what I have now!ESKEMA
- Scientific theories are not to be confused with hypotheses, yurimon. They are far closer to "laws" than "theories."monospaced
- A theory is a hypothesis that goes through extremely rigorous testing, and becomes a solid theory to base future science on.monospaced
- Theory: a supposition intended to explain something
Supposition: a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis.Morning_star - Religion: truth, like that flood story and 7k year old earth.moldero
- Nice try, Morning_star, but those definitions are in the wrong context entirely.monospaced
- A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.monospaced
- A hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome. For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. This is called falsifiability and testability, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica.monospaced
- @Moldero - You're asserting that because 'Science' is under scrutiny, it follows that those scrutinising it promote 'Religion' is an alternative. I've seen no..Morning_star
- ...evidence of this here, ever.Morning_star
- @Monospaced - We seem to be debating semantics again. Which, as we've seen before, is largely fruitless. You got anything better ;)Morning_star
- lol, we are certainly not debating semantics, you are simply using incorrect definitions to make a feeble pointmonospaced
- you used the wrong version of the definitions of words to fuck up semantics, which is really a huge discredit to your arguing abilitiesmonospaced
- Dawkins version of evolution is obsolete. /end.
its ironic.. Dawkins believes in evolution n denied natural selection by that chic.yurimon - @mono - missing the point as usual.Morning_star
- No I'm not. We're right on point, and you made a weak argument with bad data and I'm sorry I had to point that out. Theories simply are closer to facts.monospaced
- No need to apologise. My point: regardless of the definition, theories are not facts. I'm still waiting for my one fact about DarkMatter.Morning_star
- Fact, Dark matter exists. Also, scientific theories are chalk full of facts.monospaced
- That is my point, and "the" point.monospaced
- Dark matter is without definition. We know nothing about its nature. It's nothing but a name. Fact.Morning_star
- Creationism anyone?utopian