(11-06-2014 10:41 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  LOL.

You asked.
"Oh, please do tell, precisely what error did I make?"

Your error is in your statement. "Most of it is just a theory." I do not believe anyone with a background in science or anybody who holds a degree in science would say such a thing.

It's a direct and stunningly obvious show of ignorance. I have no other way of saying it. How can you say most of it is just a theory? Let's delve into the parts that are not "most". Are some parts of it "fact" are some parts "Proven"?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

There's been virtually no experimental evidence to test string theory.

And you can keep your Popper-esque interpretation of scientific proof. I think this notion is garbage, but I'll give Popper some benefit of the doubt, perhaps his ideas have been twisted by simple-minded science teachers. Regardless, his ideas are not universally held, nor were they even considered until about 100 years ago. I believe this notion to be an academic fad, much like Keynesian economics, Freudian psychology, and Camus' existentialism.

But in the end, you're trying to argue w/ me about scientific philosophy, not science. Furthermore, you're claiming your beliefs about theories not able to be proven, have somehow been proven. There's comical irony in that, but I believe it's beyond you.

"One could jump off of a building and prove the theory of gravity."


No this would not prove the Theory of Gravity. It's the Law of Gravity. We have "Theories" that try to explain natural phenomena (Laws). Don't worry Van Driver your mistake is a common one. The majority of people in this country would take your line of reasoning and the continuing ignorance is perpetuated by the likes of dr. torch.

(11-06-2014 10:53 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  "One could jump off of a building and prove the theory of gravity."


No this would not prove the Theory of Gravity. It's the Law of Gravity.

Fail.

Quote: We have "Theories" that try to explain natural phenomena (Laws). Don't worry Van Driver your mistake is a common one. The majority of people in this country would take your line of reasoning and the continuing ignorance is perpetuated by the likes of dr. torch.

Heh. Given that you can't even define the word "theory," people would be much better off w/ my ignorance.

but in the end, you're trying to argue w/ me about scientific philosophy,

I'm not arguing anything. I'm simply pointing out your direct and obvious confusion on the nature of Theories. It's impossible to prove a Theory. We don't have some parts of a Theory only being a theory.

You will never recover from this statement. It shows you are trying to put a square peg into a round hole. It can not be done or undone.

"As for string theory...most of it is just theory, and always will be."

One can only hope you will learn from this and grow from it. You are perpetuating a falsehood. A common falsehood at that.

I thought something was a theory until it was proven then it became law. At some point it can be proven (turned to law) or disproven (theory is then thrown out), but it may take advances in science in other areas to be able to definitively get an answer. Granted, I'm not a scientist but that is what I remember from when I was in HS.

Machiavelli Wrote:
"One could jump off of a building and prove the theory of gravity."


No this would not prove the Theory of Gravity. It's the Law of Gravity.

Fail.

Quote:
We have "Theories" that try to explain natural phenomena (Laws). Don't worry Van Driver your mistake is a common one. The majority of people in this country would take your line of reasoning and the continuing ignorance is perpetuated by the likes of dr. torch.

Heh. Given that you can't even define the word "theory," people would be much better off w/ my ignorance.


Ahhhh, I see we are doubling down on stupid.

I can define Theory. The question is can you?

(11-06-2014 11:03 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Ahhhh, I see we are doubling down on stupid.

I can define Theory. The question is can you?

I already have on this board. You OTOH keep making nothing but claims. Beginning to wonder if you're lying about this too.

(11-06-2014 11:03 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Machiavelli Wrote:
"One could jump off of a building and prove the theory of gravity."


No this would not prove the Theory of Gravity. It's the Law of Gravity.

Fail.

Quote:
We have "Theories" that try to explain natural phenomena (Laws). Don't worry Van Driver your mistake is a common one. The majority of people in this country would take your line of reasoning and the continuing ignorance is perpetuated by the likes of dr. torch.

Heh. Given that you can't even define the word "theory," people would be much better off w/ my ignorance.


Ahhhh, I see we are doubling down on stupid.

I can define Theory. The question is can you?

Yet you struggle with the quote function of this board.

I thought something was a theory until it was proven then it became law. At some point it can be proven (turned to law) or disproven (theory is then thrown out), but it may take advances in science in other areas to be able to definitively get an answer. Granted, I'm not a scientist but that is what I remember from when I was in HS.


A Theory will never graduate into a law. It is possible for "Theories" to be revised from time to time.

(11-06-2014 11:06 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A Theory will never graduate into a law. It is possible for "Theories" to be revised from time to time.

Why would a theory never graduate? That makes no sense to me. A theory just hasn't been proven.

A Theory is the GOLD STANDARD. It is the absolute best that current scientific thought can offer.

(11-06-2014 11:09 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A Theory is the GOLD STANDARD. It is the absolute best that current scientific thought can offer.

But isn't proven. Hence it is a theory.

Once proven it graduates, or disproven it is thrown out.

A Scientific Law is a natural phenomena. Gravity is a LAW. We have have Theories that attempt to explain Laws. The general theory of relativity attempts to explain gravity.

(11-06-2014 11:06 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I thought something was a theory until it was proven then it became law. At some point it can be proven (turned to law) or disproven (theory is then thrown out), but it may take advances in science in other areas to be able to definitively get an answer. Granted, I'm not a scientist but that is what I remember from when I was in HS.


A Theory will never graduate into a law. It is possible for "Theories" to be revised from time to time.

No, you had it right earlier, a law is a description of a natural phenomenon.

Gravity- masses exert a force of attraction toward one another. Refined, laws become quantified F=g*m1*m2/d^2

Theories are the ideas that explain these phenomena in more precise ways. Atomic theory has evolved over millennia. Plate tectonics theory is built upon hydrodynamics.

These theories are never proven, b/c they are models of the world. It is tautological to use experimental data to prove a theory, as the theory should have been crafted on the data to begin with. New data can support a given theory, and sometimes a theory will lead to a novel experiment, sometimes these are casually referred to as "proofs". That is imprecise language. Theories can be disproven however.

"Theory" sometimes is used to mean "hypothesis" which can lead to confusion. Hypotheses can be proven IMO. But that's what Karl Popper wrote about. Everyone agrees that hypotheses can be disproven.

There is no such thing as a Scientific Proof.

(11-06-2014 11:15 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  There is no such thing as a Scientific Proof.

Says Popper. Or at least your interpretation of Popper.

Regardless, I find this to be a silly, and demonstrably wrong, philosophy. Of course Freud was a fool and he's still studied.

What torch finds silly and demonstrably wrong is what the "rest" of the world calls founding bedrock principals. It's literally the very nature of science. It's literally in chapter 1 of every academic text book in the world.

(11-06-2014 11:12 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A Scientific Law is a natural phenomena. Gravity is a LAW. We have have Theories that attempt to explain Laws. The general theory of relativity attempts to explain gravity.

Newton's work on gravity is commonly referred to as the Law of Gravitation, or more appropriately the Inverse Square Law.

Now Newton's work can be shown to produce incorrect predictions, yet it still maintains the "law" designation. It is true, that at shorter distances, the Inverse Square Law will produce a very good approximation of gravitational effects. Yet Newton's Law was shown to be deficient in the late 19th century giving rise to Einstein's General Theory.

Einstein's work became the standard when the curvature of light was observed by Eddington during an eclipse.

But it wasn't long until even Einstein was confounded by the inability of general relativity to be reconciled with quantum mechanics.

Many ideas have been forwarded (Loop Quantum Gravity, gravitons, gravitational waves, and yes, string theory) to reconcile the discrepancies. IMO, and one shared by Leonard Susskind, we have a long way to go.

Bottom line, nobody knows what gravity is.

(11-06-2014 11:03 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Machiavelli Wrote:
"One could jump off of a building and prove the theory of gravity."


No this would not prove the Theory of Gravity. It's the Law of Gravity.

Fail.

Quote:
We have "Theories" that try to explain natural phenomena (Laws). Don't worry Van Driver your mistake is a common one. The majority of people in this country would take your line of reasoning and the continuing ignorance is perpetuated by the likes of dr. torch.

Heh. Given that you can't even define the word "theory," people would be much better off w/ my ignorance.


Ahhhh, I see we are doubling down on stupid.

I can define Theory. The question is can you?

No, you're the one in the wrong as physics is not mathematics (hint - numbers are imaginary). As such, the familiar proofs that equations can be written for do not translate perfectly into real life. That why even though we have 'Laws' of Motion, Gravity and Thermodynamics, there are a plethora of exceptions and refinements that render the idea that you could ever say a solution is 100% accurate all the time and in all places, impossible. That's why its called a theory, because one can prove it locally, but that doesn't mean it applies universally.

(11-06-2014 11:24 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  What torch finds silly and demonstrably wrong is what the "rest" of the world calls founding bedrock principals. It's literally the very nature of science. It's literally in chapter 1 of every academic text book in the world.

More lies. Why I can open several texts right now and show your claims to be completely unfounded. You also seemed to have missed the part where not every scientist accepts Popper's propositions...you of course don't know really know any scientists. And Popper's philosophy runs contrary to the prevailing philosophy of Bacon and others up until his day...yet science got done. Hmm.

It would seem that yet again mach shows off is ignorance to the world, PROUDLY. This is what unions get you: teachers dispensing wrong information, on topics they are completely unqualified to be addressing.