Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Theory vs Fact - A false choice

jackangel

New member
I am tired of that shit. I see it over and over and over. It makes no sense to dismiss or marginalize theories because they are not facts. A fact is not a higher, or more certain level of explanation when compared to a theory.

Theories are frameworks meant to explain facts. Facts are based on observation. Generally, the theories which pass muster are those which explain previous observations effectively, and make predictions about what else we should expect to observe.

Whatever else you think, get that straight.
 
jackangel said:
I am tired of that shit. I see it over and over and over. It makes no sense to dismiss or marginalize theories because they are not facts. A fact is not a higher, or more certain level of explanation when compared to a theory.

Theories are frameworks meant to explain facts. Facts are based on observation. Generally, the theories which pass muster are those which explain previous observations effectively, and make predictions about what else we should expect to observe.

Whatever else you think, get that straight.
Most people don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and theory used in common parlance....as in some shit you're speculating about. It's like the 9/11 conspiracy theory is equal to the theory of gravity. Sure, we don't understand why the universe is accelerating, while as how we understand gravity, it should be slowing but that doesn't invalidate it.
 
javaguru said:
Most people don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and theory used in common parlance....as in some shit you're speculating about. It's like the 9/11 conspiracy theory is equal to the theory of gravity. Sure, we don't understand why the universe is accelerating, while as how we understand gravity, it should be slowing but that doesn't invalidate it.

agreed. but even a common, "everyday" theory posited by the average schmuck is likely to have some basis. something that reason can act upon. which is nice.
 
jackangel said:
I am tired of that shit. I see it over and over and over. It makes no sense to dismiss or marginalize theories because they are not facts. A fact is not a higher, or more certain level of explanation when compared to a theory.

Theories are frameworks meant to explain facts. Facts are based on observation. Generally, the theories which pass muster are those which explain previous observations effectively, and make predictions about what else we should expect to observe.

Whatever else you think, get that straight.


Yup, without first having theory there can never be fact. It's just a different stage of the scientific process.
 
Fact

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.

Theory

Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

synonyms see hypothesis
 
germs cause disease is a theory. let's see if the creationist wanna debunk

that one. hey, it's just a theory.......let me inject you with a lil staph lol.

as java stated, scientific theory and theory as used in the vernacular are

two different animals.

imbedded theory is most certainly factual. some aspects may change or be

revised but the general idea will, in all likelihood, remain intact.

for instance, we will never wake to newspaper headlines that read

" science completely disprove evolution" or " germs do not cause disease"

or " the bible is right, the sun revolves around the earth"
 
layinback said:
germs cause disease is a theory. let's see if the creationist wanna debunk

that one. hey, it's just a theory.......let me inject you with a lil staph lol.

as java stated, scientific theory and theory as used in the vernacular are

two different animals.

imbedded theory is most certainly factual. some aspects may change or be

revised but the general idea will, in all likelihood, remain intact.

for instance, we will never wake to newspaper headlines that read

" science completely disprove evolution" or " germs do not cause disease"

or " the bible is right, the sun revolves around the earth"

Where did the first living creature come from?

Just sayin'
 
pin said:
Where did the first living creature come from?

Just sayin'


it is theorized, oops there goes that word, that monomers ( amino acids)

were the first form of life......a quasi viral kinda shit. no real standard

model exists but it's a very esoteric and cool arm of science.

i'd probably be a happier person if i believed in magic and creators

and afterlives and fairies.
 
jackangel said:
I am tired of that shit. I see it over and over and over. It makes no sense to dismiss or marginalize theories because they are not facts. A fact is not a higher, or more certain level of explanation when compared to a theory.

Theories are frameworks meant to explain facts. Facts are based on observation. Generally, the theories which pass muster are those which explain previous observations effectively, and make predictions about what else we should expect to observe.

Whatever else you think, get that straight.
agree 100%

Theories are built on an expansive foundation of fact. The bigger the claim, the more facts that are required.
 
pin said:
Where did the first living creature come from?

Just sayin'
No one knows that for certain.

I do know that it was probably very simple, and very very small.

You seem like the type of person not comfortable with uncertainty. The type who fills in gaps of knowledge with anything that remotely fits. Its human nature I suppose, we try to find the cause of everything, and when some bit of knowledge is out of reach, we concoct our own answers.

That doesn't make those anymore true, but they can still give you the same comfort and security you crave,.
 
pin, did you post those definitions merely for the sake of convenience, or are you trying to make a point? is there something you see in those definitions which contradicts what some of us have said?
 
Top Bottom