An individual who screws up the term, "Theory"... / "Proof"?

[fohfoh]

Ok... chatting on another forum and an individual starts throwing around that the Big Bang Theory and Evolution does not need proving. It's fact. Ok fine. But the reason they don't need proving is that they are "theories".

I politely asked if he felt evidence from the LHC would aid his Big Bang Theory argument for which he replied with something along the lines of, "You don't need to prove the Big Bang Theory and Micro vs Macro Evolution is crap cooked up by creationists to try and disprove of the fact of Evolution."

Now, let's not discuss Big Bang theory and Micro vs Macro evolution. That is meant elsewhere and not on bkbt forums. (ie: A scientific discussion or something irl) I've already spoken about the difference between scientific law and scientific theory... any thing I should add to try and get this person back on track before he spews another load of crap?

I mean in all seriousness, it's some idiot who is trying to use Evolution and Big Bang to try and say, "All religious people are morons!" but any intelligent individual with half a brain can easily see that even at a scientific level or secular level, that this person has totally screwed up their understanding of a scientific concept.

Amirite? or am I really lacking sleep and thinking crazy thoughts?

[mizore]

Errr... that's way too vague, tbh.   To formulate any type of opinion I would have to see some evidence of an educated discussion.  If, however, you are saying that he was intentionally avoiding just that, then I would make with the lol's.

Working for CERN is exactly what I want to do, btw.  Seriously unnerving that the LHC can only operate at about half its potential due to the damage previously incurred... I wonder if it was sabotage?

[fohfoh]

And by the way, stating that the Big Bang Theory and Evolution are awaiting to be proven, would make you the laughing stock in higher education circles.

What do you mean by proof of the Big Bang Theory? Asking for a proof of the Big Bang Theory is like asking for a proof of the Theory of Gravity. The Big Bang Theory is an explanation that is consistent with most scientific observations on the universe, its expansion, trajectory, etc. Are you asking for the proof that the explanation is correct? Well, it is consistent with all the evidence we have. You cannot do better than that! A scientific theory is not something that needs to be proven to be true. It IS true (by definition) with the evidence we have observed.

The same applies to the Theory of Evolution. Furthermore, there is not such thing as micro and macro evolution. These are terms coined by creationists to artificially create a barrier (which they can't even define precisely) to make it seem like you can't get "runaway micro evolution". Let me ask you this. Why can't you run a mile if you can run a yard? If mutations can accumulate over time, why can't new species appear in evolution? What other evidence do you need besides transitional fossils to "prove" evolution? The Theory of Evolution is consistent with observations in all fields of biology, from molecular biology to physiology (if you choose to disregard transitional fossils).

I will tell you one more time. The Theory of Evolution and The Theory of the Big Bang do not need to be proven. Saying so makes me question your understanding of what a scientific theory is. Until you understand that definition, there is no point in me trying to educate you about Evolution. And by the way, punctuated equilibrium IS evolution. Please do not misrepresent it as an alternative theory to evolution.

I do not have any problems with people believing in fairy tales, but I have a problem when they go out of their way, pretend to talk about topics as if they were experts, and their opinions are outright wrong or misrepresentations of what we know.

Have your lols. I think this guy is being serious. I on the other hand can't fully think through the ideas and discuss with him since I'm too tired atm.

And I'm talking about general understanding of theory which this person seems to misunderstand greatly. "Theory of gravity"? I thought gravity was law... though after a quick check it seems to be a "law" by name only and is mentioned as a theory. So he might not be fully wrong overall. (Though I still disagree with the Evolution etc. comments personally not needing proof) 

[mizore]

Yes, lol's ensued. 

Einstein's theory of the curvature of space is somewhat controversial currently considering the exponentially increasing redshift seen at the edges of the universe... well, as far as we have the ability to see, anyway.  The lensing effects seen while observing are a particularly prominent indicator that the behaviors aren't as currently understood.

[JoonasTo]

I lolled.  

The guy's true believer alright. Just not in god. In science theories. I always wondered if there were such people...

[fohfoh]

So am I correct in presuming this guy has his head screwed on backwards in his understanding of theories? I think he's totally screwing up the idea between scientific theory and scientific law.

@JoonasTo: Same here. I got used to dealing with religious fanatics and stupid atheists ("Lulz, believing in God is so stupid! I believe in Evidence!" Which totally doesn't fully make sense since there's no evidence for or against) . Then this guy came along and I was confused as to where to categorize him.

Any useful tidbits of clarification overall but not huge debates on the topics? Afaik, they're disallowed here, but any hints on which "trail" to follow when I'm not tired might help me try and steer this guy to reality if he so allows.

Also, the guy really reminds me of a conspiracy theorist.

[JoonasTo]

Yes, a loco is a loco. Scientific laws are theories too btw.

I'm quessing you can't change his mind. He is a believer. Those rarely ever change.
But I'm quessing best way would be to make him explain why he believes. So you know what he gets and what not. Then either oound some sense into his skull or just note that he's hopeless and abandon the idea.

[Enzedder]

I would say let him spew his crap and watch for the lols. His head is screwed. A "theory" is a speculation on what has or will happen. Experiments and practices are carried out to prove the theory. A "law" is a proven or widely accepted theory.

As far as I remember though the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Creationism both claim evidence to support their claims however I don't think I have seem any specific reports that prove one right or the other wrong. One could say that Evolution is widely accepted as what happened however I think you will find just as many people who believe otherwise.

Therefore they are still theories and therefore he is an idiot to put it bluntly.

[KoC]

You are crazy from lack of sleep but that still doesn't make you wrong.

If I was bored right now I'd write a friggin' essay on the definition of theory that you could shove down his throat so hard that he'd shit paper mâché sculptures for a month.

[fohfoh]

You are crazy from lack of sleep but that still doesn't make you wrong.

If I was bored right now I'd write a friggin' essay on the definition of theory that you could shove down his throat so hard that he'd shit paper mâché sculptures for a month.

I lol'd.

I agree. Maybe I should just push him and see what explanations he comes up with. Get a few more laughs or just more angry (but funny) reactions from KOC.

Might want to add, he's really arguing with another individual. Except for the second quote. That was his response to me regarding the LHC comment.

JoonasTo: In that case, how does one define the thin line between scientific law and theory?

[JoonasTo]

Laws are theories that are universally accepted as proven to be correct.

One could write a lot longer about it but that is the core.

I would like to see him come up with evidence for the theory of gravity btw. Should prove fun. 

[fohfoh]

Sounds about right.

But Joonas... he says you don't need evidence for theories. That won't work.

[JoonasTo]

Aww...
A shame.
Theory of gravity is one of the best ones to listen people explain.
Besides of being known to almost everyone it's one of the harder ones to prove thanks to the masses required to be observable.

[mizore]

Theories are based in fact, thus the evidence is prevalent during construction.  New evidence either supports or disproves elements of said theory, and it is either then developed or abandoned.  Evidence is necessary for theories to move into the realm of assured factual knowledge, as well as necessary for reinforcing constituent parts of theories.

He is wrong.

[fohfoh]

Theories are based in fact, thus the evidence is prevalent during construction.  New evidence either supports or disproves elements of said theory, and it is either then developed or abandoned.  Evidence is necessary for theories to move into the realm of assured factual knowledge, as well as necessary for reinforcing constituent parts of theories.

He is wrong.

That's what I thought too. Then my mind refused to work in regards to the idea of scientific theory vs scientific law so I began to doubt what I had said. Damn you mind... why don't you work when I am tired? Maybe there's a theory on that too.

I'll see what he posts and see if there's any opportunities to drag out any more lols out of him. Though, it might be easier if you guys help provide some cannon fodder for me to shoot at him later on. Or ways to lead him into a "trap" for a few good laughs.

[psyren]

Yes, a loco is a loco. Scientific laws are theories too btw.

There is a reason some ideas are called laws and some are called theories

Law: always applies, and has been proven, and has also proven to be resistant to disproving. Example: laws of gravity.
Theory: idea or potential concept of how something works, but has not been able to be proven or disproven due to limited knowledge/resources. Examples: what was stated at the top of this thread.

[mizore]

Lol... I so didn't catch that....

 

[fohfoh]

:O Joonas, you misled me!

Sweet. I like that answer psy.

[JoonasTo]

Laws are theories that are universally accepted as proven to be correct.

[psyren]

Laws are theories that are universally accepted as proven to be correct.

LOL?

Scientific laws are theories too btw.

Did you not understand the distinction between a theory and a law?
Why do people say 'I have a theory' rather than 'I have a law'?
Somehow, the 'theories of gravity' doesn't sound nearly as cool as the 'laws of gravity'. Same for the 'laws of thermodynamics'.