Discussion Forums > The Lounge

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

<< < (9/13) > >>

fohfoh:

--- Quote from: mgz on April 24, 2010, 11:12:40 AM ---IMO you should take this in another direction, start providing evidence for creationism just to be an ass. And bring up other theories that are fairly popular in the creation of the universe.

--- End quote ---

There were a few others sort of going in that direction. It was funny just to watch.

Borror0:
I think that, when he says that "The Theory of Evolution and The Theory of the Big Bang do not need to be proven," he means that there are already enough evidences to believe that those scientific theories are accurate. For example, the theory of evolution is the most plausible description of the mechanism because it perfectly describes the observed reality. In that sense, it does not need to be proven since it's the most likely explanation (assuming Occam's Razor).

A theory can be called into question if new evidences show behavior that cannot be explained by the current model, but a scientific theory does not need to be proven since it is, by definition, the most plausible explanation.

For as long as it explains the mechanism perfectly, scientists assume it is correct.

mizore:
Scientists never assume.  That would be counter to the very idea of scientific method.

Borror0:

--- Quote from: mizore on April 26, 2010, 03:54:48 AM ---Scientists never assume.  That would be counter to the very idea of scientific method.

--- End quote ---
Correct. Scientists view scientific theories as "the current best possible and simplest explanation" rather "the truth" (which is why they are called theories, even though they are what most people would call facts) therefore allowing the possibility for those theories to be wrong.

I should have used another term.

mgz:
not to mention we havent observed evolution per say.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page