I learned more about the theory of science when studying for my PhD by talking to my husband who had studied the history of science as an undergrad.

I found it very useful. He recommend Carl Sagon's Demon Haunted World

(October 19, 2015 at 5:25 am)I_am_not_mafia Wrote: I learned more about the theory of science when studying for my PhD by talking to my husband who had studied the history of science as an undergrad.

I found it very useful. He recommend Carl Sagon's Demon Haunted World

Exactly! I think I learned more about that by listening to science and skepticism podcasts and killing bottles of red with my wife after dinner than in my formal studies. It' s a weird state of affairs, but that's how it is.

Funnily enough, I learned about this stuff formally when I started becoming interested in religion and I picked it up from atheist shows and material. Of course atheism has nothing to do with science (although you could argue that it helps!) but theists repeatedly bring science into the discussion as a red herring.

(October 18, 2015 at 9:11 pm)Blondie Wrote:

(October 18, 2015 at 11:12 am)Pandæmonium Wrote: I really don't give any sort of shit about you or your 'beliefs' (which deserve no respect, and deserve no quarter. Your beliefs are ridiculous, and so are you).

If anyone has revealed their idiocy on the forum so far it's you. Enjoy wasting everyone's time with your nonsense.

Then why do you bother to respond to me if you think I am ridiculous or if you don't give a crap?

You started it, love. Leaping in head first without bothering to check contexts with a personal attack on moi and many others. I'm sorry if I haven't taken a personal attack from a fucking noob as well as you'd thought.

(October 19, 2015 at 1:29 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: I'm still trying to get my mind around a biology undergrad who doesn't understand the scientific connotation of theory.

Your difficulties must be as nothing in comparison with his own.

(October 18, 2015 at 7:43 pm)Blondie Wrote: If it could be done the way that creationists want it done, then scientists would have indisputable evidence.  I know theories take time to prove or be dismissed for sheer lack of scientific evidence like the germ theory which was proven to be true through the development of the microscope. 

First of all: theories are already true. Theories are explanatory frameworks composed of a series of different facts; a theory is already as true as we can make it. Does that mean no theory is ever false? No. But you are vastly understating the importance of theories by phrasing them neither true or false yet.

Secondly: creationists don't want evidence for evolution. They want evolution to be false, because they mistakenly think that this will serve as confirmation of their specific brand of biblical creation. That's why they don't bother actually doing any research, they just say the things that you have: oh, we don't have any missing links! Oh, it's just a theory! Let me be clear: it's not possible to argue against evolution both knowledgeably and honestly. If you want to argue against evolution honestly then you need to know nothing about it, and if you want to have comprehensive knowledge of evolution then it's impossible to honestly deny it. Evolution has over a hundred years of scientific evidence supporting it across multiple fields and disciplines; there's no longer any legitimate reason to deny that it happens.

Those that do are either lying or ignorant, for ideological rather than logical reasons.

Quote:I thought this was interesting.  What is your take on this?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...faq.php#f2

Misconceptions about evolution and religion

• MISCONCEPTION: Evolution and religion are incompatible.
  CORRECTION: Because of some individuals and groups stridently declaring their beliefs, it's easy to get the impression that science (which includes evolution) and religion are at war; however, the idea that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. People of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.
  Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days does conflict with evolutionary theory); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution. For concise statements from many religious organizations regarding evolution, see Voices for Evolution on the NCSE website. To learn more about the relationship between science and religion, visit the Understanding Science website.
  

Back to top

The thing that makes science and religion incompatible is the complete lack of evidence for religion. Evolution means that we no longer need magic to explain the diversity of life on this planet, but of course it's not directly contradictory to the ideas of religion, because religion's ideas are inherently malleable. The only reason religion has survived the scientific revolution at all was that it can change to fit all of the things it has been proven wrong about, and that adherents of theism are willing to forget all the times they were wrong and still insist that they're right. The Berkeley page is correct, but it misses the point.

(October 19, 2015 at 5:21 am)Alex K Wrote:

(October 19, 2015 at 1:29 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: I'm still trying to get my mind around a biology undergrad who doesn't understand the scientific connotation of theory.

You overestimate how much about philosophy of science one has to understand in order to get a PhD -  Let alone a Master's or Bachelor' s degree or so.  I myself was taught zilch about all that in the regular classed because the courses and lectures you have to take mostly concentrate on teaching you how to use existing theories.  I learned what doing science means in my thesis work.  I'd say I only learned how to properly do it by working with brilliant scientists.

I have no deep education in science, unlike you or Rocket Surgeon, but the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, and a guess was taught me in biology and physical anthropology both, at the junior college level ... perhaps because of the fundamentalist influence here in America?

It wasn't a full-fledged study of the philosophy of science, but simply an explication of the differences between the three terms. The fact that Blondie here doesn't know that is pretty surprising to me.

It doesn't surprise me a bit.

(October 19, 2015 at 10:32 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: I have no deep education in science, unlike you or Rocket Surgeon, but the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, and a guess was taught me in biology and physical anthropology both, at the junior college level ... perhaps because of the fundamentalist influence here in America?

It wasn't a full-fledged study of the philosophy of science, but simply an explication of the differences between the three terms. The fact that Blondie here doesn't know that is pretty surprising to me.

I had a similar experience in college. As a Finance major, and taking a few science courses as electives, I remember the theory/hypothesis/guess discussion occurring throughout.

Of course, back in the late 70s/early 80s, colleges were a godless wasteland, designed with purpose to convert young, impressionable minds into becoming the tools of Satan. Critical thinking being one of The Beast's chief weapons.

(October 19, 2015 at 10:24 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 18, 2015 at 7:43 pm)Blondie Wrote: If it could be done the way that creationists want it done, then scientists would have indisputable evidence.  I know theories take time to prove or be dismissed for sheer lack of scientific evidence like the germ theory which was proven to be true through the development of the microscope. 

First of all: theories are already true. Theories are explanatory frameworks composed of a series of different facts; a theory is already as true as we can make it. Does that mean no theory is ever false? No. But you are vastly understating the importance of theories by phrasing them neither true or false yet.

Secondly: creationists don't want evidence for evolution. They want evolution to be false, because they mistakenly think that this will serve as confirmation of their specific brand of biblical creation. That's why they don't bother actually doing any research, they just say the things that you have: oh, we don't have any missing links! Oh, it's just a theory! Let me be clear: it's not possible to argue against evolution both knowledgeably and honestly. If you want to argue against evolution honestly then you need to know nothing about it, and if you want to have comprehensive knowledge of evolution then it's impossible to honestly deny it. Evolution has over a hundred years of scientific evidence supporting it across multiple fields and disciplines; there's no longer any legitimate reason to deny that it happens.

Those that do are either lying or ignorant, for ideological rather than logical reasons.

Quote:I thought this was interesting.  What is your take on this?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...faq.php#f2

Misconceptions about evolution and religion

• MISCONCEPTION: Evolution and religion are incompatible.
  CORRECTION: Because of some individuals and groups stridently declaring their beliefs, it's easy to get the impression that science (which includes evolution) and religion are at war; however, the idea that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. People of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.
  Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days does conflict with evolutionary theory); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution. For concise statements from many religious organizations regarding evolution, see Voices for Evolution on the NCSE website. To learn more about the relationship between science and religion, visit the Understanding Science website.
  

Back to top

The thing that makes science and religion incompatible is the complete lack of evidence for religion. Evolution means that we no longer need magic to explain the diversity of life on this planet, but of course it's not directly contradictory to the ideas of religion, because religion's ideas are inherently malleable. The only reason religion has survived the scientific revolution at all was that it can change to fit all of the things it has been proven wrong about, and that adherents of theism are willing to forget all the times they were wrong and still insist that they're right. The Berkeley page is correct, but it misses the point.

I want the plain and simple truth period. Just like many of you, I want to make the decision for myself and not believe something because scientists tell me to or creationists tell me to.