(September 9, 2011 at 1:00 pm)little_monkey Wrote:

(September 6, 2011 at 8:22 am)Peter44 Wrote: If a meteorologist discovers that rain in one region is evidence of something, and the lack of rain in another region is evidence of something else, and from these observations he forms a theory, then what he has observed is in fact evidence.

Perhaps others have made an observation on this point, forgive me if I'm late in this discussion, the evidence you are calling for is really observation, and the theory is an explanation of those observations. However, such a theory does not constitute a "scientific" theory, not yet. For that, the theory must make predictions that can be verified. Otherwise, it is a theory in what the laymen understand as mere "opinion".

(September 11, 2011 at 2:04 pm)Peter44 Wrote:

(September 9, 2011 at 1:00 pm)little_monkey Wrote:

(September 6, 2011 at 8:22 am)Peter44 Wrote: If a meteorologist discovers that rain in one region is evidence of something, and the lack of rain in another region is evidence of something else, and from these observations he forms a theory, then what he has observed is in fact evidence.

Perhaps others have made an observation on this point, forgive me if I'm late in this discussion, the evidence you are calling for is really observation, and the theory is an explanation of those observations. However, such a theory does not constitute a "scientific" theory, not yet. For that, the theory must make predictions that can be verified. Otherwise, it is a theory in what the laymen understand as mere "opinion".

Could you tell my when I said that ?? I fully support your interpretation of what was quoted I just dont remember it was meposting it and if it was me iImust have had to much red wine.

Quote:It was AngelThMan who wrote that.

(September 11, 2011 at 5:00 pm)little_monkey Wrote:

(September 11, 2011 at 2:04 pm)Peter44 Wrote:

(September 9, 2011 at 1:00 pm)little_monkey Wrote:

(September 6, 2011 at 8:22 am)Peter44 Wrote: If a meteorologist discovers that rain in one region is evidence of something, and the lack of rain in another region is evidence of something else, and from these observations he forms a theory, then what he has observed is in fact evidence.

Perhaps others have made an observation on this point, forgive me if I'm late in this discussion, the evidence you are calling for is really observation, and the theory is an explanation of those observations. However, such a theory does not constitute a "scientific" theory, not yet. For that, the theory must make predictions that can be verified. Otherwise, it is a theory in what the laymen understand as mere "opinion".

Could you tell my when I said that ?? I fully support your interpretation of what was quoted I just dont remember it was meposting it and if it was me iImust have had to much red wine.

Sorry, my mistake. It was AngelThMan who wrote that. I must have mixed the tag wrongly. Again, my apology.