(August 7, 2019 at 1:01 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: In what way can something be well-established, and based on solid evidence, but be wrong? No, its not rhetorical. I'm asking to make sure we're using these terms the same way. Aka, for clarification.

Newtonian gravity is a beautiful theory and it works, but it's wrong.

Edit. Ninja'd by the laid back plum.

(August 7, 2019 at 3:18 pm)I Succubus Wrote:

(August 7, 2019 at 1:01 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: In what way can something be well-established, and based on solid evidence, but be wrong? No, its not rhetorical. I'm asking to make sure we're using these terms the same way. Aka, for clarification.

Newtonian gravity is a beautiful theory and it works, but it's wrong.

Edit. Ninja'd by the laid back plum.

Most theories can be thought of as opening terms in the successive approximations of the behaviors of reality.    Behaviors of Reality = A+B+C+...…..    Sometimes using A alone can get you close enough to correctly forecasting the behavior of reality.     Some times you need A+B,  some times you need more terms than that.


But the fact that A alone is not always good enough does not mean A is wrong.  It is just incomplete.


What would likely be wrong is not A, but a mental picture, or cognitive explanation, of how A came to be pretty accurate that does not allow for adding B, and C, etc to make it more accurate.


Newton's law of gravity is correct but incomplete.   Imagining Newton's laws sprung from an force field that acts instantaneously over distance in a framework where time and distance are rigid unrelated coordinates is what is wrong, but that is not part of newton's law.  It is an explanation of newton's law.   The law is right but incomplete, the explanation of the law that is based on the assumption the law is largely complete is wrong.


The same applies in principle to evolution.   The reality of evolution almost certainly involve an extremely large number of effects or terms.    We can notionally rank these terms  in descending orders of their importance to the outcome of evolution:   The process of evolution = A+B+C+D+E...……..     We undoubtedly have the first few terms down, A, B C, maybe D.   We can forecast in big pictures how evolution goes.   But there are Es and Fs we are still investigating.    There are no doubt Ps, and Qs we haven't even thought of yet that would be needed to constitute a more complete picture of evolution.


But none of these terms is the christian god.    Why?   Because we have the big terms, A, B, and C.   The others would have effects of some magnitude.  But in all likelihood much less magnitude than the leading terms.   So any god that resides in those terms are pitifully weak and inconsequential gods.


I think recognition of this fundamental truth of how reality can be described is what separates from those who know science, and those christards and other religitards like John here who plays at knowing science.   To them truth is not a laborious effort at ever more precise and accurate approximations of behaviors of reality, it is imagined in their infantile mind to be received in its infallible entirely from on high.   So no wonder they diligent effort at predicting reality using the idiot benchmark of overreaching iron age bullshit of what truth is.

(August 7, 2019 at 3:40 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Most theories can be thought of as opening terms in the successive approximations of the behaviors of reality.    Behaviors of Reality = A+B+C+...…..    Sometimes using A alone can get you close enough to correctly forecasting the behavior of reality.     Some times you need A+B,  some times you need more terms than that.


But the fact that A alone is not always good enough does not mean A is wrong.  It is just incomplete.


What would likely be wrong is not A, but a mental picture, or cognitive explanation, of how A came to be pretty accurate that didn't account for why adding B, and C, etc would make it more accurate.


Newton's law of gravity is correct but incomplete.   Imagining Newton's laws sprung from an force field that acts instantaneously over distance in a framework where time and distance are rigid unrelated coordinates is what is wrong, but that is not part of newton's law.  It is an explanation of newton's law.   The law is right but incomplete, the explanation of the law that is based on the assumption the law is largely complete is wrong.


The same applies in principle to evolution.   The reality of evolution almost certainly involve an extremely large number of effects or terms.    We can notionally rank these terms  in descending orders of their importance to the outcome of evolution:   The process of evolution = A+B+C+D+E...……..     We undoubtedly have the first few terms down, A, B C, maybe D.   We can forecast in big pictures how evolution goes.   But there are Es and Fs we are still investigating.    There are no doubt Ps, and Qs we haven't even thought of yet that would be needed to constitute a more complete picture of evolution.


But none of these terms is the christian god.    Why?   Because we have the big terms, A, B, and C.   The others would have effects of some magnitude.  But in all likelihood much less magnitude than the leading terms.   So any god that resides in those terms are pitifully weak and inconsequential gods.


I think recognition of this fundamental truth of how reality can be described is what separates from those who know science, and those christards and other religitards like John here who plays at knowing science.   To them truth is not a laborious effort at ever more precise and accurate approximations of behaviors of reality, it is imagined in their infantile mind to be received in its infallible entirely from on high.   So no wonder they diligent effort at predicting reality using the idiot benchmark of overreaching iron age bullshit of what truth is.

Laws are descriptions, theories are explanations. You haven't necessarily said anything wrong just yet, just want to make sure we're clear on those terms. Talking about laws of gravity is not the same as talking about theories of gravity.

(August 7, 2019 at 4:08 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Laws are descriptions, theories are explanations. You haven't necessarily said anything wrong just yet, just want to make sure we're clear on those terms. Talking about laws of gravity is not the same as talking about theories of gravity.

There is no such fucking thing as a "law" of gravity you braindead cretin.

I'm getting a strong stench of CDF47 off this bozo. Especially considering he's got exactly the same monomania and "debating style".

(August 7, 2019 at 4:13 pm)Nomad Wrote:

(August 7, 2019 at 4:08 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Laws are descriptions, theories are explanations. You haven't necessarily said anything wrong just yet, just want to make sure we're clear on those terms. Talking about laws of gravity is not the same as talking about theories of gravity.

There is no such fucking thing as a "law" of gravity you braindead cretin.

I'm getting a strong stench of CDF47 off this bozo.  Especially considering he's got exactly the same monomania and "debating style".

Newton's takes the form of "F = Gm1m2/r2"  The copy/paste option sucks, but hopefully its decipherable.

Edit: That's the equation for it anyway.

(August 7, 2019 at 4:17 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(August 7, 2019 at 4:13 pm)Nomad Wrote: There is no such fucking thing as a "law" of gravity you braindead cretin.

I'm getting a strong stench of CDF47 off this bozo.  Especially considering he's got exactly the same monomania and "debating style".

Newton's takes the form of "F = Gm1m2/r2"  The copy/paste option sucks, but hopefully its decipherable.

Edit: That's the equation for it anyway.

Any person with any competence in the scientific field, should know that as second nature. But you have trouble with the copy/paste function on a mere computer.

(August 7, 2019 at 4:08 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(August 7, 2019 at 3:40 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Most theories can be thought of as opening terms in the successive approximations of the behaviors of reality.    Behaviors of Reality = A+B+C+...…..    Sometimes using A alone can get you close enough to correctly forecasting the behavior of reality.     Some times you need A+B,  some times you need more terms than that.


But the fact that A alone is not always good enough does not mean A is wrong.  It is just incomplete.


What would likely be wrong is not A, but a mental picture, or cognitive explanation, of how A came to be pretty accurate that didn't account for why adding B, and C, etc would make it more accurate.


Newton's law of gravity is correct but incomplete.   Imagining Newton's laws sprung from an force field that acts instantaneously over distance in a framework where time and distance are rigid unrelated coordinates is what is wrong, but that is not part of newton's law.  It is an explanation of newton's law.   The law is right but incomplete, the explanation of the law that is based on the assumption the law is largely complete is wrong.


The same applies in principle to evolution.   The reality of evolution almost certainly involve an extremely large number of effects or terms.    We can notionally rank these terms  in descending orders of their importance to the outcome of evolution:   The process of evolution = A+B+C+D+E...……..     We undoubtedly have the first few terms down, A, B C, maybe D.   We can forecast in big pictures how evolution goes.   But there are Es and Fs we are still investigating.    There are no doubt Ps, and Qs we haven't even thought of yet that would be needed to constitute a more complete picture of evolution.


But none of these terms is the christian god.    Why?   Because we have the big terms, A, B, and C.   The others would have effects of some magnitude.  But in all likelihood much less magnitude than the leading terms.   So any god that resides in those terms are pitifully weak and inconsequential gods.


I think recognition of this fundamental truth of how reality can be described is what separates from those who know science, and those christards and other religitards like John here who plays at knowing science.   To them truth is not a laborious effort at ever more precise and accurate approximations of behaviors of reality, it is imagined in their infantile mind to be received in its infallible entirely from on high.   So no wonder they diligent effort at predicting reality using the idiot benchmark of overreaching iron age bullshit of what truth is.

Laws are descriptions, theories are explanations. You haven't necessarily said anything wrong just yet, just want to make sure we're clear on those terms. Talking about laws of gravity is not the same as talking about theories of gravity.

 

That’s classic.   The overweening ignoramus moron strokes himself by quibbling in an affected didactic tone.    He thinks that alone would establish his creds.

(August 7, 2019 at 4:17 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(August 7, 2019 at 4:13 pm)Nomad Wrote: There is no such fucking thing as a "law" of gravity you braindead cretin.

I'm getting a strong stench of CDF47 off this bozo.  Especially considering he's got exactly the same monomania and "debating style".

Newton's takes the form of "F = Gm1m2/r2"  The copy/paste option sucks, but hopefully its decipherable.

Edit: That's the equation for it anyway.

Looks like you also need a lesson in what "law" is and the difference between "law" and "theory" and the fact that you are talking about an equation while we're talking about the explanation itself. Start Googling again.

---

(August 7, 2019 at 1:21 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(August 7, 2019 at 1:16 pm)Grandizer Wrote: If not mistaken, LFC already posted a snippet or two that answers your question.

Otherwise, Wikipedia Scientific theory and you can see the criteria there.

Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

I did a quick search for "established" in your Wikipedia link. Sadly, it doesn't appear to list the scientific criteria for well-established. Moreover, the page also seems to treat the term well-established as describing some, but not all theories. Which I agree with. Some theories are well established, others are not.

Surely, if well-established isn't just a subjective description of a theory (like good, bad, terrible), criteria must exist between being well-established and not. How would we ever know when something is a theory, is we have no measure of how well-established it is?

Did you not read the Essential Criteria section? You really need the word "well-established" to be there for you to get it?

And there may be philosophical debates about what really makes a theory a theory, but doesn't change the fact that no reasonable learned person would argue that the space pixies explanation is a theory ...

Read, dammit. Don't just skim. Especially since you need the education badly.

Trolls be trollin.’

(August 7, 2019 at 4:44 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Did you not read the Essential Criteria section? You really need the word "well-established" to be there for you to get it?

And there may be philosophical debates about what really makes a theory a theory, but doesn't change the fact that no reasonable learned person would argue that the space pixies explanation is a theory ...

Read, dammit. Don't just skim. Especially since you need the education badly.

Words are important. Well-established means one thing and well-supported another (I read the Essential Criteria now). I do prefer the term well-supported, however, because we already saw that a theory that isn't well supported remains a theory. I asked you if theories get demoted when wrong, you said no. Other's have brought up examples of theories that are partially or completely wrong, and are still theories.

"Well-established" is beyond subjective. But at least "well-supported," though still in need of a threshold, is measurable.