Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Scientific "theories" proposed as facts (OT- probably controver

Subject: [OM] Re: Scientific "theories" proposed as facts (OT- probably controversial)
From: "Johann Thorsson" <johann@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:01:24 -0700
It is both hard to prove and disprove ET, that is why it is a theory.  There
are many discrepancies of course.  It is, however, the best explanation we
currently have that fits with other data and knowledge - and that is why it
is a theory but not a hypothesis.  This does of course not mean that it is
totally true, or true at all.  We simply don't know everything, but time
will tell us.  And it is good to be skeptical - a good scientist does not
believe anything at first, unless it is based on his own data :)

Gone now.

J


>
> Johann Thorssen wrote:
>
> <Part of the problem is that scientists speculate, that is
> what they are trained to do. They hypothesize based on all kinds of data
> and scenarios, but they don't (or should not) claim to know the truth.>
>
> <There is a reason why nothing can be more than 99.9% certain, and why
things
> are supposed to be "true" when the probability is 95%. So "truth" in
> science is not the same as other people understand it to be. And all
> scientific debates must be viewed with the fact in mind that the whole
> purpose of all scientific work is to disprove something, you try to
disprove
> your own work or someone's else's work, but if you fail you claim that you
> can't disprove it, but not that something is true. I don't think people
> generally understand this.>
>
> That applies the so-called "factual certainties" of the Theory of
Evolution as well. This theory falls way short of the 95% probability test.
For those who might be interested, here is a link to a series of lectures by
a Christian proponent of a Creationist view. Regardless of your adopted
position on this issue, this is a well-reasoned challenge to the conclusions
of scientists who embrace the Theory of Evolution and dismiss any
alternative view of creation as "off the wall" (especially so when any
element of faith/religion might be involved). You might not agree with his
conclusions, but he is definitely thouht-provoking. He does an excellent job
of exposing glaring inconsistencies between certain scientific laws (i.e.
Laws of Thermodynamics) and many "speculative conclusions" regarding
evolution presently taught as scientific "facts." His treatment of the Big
Bang Theory is well worth the time it takes to listen.
>
> http://freehovind.com/watch-id-4308235066145651150
>
> FYI: this is offered with no intention of starting a rabid clash of
personal views or a flame war on this subject on the list. This is merely
offered as a service to anyone who might have questions regarding this issue
and who doesn't mind being intellectually challenged by additional
information and/or opposing viewpoints.
>
> If you want to respond off-list, be my guest...but don't get nasty. I
share a lot of similar interests with and occasionally some of the
curmudgeon characteristics of Walt, et al. ;o)
>
> Robert
> (A 74 year old with rare, but occasional curmudgeon responses, like an old
dog who doesn't want to be messed with at times.)


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz