The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community
Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF
Forum Rules
& FAQ

Username

Password


Create a New Account

  
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
Scientific theories by admeralthrawn 2007-01-22 18:42:00
I had a post somewhere else, that given the thread bellow on the faith aspect of science, I felt would be appropriate to repeat here. I'd welcome some intelligent discourse on the subject (I'm in a philosophical mood right now).

Evolution is a theory. However, the word theory means an awful lot in the scientific context. To say Intelligent Design is "just a theory" is to say it's a plausible idea which has not been proven. That makes it a conjecture.

Let's look at what makes something a theory. First, I come up with a plausible idea. That's a conjecture. Then I compare it to all of the experimental data out there. If none of that data contradicts it, AND the conjecture makes all of that data fit together in a more coherent heap, it gets upgraded to the status of hypothesis. If you really want to stretch the above criteria, you could call Intelligent Design a hypothesis.

Once I have a valid hypothesis, because I'm a scientist I want to use this hypothesis to make predictions about the real world, about things which have not been tested yet (if what I'm predicting is already known, then my hypothesis is "ad hoc" and therefore not useful scientifically). Once I have a prediction, my experimentalist friend can go and design an experiment to test this prediction. If it makes more than one such prediction successfully, and it simplifies our understanding of the universe, and it is consistent with all previous experimental results, then it is a theory.

Intelligent Design, or any "it's god's will" type argument for that matter, can certainly explain everything about the world. But unless we can scrutinize and predict god's will (an idea which most religions would call blasphemy), we can't use those explanations to predict future results. Thus ID is not a theory.
[ Reply ]
  Do you think you could by joecrouse2007-01-22 18:52:25
    What's your point? by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:54:48
      I think that's his point. by Phoon2007-01-22 18:56:24
        and it would save a GOOD lawyer by joecrouse2007-01-22 18:57:44
          Johnny Cochran could have done it. by subbywan2007-01-22 19:05:11
      Yes but if you get it in a Court breif by joecrouse2007-01-22 18:56:40
        Thank you by admeralthrawn2007-01-22 19:03:47
  Definition of terms by run.dll2007-01-22 19:46:20
    Yes, ish. by admeralthrawn2007-01-22 19:54:14
      Thud. "Thus I refute Berkeley." by run.dll2007-01-22 20:02:22
        But did you? by admeralthrawn2007-01-22 20:14:56
          Nope. by run.dll2007-01-22 20:24:19
            BTW by run.dll2007-01-22 20:30:54
              No, no, no.... by Stuka2007-01-22 20:51:04
                Right by admeralthrawn2007-01-22 22:18:23
  ID is not a theory, it't an agenda. (n/t) by shminux2007-01-22 20:43:25
    a poorly hidden one, too. (n/t) by shminux2007-01-22 20:43:55
      But the same could be said... by koosvannermerwe2007-01-22 22:42:37
    ID a theory, just not scientific... by Anonymous Freak2007-01-22 23:01:59
  ID: scientific theory? by koosvannermerwe2007-01-22 22:34:30
  Predictions of ID by koosvannermerwe2007-01-22 23:02:49
    In any way you like, hence it's not science. (n/t) by shminux2007-01-22 23:07:03

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)