Re: No more back shoes

Top posting in case you've (the editorial you) read this all already (but
leaving it in case you didn't)...

Thank you! I wrote "this" post three times, it was too confusing so didn't
send it...but this was exactly what I was trying incoherently to get across.
The biggest point being testability applies to the facts used to form a
theory, not the theory itself...a theory is a "how do it do that?" sort of
thing, *explaining* the relationship of the testable facts. My Dad is no
doubt spinning in his grave (okay, his little cardboard container in my
Mom's closet, anyway...) because I couldn't come up with a coherent version
myself, but hey, it's early, and my caffiene levels are dangerously low...

Cricket

"cindi" <allisonacres@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1127979885.497109.237620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> lawiser wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but for a scientific theory to be considered viable, one must be
>> able to duplicate the premise. Otherwise, you have theory to fit facts.
>
> Actually, a theory is an explanation of phenomena. Theory always fits
> facts; that's how a theory is derived. I think what you are confused
> about is the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. A
> hypothesis is a suggested explanation of something. A hypothesis has
> to be testable. A study of some sort is conducted, and data is
> gathered that either supports or doesn't support the hypothesis.
>
> A theory arises after observing some facts. Some of these observed
> facts might be just simple stuff that is seen easily on an everyday
> basis, and some of these observed facts might be from experiments and
> tested and supported hypotheses. So, yes, a theory does fit the facts.
>
>
> For example: let's say that for 12 days in a row, I notice that my
> horse Tanner only drinks out of his left water bucket, never touching
> the one on the right. I come up with a hypothesis: Tanner prefers the
> left side bucket because it's closest to his door. I come up with an
> experiment: move Tanner to a stall where the right side bucket is
> closest to his door and see what happens. I conduct the experiment.
> Tanner still drinks from the left side bucket, even though it's away
> from the door. So my hypothesis was not supported. I come up with a
> new hypothesis: Tanner prefers the bucket on the left because it's
> closest to the barn door, where I usually come in with feed. The test:
> move him to a stall on the other side of the aisle, where the buckets
> on the right are the ones closest to that door. The data: Tanner still
> drinks from the bucket on the left, the one that is NOT closest to the
> door. My hypothesis is not supported, yet again. Rinse, repeat, using
> different buckets for left and right, plastic versus rubber versus new
> versus old, switch the preferred left side bucket to the right, etc etc
> etc. Same result: no matter, he drinks from the left. New hypothesis:
> Tanner has some sort of physical condition, perhaps his eyesight, that
> causes him to prefer the bucket on his left. The test: aw, shucks,
> this is getting hard to test, I need a vet to examine his eyes and I
> need to move him to all sorts of different pens/paddocks/pastures
> instead of just stalls and monitor him closely to see which water
> bucket he uses... I give up. No real theory was formed. Lots of
> hypotheses were formed and used for the experiments, and a pretty
> strong fact was observed: Tanner likes the bucket on the left. But
> time, money, lack of usefullness, whatever, have prevented any
> additional experimentation and the formation of an actual theory.
>
> Another example: It seems like my hens lay better eggs when I feed
> them a higher protein feed. Hypothesis: higher protein feed of X
> percent protein causes the hens to larger eggs. Test: feed one group
> lower protein, one group higher protein, measure eggs. Switch hens to
> opposite groups, wait a few days, measure eggs. Hypothesis supported.
> Another test: buy new hens, make two groups, try same thing.
> Hypothesis supported. Another test: use neighbor's hens. Etc.
> Another test: group by breed. Etc. Another test: more hens, etc etc.
> Hypothesis supported each time. Eventually a theory is formed: hens
> lay bigger eggs when on a higher protein feed. The theory follows the
> facts.
>
> Now, this was a pretty stupid example, although the first scenario
> involving Tanner is actually true, making it sort of OBHorsey. But I
> just wanted to show you the process of science and the difference
> between a theory, a hypothesis, and data.
>
>> Well -- the American Indians had theory they came from different
>> worlds (first, second, third, I believe the current is the fourth but
>> I'm not sure). They left one world for another through holes called
>> sipapus. Their theory fit the facts as they knew them.
>
> That's faith, not theory, and that's beliefs, not facts. You are free
> to use the word theory is any sort of colloquial manner that you wish,
> but that's not the way the words are used in science.
>
>> The theology of a superior Being who created the Universe fits ths the
>> facts (such as they are). It's possible the Being said "Boom" and there
>> was you big bang. Again, theory that fits the facts.
>
> Actually, no. Theories arise from data & facts. There is data to
> support the big bang. I don't care if you want to say there is not a
> lot of data to support it - whatever - but there is data to support it.
> There is no data to support a supreme being. There can't be - it's
> untestable and therefore unscientific.
>
>> Just because someone who, for whatever reason, is called a "scientist"
>> says "Big Bang made the Universe .. I know because it fits the facts I
>> know" doesn't make it so.
>
> You are right. Nothing can ever just "make it so." That is the nature
> of science. You look at the support, or the lack of support, and you
> make a decision. From your paragraph above it looks like you haven't
> done much investigating into the support for the big bang theory.
> That's OK, that's certainly your right. But you should try to
> understand that the big bang and god are two entirely different things.
> One is testable: if there was a big bang, then X should be happening,
> and Y should be detectable, and Z should be happening... The other,
> god, is not testable. Nobody will ever know until they die. Nobody
> can ever come back to tell us. There is no way to say something like
> "If God is true, we should see X incidences of Y phenomenon per Z
> length of time." That is the difference between science and religion.
>
>> Yes, there is proof of a scientific theory possible. However, Big Bang
>> isn't proved. It's a theory.
>
> No theories are ever really proved. They are supported or they are not
> supported by the data. Sometimes when enough support piles up for one
> theory or another, people begin to say the theory is now a fact. I'm
> uncomfortable with that approach - I'm perfectly happy to still call
> something a theory and to realize that it has a LOT of support. But
> most of the scientific community has no problem with stating that the
> big bang is a fact or that evolution is a fact.... But my point to you
> is that when you say the big bang is only a theory, it's not like that
> scares or intimidates scientists. "ONLY" theories are what they work
> with every day, and they know that a true theory has some factual basis
> or else it would not be a theory, and they know that when they converse
> among themselves about theories, they are not using the word to mean
> hunch.
>
> cindi
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: No more back shoes
    ... you have theory to fit facts. ... gathered that either supports or doesn't support the hypothesis. ... left side bucket because it's closest to his door. ... support the big bang. ...
    (rec.equestrian)
  • Re: Do Assertive Females Threaten Asian Men?
    ... >will bang on the facts. ... If the facts do not support the argument, ... >then the lawyer will bang on the law. ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: FBI: Cuba hiding dozens of wanted fugitives
    ... News wonders whether Cuba will cough up dozens of fugitives hiding on ... But then you support those that kill people, rob banks, bomb bars ... ... Whenever Dan Christensen is stuck he resorts to slander and lies out of frustration. ... campaign: facts he can't deny. ...
    (soc.culture.cuba)
  • Re: Trilaterals still in control
    ... more specific to support "your" conclusion, ... I know that even if I accept his stated facts as true, ... conclusions as to the facts and what should be understood about the "money ... that the insurance company is a party and the jury knows the insurance ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: NT: son of VMS? (was Re: Portents of VMS death)
    ... you can also perform updates using a transaction log, ... multiple bucket updates into a single disk access (which makes the presence ... I think I'd get rid of RFA mechanisms in indexed files: ... Some kind of relatively simple support for 1:many parent:child relationships ...
    (comp.os.vms)