Re: Commentary: Evolution: theory not fact

(2012/02/10 12:40), R. Dean wrote:
On 02/07/2012 10:11 PM, Kent wrote:
On Tuesday, February 7, 2012 6:42:44 PM UTC-8, chris thompson wrote:
On Feb 7, 9:11 pm, Kent<musquods...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tuesday, February 7, 2012 4:44:15 PM UTC-8, wiki trix wrote:
To the author of spaceman's quotations...

My professor started talking about the Theory of Evolution as if it
was a fact. This is a problem. Evolution is not a fact, it's a
theory.

How do you define the word "fact"? In fact, there are no facts in
science. At least not in the strictest sense of known truths. Only
theories. The only certainty is that nothing is certain and the only
sort of thing in science that comes close to being a "fact" is a
repeatedly consistent observation or measurement, and even that must
always remain suspect. A theory is never a fact. Colloquially
speaking, however, you may hear scientists casually refer to
scientific results as "facts". But that is really just sloppy talk.
Certainly, the theory of evolution is a theory and not a fact. But
hardly anyone other than the likes of you really gives a crap's ass
about that sort of thing. It really does not matter much.

Defined, a theory is "an unproven assumption." Let's treat it as
such.

Where did you get that definition from? It is not exactly a standard
definition. An assumption is more like a hypothesis, or a conjecture
or a hunch, not exactly what is meant by the word "theory". And be
careful of that word "unproven". Theories are never proven. You seem
to be confusing science with mathematics or logic.

Well stated. If only more people understood your point.

I disagree.

There are facts in science. They're called "data".

Not really. We have observations and the models deduced from them.
Read Kuhn on why observations are theory laden.
>
Is it not a devaluation the scientific process to define evolution
as a fact? Without the capability to observe 4 billion years of earth's
history, scientist can only claim to be reading the history of the
past from its results. As such, the evidence from the past is
interpretated within the framework of an overarching paradigm.

Evidence from *everything* in science is interpreted within the framework of an overarching paradigm. Obviously it's most obviously seen with things like the past, the extremely small, the extremely far, which rely on extremely complex instruments and extremely pointed theoretical frameworks to make sense of. But really it's all levels of uncertainty - even the most straightforward observations rely on our senses, which we know are fallible. We can compensate for that, but all it does is reduce the uncertainty, not eliminate it.

Ultimately whether we talk about "facts" or even "proof" in science is a question of language use. They're words we use in every day life and often apply to concepts that are a lot less certain than scientific concepts so in everyday language I see no reason not to use them for science too. When arguing philosophy of science it can be more iffy, and when explaining to people that science is inherently uncertain (like everything), it's just a lot LESS uncertain than most things, it becomes a regular minefield.

But overall I'd say that no, saying evolution is a fact doesn't devalue the scientific process at all. Quite the opposite, it's the best way to do justice to the scientific process that resulted in the theory of evolution and verified it to the point it's one of the most solid scientific "facts" we have.



"Three eggs in nest 271".
"21% of plasma cells examined secreted IgA".
"Four Blackburnian Warblers were netted on June 5".
"The tibias of humans and chimps arose from the same embryonic
tissue".

By themselves, facts are pretty much meaningless and uninteresting. It
takes an overarching theory to make sense of them.

And note- a fact is good for a particular place and time. Likely,
someone else in some other place at some other time will generate a
different set of facts. That's why science is fun. It's even more fun
when someone gets the same set of facts you did, because then you can
gloat.

Chris





--
Arkalen
Praise be to magic Woody-Allen zombie superhero telepathic vampire quantum hovercraft Tim! Jesus.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... explained by evolution in small incremental steps, ... Science does not claim to know all the answers. ... species or new species? ... The scientists involved seem quite happy with it. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Grade My Work
    ... entitled "Science And Technology In Science" a final year module ... There are also examples of Darwinian evolution being used to justify ... deserving of special rights due to a uniqueness of our creation ... some concern amongst both scientists and non scientists, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Conversation with an Evolutionist Part 3
    ... theists who also believe in evolution, and I prefer to remind you. ... But in fact inferences are what science is all ... That is indeed an inference which appears to be nothing more then ... scientists that evolution takes place in much the same way one would ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)