Bizarre Weather

On 2008-01-28, Judah wrote:
I know you weren't. I was just pointing out the oxymoron of the typical
scientific theory and those who believe in them.

What, in particular, is oxymoron about "scientific theory"?

Methinks you are confusing theory with conjecture. In science, theory
does not mean 'guess' or 'hunch'. It has a very specific meaning that is
not the same as what a TV detective means when he says 'I have a
theory'.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

Dylan Smith wrote in
:

On 2008-01-28, Judah wrote:

What, in particular, is oxymoron about "scientific theory"?

Methinks you are confusing theory with conjecture. In science, theory
does not mean 'guess' or 'hunch'. It has a very specific meaning that is
not the same as what a TV detective means when he says 'I have a
theory'.

The oxymoron is not "scientific theory". The oxymoron is the BELIEF in
scientific theory.

The joke is that people like yourself will happily believe in a scientific
theory based on something they read in one book, but refuse to believe in a
religious theory based on something they read in another.

The bigger joke is that people on either side of the argument tend to believe
that science and religion are mutually exclusive, when in reality they just
answer different questions to the same problem.

Judah wrote in
:

Dylan Smith wrote in
:

On 2008-01-28, Judah wrote:

What, in particular, is oxymoron about "scientific theory"?

Methinks you are confusing theory with conjecture. In science, theory
does not mean 'guess' or 'hunch'. It has a very specific meaning that
is not the same as what a TV detective means when he says 'I have a
theory'.

The oxymoron is not "scientific theory". The oxymoron is the BELIEF in
scientific theory.

It's not a belief.


The joke is that people like yourself will happily believe in a
scientific theory based on something they read in one book, but refuse
to believe in a religious theory based on something they read in
another.

That;s the difference. Sientific theory isn't a belief. It's a best
guess based on the best obtainable info. Nobody "believes" a scientific
theory, at least not in the same way that someone makes a leap of faith
to believe in a religion.
Scinece is an attempt to understand whereas religion is not.


The bigger joke is that people on either side of the argument tend to
believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive, when in
reality they just answer different questions to the same problem.

Or so you believe.


Bertie

On 2008-02-03, Judah wrote:
The oxymoron is not "scientific theory". The oxymoron is the BELIEF in
scientific theory.

The joke is that people like yourself will happily believe in a scientific
theory based on something they read in one book, but refuse to believe in a
religious theory based on something they read in another.

Well, you just sort of proved you really don't understand what the
scientific method is, or indeed what a scientific theory is, and you
also made a false assumption about me.

A hint. Scientific theories aren't something you believe in. In fact,
the scientific method spends most of its time trying not to "believe"
theories, but instead disprove them. A big part of a scientist's job is
to poke holes in theories.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

Dylan Smith wrote in
:

Well, you just sort of proved you really don't understand what the
scientific method is, or indeed what a scientific theory is, and you
also made a false assumption about me.

A hint. Scientific theories aren't something you believe in. In fact,
the scientific method spends most of its time trying not to "believe"
theories, but instead disprove them. A big part of a scientist's job is
to poke holes in theories.

We've spent way too much time arguing about semantics.

Science is based on empirical evidence. But most science is based on
studies that were performed by someone else, in some lab with very
specifically managed conditions that often cannot be duplicated by you or I
in our homes.

The results of an experiment might be documented in some journal or
textbook, but at the end of the day, because the typical layman cannot
really duplicate the environment, there is an element of faith that the
experiment and related controls were not corrupted by some unseen element.

As you yourself have said, in many cases scientific theories are disproven,
even after they have been "proven" using experiments with controls, etc.
This can happen for any number of reasons - bad assumptions, lack of
control of variables that were perceived to be irrelevant to the
experiment, or even bias on the part of the experimenter.

The bottom line is that while some science is certainly observable by the
layman and therefore perhaps indisputable, other science is founded in an
element of faith or trust in the people who have performed the experiments
and provided the results.

To religious people, there are empirical, observable situations that lend
themselves to a theory that the "natural order of things" is controlled by
something other than randomness. Some people call this "God". Personally,
I'm not sure that the visions evoked in most people by the word "God" are
accurate, but I do believe that it is likely that things like evolution,
gravity, childbirth, Shakespeare, etc. all happen as a result of something
other than randomness, even if the mechanisms can often be duplicated in a
lab.

Most people either believe that the world is governed by Science or God,
and take very adverse positions against anyone who might believe the two
can co-exist. But the bottom line is that ultimately, any time you put your
trust in something that you've been told, other than having observed it
personally, it requires a little bit of faith...

Most people either believe that the world is governed by Science or God,

I have no problem envisioning a scientific God.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:2ejqj.18262$9j6.324@attbi_s22:

Most people either believe that the world is governed by Science or
God,

I have no problem envisioning a scientific God.

Bull****, you have a problem envisioning a god made out of a teacpot.



Bertiiiiii

"Judah" wrote:
..

The bottom line is that while some science is certainly observable by the
layman and therefore perhaps indisputable, other science is founded in an
element of faith or trust in the people who have performed the experiments
and provided the results.

********. You haven't a clue.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

"Dan Luke" wrote in news:13qjkojmqnmjp80
@news.supernews.com:


"Judah" wrote:
.

The bottom line is that while some science is certainly observable by the
layman and therefore perhaps indisputable, other science is founded in an
element of faith or trust in the people who have performed the experiments
and provided the results.

********. You haven't a clue.


Believe what you will.

On Feb 5, 11:12*pm, Judah wrote:
The bottom line is that while some science is certainly observable by the
layman and therefore perhaps indisputable, other science is founded in an
element of faith or trust in the people who have performed the experiments
and provided the results.

IMHO these are very good example of oxymoron statements ;-)

Hai Longworth