Evolution is not a scientific theory

[Jovial Monk]

Wasn’t me but there is no guesswork in science.

[Neferti]

Wasn’t me............. .

Right! Probably Aussie or Lefty.

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

Guesswork? Wrong!

You may, in your cretinous,uneducated mind be groping towards the processes of induction and deduction. But it is inspired by observation and so is NOT guesswork.

Really... some people get so caught up in wordliness. If you are more inclined towards the word observation, then so long as you stipulate that it is educated observation and not merely any kind of observation... then fine.

My personal preference is for intuition... or rather informed intuition.

But in the end, what ever floats your boat is fine with me. What we intend of our words is similar to the other.

[Super Nova]

there is no guesswork in science.

I don't agree.

guess·work [ges-wurk]
noun - work or procedure based on or consisting of the making of guesses or conjectures.

con·jec·ture - [kuhn-jek-cher]
noun
1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
3. Obsolete . the interpretation of signs or omens.

A thought experiment could be called "guesswork". It's a valuable tool.

Great definition here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thought-experiment/

Great example below.

It’s a little known fact that Albert Einstein’s famous work on special relativity was spurred by a thought experiment he conducted when he was only 16 years old. In his book Autobiographical Notes, Einstein recalls how he once daydreamed about chasing a beam of light as it traveled through space. He reasoned that if he were able to move next to it at the speed of light, he should be able to observe the light frozen in space as “an electromagnetic field at rest though spatially oscillating.” For Einstein, this thought experiment proved that for his imaginary observer “everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the Earth, was at rest.”

What it Means:

In truth, no one really knows for sure. Scientists have long debated how this deceivingly simple thought experiment helped Einstein make the massive theoretical leap required to arrive at special relativity theory. At the time, the ideas in the experiment contradicted the now-debunked belief in the “aether,” an invisible field through which light was believed to travel. It would be years before he could prove he was right, but this thought experiment was somehow the “germ,” as he called it, for Einstein’s theory of special relativity, one of the ideas that first established him as a towering figure in theoretical physics.

Read more: http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famo ... z20Ifyf4Y1

[Super Nova]

All this only proves that so much science is bulldust and whoever can promote it the most successfully is believed and so the "theory" is deemed true.

Not true mantra. The notional of peer review is important. Just because you promote it does not mean it will survive peer review.

The question asked by FD was a challenge to the definition of science and it's process. While I cannot prove unicorns don't exist or that they will die by being impaled with their own horns, i could construct a theory to address the question. I refernced Wiki which is a peer reviewed body on knowledge to collect known characteristics of a unicorn.

Where facts are not known, it is perfectly valid to make assumptions (guess) and later design experiements or take action to observe evidence that support the theory. This is science.

The acceptance of a theory by the scientific community does not make it fact. There are many forms of "String Theory" out there at the moment and they have been peer reviewed. None are deamed as facts... not yet becauase we have not a method to experimentally check them or tools to observe their prediction in the universe. When that happens one or none will be promoted as the most accepted theory to be pursued and refined.

Science should be based on material evidence or that's what the average person believes - not guesswork. What a furphy and what a great job those scientists, who are heavily subsidised by governments or private corporations, have to promote fantasy to the masses.

Where possible science seeks material evidence but cannot use this as only way to form and validate theories. For example, the current "Standard Model" has stood the test of some 40 years and held up well. At it's core is the concept of a Boson (a particle responsible for the mass of everything). It was needed to make the theory hang together.

Now we have applied the standard model to make huge advancements and not until recently had material evidence of a boson let alone the "Higgs Boson" come to light.

Your logic would be that we should have discarded the "Standard Model" because there is no material evidence for elements of it. This is not how science works.

The model has been refined and has stood the test of time because it produces predicable results as observed in the universe we live in. It's value can be applied to the material world we live in (computers ...etc).

[Neferti]

While I cannot prove unicorns don't exist or that they will die by being impaled with their own horns, i could construct a theory to address the question. I referenced Wiki which is a peer reviewed body on knowledge to collect known characteristics of a unicorn.

Shouldn't you be trying to prove that unicorns DO EXIST?

Everyone, except 6 year old girls, knows they are a figment of some writer's imagination.

Oh, and back off (ALL you guys) giving Mantra a hard time ... She is entitled to her OPINION, as we all are. Ditto with Sappho.

[Super Nova]

Oh, and back off (ALL you guys) giving Mantra a hard time ... She is entitled to her OPINION, as we all are. Ditto with Sappho.

Mantra and I get on fine.

I don't have to agree with her. She is entitled to her opinion and I value them.

Just this time... I don't agree. Most times we do.

[Neferti]

Oh, and back off (ALL you guys) giving Mantra a hard time ... She is entitled to her OPINION, as we all are. Ditto with Sappho.

Mantra and I get on fine.

I don't have to agree with her. She is entitled to her opinion and I value them.

Just this time... I don't agree. Most times we do.

No offense meant, SN. Mantra is a valued member here. We, Mantra and I, don't agree on most things but I get a bit annoyed when it appears that males are denigrating a female due to sex/age/opinion. Mantra is quite capable of standing up for herself, I know.

It wasn't pointed at you, specifically, SN .... other males have been giving Mantra a hard time too.

[Super Nova]

Nef.... not at PA surely.



Or is it more.....



PS: Mantra... I ws playing the ball not the man (or women)

[mantra]

I'm tough Neferti. It's fine when people disagree especially when they can give a thoughtful explanation as to why. Those who I find insulting are the ones who call you names, tell you that you're wrong and won't say why. There are only a couple of "males" here who are guilty of that.

For example, the current "Standard Model" has stood the test of some 40 years and held up well. At it's core is the concept of a Boson (a particle responsible for the mass of everything). It was needed to make the theory hang together.

Now we have applied the standard model to make huge advancements and not until recently had material evidence of a boson let alone the "Higgs Boson" come to light.

Your logic would be that we should have discarded the "Standard Model" because there is no material evidence for elements of it. This is not how science works.

The model has been refined and has stood the test of time because it produces predicable results as observed in the universe we live in. It's value can be applied to the material world we live in (computers ...etc).

That's explained well SN, but don't you think there's too much reliance on science, especially as it can change so regularly depending on some new widget that seems to fit a little better in the invented box? It's still not fact - only theory and can be misleading more often than not.

How many times have we been told to discard some form of scientific information and embrace another - only to be told a little later that the replacement is also wrong?