Evolution is not a scientific theory

[annielaurie]

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FalseDichotomy

Explains FD to a T.

Usually used as an excuse to deliberately avoid stating the position he is arguing from because it would reveal a devils advocate or show a red herring in a trivial attempt to discredit the accepted science

I couldn't agree more, I think this is a perfect description of what FD tries to do.

He avoids answering a question, and reflects the question and the "burden of evidence/understanding/proof" back onto the other person.

He tries to discredit accepted science, but without directly stating just exactly what he himself believes in place of science.

I find it near impossible to reason with a person who does that, who thinks like that.

[IQS.RLOW]

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FalseDichotomy

Explains FD to a T.

Usually used as an excuse to deliberately avoid stating the position he is arguing from because it would reveal a devils advocate or show a red herring in a trivial attempt to discredit the accepted science

I couldn't agree more, I think this is a perfect description of what FD tries to do.

He avoids answering a question, and reflects the question and the "burden of evidence/understanding/proof" back onto the other person.
He tries to discredit accepted science, but without directly stating just exactly what he himself believes in place of science.

I find it near impossible to reason with a person who does that, who thinks like that.

Exactly Annie...and you will note he has still failed to answer the question.

Free diver? Care to clarify your position or do you just prefer to answer questions with another question in the sad belief that you are being an enigma rather than just an annoying prat who refuses to state their case in total for fear of embarrassment?

If you were to ask me, I would say you might be a closet God/Gaia botherer who thinks that their Tafe economics cert qualifies them as an academic equipped to argue their case but focuses solely on semantics and rhetoric...no wonder you are a fan of the Greens. You wouldn't make it in the real world with real people

[mantra]

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?

You should stop getting your science from ads for vitamin pills.

You are marginally right in this assumption, but I was thinking more along the lines of global warming. In the 70's we were warned of a looming mini ice age - yet a few decades later that theory has disappeared and the planet appears to be heating up. The graphs that are supplied are pathetic and ambiguous.

The scientists on both sides of the spectrum hold different views, but then the lot of them have an agenda depending on what team they bat for and who pays their wages.

It seems that any influential bright spark with an idea - real or imagined, can engage scientific backup to bring credence to his/her sales spiel.

[mantra]

He avoids answering a question, and reflects the question and the "burden of evidence/understanding/proof" back onto the other person.

He tries to discredit accepted science, but without directly stating just exactly what he himself believes in place of science.

I find it near impossible to reason with a person who does that, who thinks like that.

Are you upset because he made this comment?

If both you and he watched only this final lecture, toward the last few minutes of it, I think you will see what I mean.

You could always just try explaining it youself. That way you would demonstrate to yourself that you understand it.

I agree with his response. It is annoying when people use a link to give an answer. You immediately assume that they can't interpret the information.

Scientific theories are often unintelligible to the average person and perhaps that's the way it's meant to be - to keep us uninformed. On a forum such as this - most of us are average and so far SN has been the only one to simplify his explanations enough to be understood.

Why can't scientists or those with a leaning towards science use a common language when they're talking to "outsiders"?

[annielaurie]

Well what that was about in that particular part of the fifth lecture (particle physicist Dr Brian Cox of Manchester, UK) was that there is a certain amount of guesswork in science.

An observation of something interesting out there in the universe is made. There is already a wellspring of information discovered by others over the years.

They sort through everything and find a place where the new observation will fit. The do more research on it, and compare measurements calculated by other science teams.

Eventually the new observation becomes valuable data necessary to the hypothesis, which is what they call the Standard Model. But sometimes the new observation is found to belong somewhere else, rather than the place they thought it will fit.

This is how they do science. It takes years and years. The hypotheses are open-ended so that scientists can keep learning more about them.

If you want to know, Mantra, simply click on the link I posted and watch fifteen minutes of a science lecture in perfectly understandable layman's terms. In fact, click on all five of the lectures, and start with the first one. They are fascinating, and you just might learn something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsRvxQzI ... ure=relmfu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"

[Neferti]

Well what that was about in that particular part of the fifth lecture (particle physicist Dr Brian Cox of Manchester, UK) was that there is a certain amount of guesswork in science.

An observation of something interesting out there in the universe is made. There is already a wellspring of information discovered by others over the years.

They sort through everything and find a place where the new observation will fit. The do more research on it, and compare measurements calculated by other science teams.

Eventually the new observation becomes valuable data necessary to the hypothesis, which is what they call the Standard Model. But sometimes the new observation is found to belong somewhere else, rather than the place they thought it will fit.

This is how they do science. It takes years and years. The hypotheses are open-ended so that scientists can keep learning more about them.

If you want to know, Mantra, simply click on the link I posted and watch fifteen minutes of a science lecture in perfectly understandable layman's terms. In fact, click on all five of the lectures, and start with the first one. They are fascinating, and you just might learn something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsRvxQzI ... ure=relmfu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"

'Easy to look at and listen to .... Let's hope that he actually does some "hands on" research rather than continue to Lecture for the rest of his life! What a waste that would be!

[annielaurie]

'Easy to look at and listen to .... Let's hope that he actually does some "hands on" research rather than continue to Lecture for the rest of his life! What a waste that would be!

Yeah, he's a babe. And smart. And he does do hands-on research, he was involved directly with the CERN Hadron Collider while it was being built, and involved in projects at Manchester, UK.

That was about two years ago, so I don't know what he is doing right now.

[Super Nova]

He is too nice to be smart. The girls love him.

His soft voice and his smiles make me sick.....











with envy.

[annielaurie]

Hahaha!

[freediver]

You are marginally right in this assumption, but I was thinking more along the lines of global warming. In the 70's we were warned of a looming mini ice age - yet a few decades later that theory has disappeared and the planet appears to be heating up.

That is not a change in the science. That is a change in the reality. The planet was cooling - slowly. Now it is heating - rapidly. The theories that explain both have not changed. You don't need one theory to explain floating and one to explain sinking.

It seems that any influential bright spark with an idea - real or imagined, can engage scientific backup to bring credence to his/her sales spiel.

Hence the debate about what a scientific theory is.

Well what that was about in that particular part of the fifth lecture (particle physicist Dr Brian Cox of Manchester, UK) was that there is a certain amount of guesswork in science.

OK. I'm glad I didn't bother watching it.

The hypotheses are open-ended so that scientists can keep learning more about them.

I think it is the opposite. The hypotheses need to make specific predictions so you can test them. Otherwise you are merely learning about your own imagination, not the universe.