News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

What makes a theory a scientific one?

Started by GSOgymrat, February 14, 2016, 12:17:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

GSOgymrat

"It's just a theory."

This article does a good job of differentiating the common use of the word "theory" with what theory means in science.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/02/13/ask-ethan-what-makes-a-theory-a-scientific-one/#9c3a9cd40161

Baruch

A theory is an empirically validated hypothesis.  Though even theories come and go, and even when gone, are still useful.  Long lived theories, are mistakenly elevated to the rhetorical "law".  But even "laws" are mutable ... the law conservation of mass was overturned by E=mc^2.  And the law of conservation of mass-energy from SR, is selectively overturned in GR by the Big Bang and gravitational waves.  Unfortunately the law of death and taxes remains unchallenged ;-)

Non-Mendelian inheritance ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Mendelian_inheritance

A kind of Lamarkism is now shown to be validated ... for example alcoholism is inheritable by other than DNA mutation, by trans-generational inheritance ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 14, 2016, 12:17:49 PM
"It's just a theory."

This article does a good job of differentiating the common use of the word "theory" with what theory means in science.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/02/13/ask-ethan-what-makes-a-theory-a-scientific-one/#9c3a9cd40161

I pretty much agree with that article.

One caveat: he puts cosmic inflation on the same level as GR and QFT. That's way overboard as we have no experimental evidence of cosmic inflation. Siegel seems to have forgotten that the findings of BICEP2 last year didn't turn out as expected:

QuoteAnd now, after teaming up, the Planck and BICEP2 scientists have released a paper titled "A Joint Analysis of BICEP2/Keck Array and Planck Data," which finds there's no compelling evidence that the polarization signal described in March was actually due to primordial gravitational waves.

...

This doesn't mean that direct evidence of cosmic inflation - this formative period in the universe's history - will never be found, Bock said. But if they don't find a signal in the data at some point, this may prove just as interesting, because it could mean that longstanding theories about cosmic inflation may have to be rewritten.



http://phys.org/news/2015-02-cosmic-inflation-bicep2-results.html




Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: Baruch on February 14, 2016, 12:58:22 PM
Non-Mendelian inheritance ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Mendelian_inheritance

A kind of Lamarkism is now shown to be validated ... for example alcoholism is inheritable by other than DNA mutation, by trans-generational inheritance ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

You know, I remember telling you once before that this sort of characterization is misleading, yet you refuse to change your tune. Epigenetics is not Lamarkianism; epigenetics rides on the back of Darwinian evolution, and Lamarkianism has never been demonstrated to work, nor could it work, because it requires that tissue respond in specific ways to stress â€" ways that had to be evolved in by Darwinian evolution.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Baruch

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on February 14, 2016, 06:03:05 PM
You know, I remember telling you once before that this sort of characterization is misleading, yet you refuse to change your tune. Epigenetics is not Lamarkianism; epigenetics rides on the back of Darwinian evolution, and Lamarkianism has never been demonstrated to work, nor could it work, because it requires that tissue respond in specific ways to stress â€" ways that had to be evolved in by Darwinian evolution.

Kind of Lamarckism ... sheesh, as thin skinned as a guppy ;-)  Darwin didn't know Mendel.  Mendel isn't a denial of Darwin.  Neither is modern microbiology.  Darwin was a Victorian who saw everything in terms of sex and violence.  Go suck a Galapagos fruit or something ...
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

drunkenshoe

Quote from: Baruch on February 14, 2016, 10:23:47 PM
Kind of Lamarckism ... sheesh, as thin skinned as a guppy ;-)  Darwin didn't know Mendel.  Mendel isn't a denial of Darwin.  Neither is modern microbiology.  Darwin was a Victorian who saw everything in terms of sex and violence.  Go suck a Galapagos fruit or something ...

Does that 'kind' of mean you think Darwin and Freud are the same person? Because contrary to the common belief, Mendel actually hated peas.

What are you sucking at Baruch? This is not philosophical scholarship.
"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Baruch

Hakurei, many years ago, beat up other kids in the hallway, for their lunch money.  His tone sometimes is ...

The knee jerk support for Darwin in some parts, who has been superseded by microbiology ... is ideological, not scientific.  Makes it sound like microbiology is a conspiracy against Darwin (blessed be his name, amen).  Hakurei came off, as if I don't support science.  I do support science, but I don't support self serving grantsmanship and scientism ... or the idea that science fiction is real.

So you misread me Shoe.  I may suck at rhetoric, but then that is what you get here, not philosophy.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on February 14, 2016, 06:03:05 PM
You know, I remember telling you once before that this sort of characterization is misleading, yet you refuse to change your tune. Epigenetics is not Lamarkianism; epigenetics rides on the back of Darwinian evolution, and Lamarkianism has never been demonstrated to work, nor could it work, because it requires that tissue respond in specific ways to stress â€" ways that had to be evolved in by Darwinian evolution.

It's no surprise that Baruch equates epigenetics with Lamarkianism. He has a very superficial understanding of what's going on in science. Like stating that pi has "different values" because of curvature of space, or that the cosmological constant is a "cop-out", or that Cantor went mad because "he studied infinity" and that could cause you to go mad,  and so on. But he manages to fool the uninitiated. So I guess that's how he gets his kicks.

drunkenshoe

Quote from: Baruch on February 15, 2016, 09:40:34 AM
Hakurei, many years ago, beat up other kids in the hallway, for their lunch money.  His tone sometimes is ...

The knee jerk support for Darwin in some parts, who has been superseded by microbiology ... is ideological, not scientific.  Makes it sound like microbiology is a conspiracy against Darwin (blessed be his name, amen).  Hakurei came off, as if I don't support science.  I do support science, but I don't support self serving grantsmanship and scientism ... or the idea that science fiction is real.

So you misread me Shoe.  I may suck at rhetoric, but then that is what you get here, not philosophy.

This is not about how annoying you find Hakurei. It's not harmful scientism either. He is correcting something. You are giving knee jerk reaction to basic scientific knowledge.








"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: Baruch on February 14, 2016, 10:23:47 PM
Kind of Lamarckism ... sheesh, as thin skinned as a guppy ;-)  Darwin didn't know Mendel.  Mendel isn't a denial of Darwin.  Neither is modern microbiology.  Darwin was a Victorian who saw everything in terms of sex and violence.  Go suck a Galapagos fruit or something ...

And as usual, you have no idea what you're fucking talking about. Epigenetics is not like Lamarckism at all. Lamarck proposed transmission of gross physiology from parent to child (longer necks, stronger arms, etc.) by some sort of affinity magic, not the actual transmission of specific factors that are themselves replicated to the offspring (methylated DNA, micro-RNA, histone, etc.) that changes the way the genetic code expresses itself.

There is a saying, "Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge, others just gargle." I guess we know which group you belong to, Mr. 'The-Wheelerâ€"Feynman-absorber-theory-is-only-a-year-old!'
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu