Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Antarctic sea-ice record

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 46Tbird
    replied
    In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

    The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

    Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

    One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

    In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
    Hmm.

    Leave a comment:


  • exlude
    replied
    Originally posted by Gasser64 View Post
    Sorry bro, ive been to college too

    I didnt see anything in any of my classes that would suggest that any theory warrants anything better. The very fact that theyre proven wrong so often supports this from anyone who doesnt have more than just a mild interest in a given subject. For me specifically it was and remains geology
    This is a lack of understanding in the scientific method, plain and simple.

    You seem to have some kind of weird attachment to setting theories on a high pedestal. Almost as if its something you love and worship lol. To me theyre just not worth much. Theyd be worth a lot more to me if they lastedlonger. Todays well supported theory is tomorrows trash
    I respect the amount of thought and effort put into prevalent theories. You're argument is an echo of the anti scientific rhetoric that just screams you have very little experience in scientific literature, "______ is just a theory", etc.. It's hard to take anyone seriously when they start out with that.
    Last edited by exlude; 07-08-2014, 06:16 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ruffdaddy
    replied
    Originally posted by Gasser64 View Post
    Sorry bro, ive been to college too

    I didnt see anything in any of my classes that would suggest that any theory warrants anything better. The very fact that theyre proven wrong so often supports this from anyone who doesnt have more than just a mild interest in a given subject. For me specifically it was and remains geology

    You seem to have some kind of weird attachment to setting theories on a high pedestal. Almost as if its something you love and worship lol. To me theyre just not worth much. Theyd be worth a lot more to me if they lastedlonger. Todays well supported theory is tomorrows trash
    Lol once you finish you associates, move through bachelors, and wait for a job as a PE, you will see the importance of theories and models.

    I have yet to see a discipline that doesn't use models and theories. However when they're wrong do to political bias they typically fall away and the employees get fired if not more.

    Leave a comment:


  • YALE
    replied
    Originally posted by 71chevellejohn View Post
    Sanskrit.
    Nice!

    Leave a comment:


  • 71chevellejohn
    replied
    Originally posted by YALE View Post
    What was your thesis on?
    Sanskrit.

    Leave a comment:


  • YALE
    replied
    Originally posted by Gasser64 View Post
    Sorry bro, ive been to college too

    I didnt see anything in any of my classes that would suggest that any theory warrants anything better. The very fact that theyre proven wrong so often supports this from anyone who doesnt have more than just a mild interest in a given subject. For me specifically it was and remains geology

    You seem to have some kind of weird attachment to setting theories on a high pedestal. Almost as if its something you love and worship lol. To me theyre just not worth much. Theyd be worth a lot more to me if they lastedlonger. Todays well supported theory is tomorrows trash
    What was your thesis on?

    Leave a comment:


  • Nash B.
    replied
    Anybody that claims nobody knows anything is just as ignorant as somebody that claims to know everything.

    Leave a comment:


  • slow99
    replied
    Lmao, do you even college bro?

    Leave a comment:


  • Gasser64
    replied
    Originally posted by exlude View Post
    Well the problem is it's oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy by omission and typically used only to convolute a discussion with word games. When discussing scientific theory, people who call theories "best guesses" can quickly be assumed to either have zero argument of substance, a lack of understanding, or a combination of both.
    Sorry bro, ive been to college too

    I didnt see anything in any of my classes that would suggest that any theory warrants anything better. The very fact that theyre proven wrong so often supports this from anyone who doesnt have more than just a mild interest in a given subject. For me specifically it was and remains geology

    You seem to have some kind of weird attachment to setting theories on a high pedestal. Almost as if its something you love and worship lol. To me theyre just not worth much. Theyd be worth a lot more to me if they lastedlonger. Todays well supported theory is tomorrows trash

    Leave a comment:


  • racrguy
    replied
    Originally posted by exlude View Post
    Well the problem is it's oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy by omission and typically used only to convolute a discussion with word games. When discussing scientific theory, people who call theories "best guesses" can quickly be assumed to either have zero argument of substance, a lack of understanding, or a combination of both.
    That's just like, your opinion man.

    Leave a comment:


  • GhostTX
    replied
    Global warming computer models confounded as Antarctic sea ice hits new record high with 2.1million square miles more than is usual for time of year
    • Ice is covering 16m sq km, more than 2.1m unusual for time of year
    • UN computer models say Antarctic ice should be in decline, not increasing

    Leave a comment:


  • exlude
    replied
    Originally posted by Gasser64 View Post
    Yeah you can get more complicated with it if you want just like anything. but thats the gist of it. I know you dont like it, but thems the breaks
    Well the problem is it's oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy by omission and typically used only to convolute a discussion with word games. When discussing scientific theory, people who call theories "best guesses" can quickly be assumed to either have zero argument of substance, a lack of understanding, or a combination of both.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gasser64
    replied
    Originally posted by exlude View Post
    That's an amazingly simplified way to put it.
    Yeah you can get more complicated with it if you want just like anything. but thats the gist of it. I know you dont like it, but thems the breaks

    Leave a comment:


  • racrguy
    replied
    The lack of understanding how science works that's being shown in this thread is scary, but not surprising.

    Leave a comment:


  • GhostTX
    replied
    Originally posted by exlude View Post
    People need to stop taking single studies as the final word on anything. Thousands of studies come together to form an overarching picture. But most people get their "understanding" from news blurbs, sometimes posted in political forums and are only looking for vindication.
    Forgot about this already (ill-fated Akademik Shokalskiy)?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X