Slashdot Mirror

Really, we both know what the word "theory" means...

Apparently not.

Regarding the 75 years, people have lost their minds in the past few decades.

I think it's far more likely that you have some sort of rosy-colored hindsight for the "good old days," which never really existed. It's not just this context, it's not likely to be true for any field. Music and movies are a great example -- the reason so many old movies we have are "classics" is no one wants to keep them around otherwise, unless they're so spectacularly bad that they're worth preserving for that reason alone (Plan 9 From Outer Space).

I don't think you'd be able to come up with a genuinely great thinker of any time who would make the distinction that you're trying to,

I'm not sure why this is required. Do I need a "great thinker" to tell me that work has a different meaning in physics than it does elsewhere? Do I need a "great thinker" to tell me that the "color" of a quark has nothing to do with the colors we actually see in everyday life?

In fact, can you find one who explicitly supports either of those ideas?

Anyway, this definition of "theory" that you're using is a bad one,

How so?

doesn't have a basis in anything,

Found a basis in a few minutes of idle Googling. Here's another. Or, more seriously, how about this one?

Now, your turn. What's the basis for your assertion that "people have lost their minds in the past few decades"? And this definition of "scientific theory" isn't at all obscure, so where are the thousands of dissenting scientists?

is going to be needlessly confusing for people.

People are also easily confused by the definitions in physics of work, energy, and power. They're also easily confused by the term "Big Bang", suggesting that something exploded.

Of course, somehow most people manage to figure out what people are talking about when they say "Evolution" in the biological sense compared to "evolution" in other contexts -- for instance, talking about the "evolution" of a product line, where there's hardly been artificial selection, let alone natural selection.

Words can have different definitions in different contexts, and that's fine. In this case, the definition I've given for "theory" is a useful one.

Yet, we still call it a "Theory" for some reason.

Followed by

I understand scientific theory

Shows that you do not understand the meaning of the word "theory". Because if you did, you wouldn't implicitly wonder why evolution is called a theory.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Do yourself (and everyone else here) a favour and read that - once you understand it, you'll be able to understand why evolution is "still" referred to as a theory.

Uhhh, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't laws the highest truths in science? Theories only explain why laws exist. Such as the theory of evolutiony by natural selection explains the observed evolutions of species over time.

Ok, your wrong. :) Here's a nice run down on the difference. It even has a car analogy in there for you: http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Short version: Laws are simple, observable facts. Theories are reached through rigorous proof and testing, are very complex and dynamic.

But both are considered on par as far as their depth of truth.

If they're going to teach the theory of evolution, they should they should at least teach that it's more than a theory!

Gravity is a fact. The theory(s) that explain it and its effects are not facts.

Here are two links which cover this topic:

Link 1

Link 2

Hmmm.... The Scientific Method may be more accurately summarized as follows:

1. Observe
2. Develop Hypothesis
3. Make predictions based on hypothesis
4. Test predictions by experimentation

Remember: a Hypothesis is not the same as Theory

Citing Stephen Hawking's quotation as proof for something is an argument from authority. You're right in thinking I didn't read the quote, because I didn't, and I'm not going to. I don't really care what Stephen Hawking said about anything.

The fact of the matter is that in science, we have facts, laws, hypotheses, and theories. Facts are observations. Laws are collections of these observations. Hypotheses are guesses at explaining why these laws are so, and they must be testable to be taken seriously. A theory is a rigorously tested hypothesis -- a graduated hypothesis. It is an explanation for an observed phenomenon.

Just because you can't understand basic scientific definitions doesn't mean you're not being an idiot. You certainly are being one. It doesn't even make sense to me, either; you obviously have no idea how the scientific process works, but you're still trying to debate it with me. Really, it shouldn't be left up to debate (I'm certainly no scientist myself), but to evidence -- evidence which I have provided in the form of a link to Wikipedia, which, for reasons unknown, you have a problem with. It happened to be the first source I found (probably because it is the first place I check for these kinds of things) on the matter. If you really wish to find more information, there's an abundance of books floating around about the scientific method and its elementary principles.

It's pretty hilarious that you argue with the source I provide to illustrate my point. I don't think I can even get anywhere like this. I don't even think I could convince you of how wrong you are if I had Stephen Hawking himself tell you so. You are bent on challenging anything that doesn't fit your mindset, which is quite strange to me.

Here are some more links for you, courtesy of google:

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/n ode7.html#SECTION02122000000000000000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law

like this one:
http://wilstar.com/caffeine.htm

and this:
http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2003news/caffeinecontent.h tm
Starbucks regular drip coffees contain an average of 200 milligrams of caffeine per 8-ounce serving; their decaffeinated drip coffees contain an average of 5 milligrams to 11 milligrams of caffeine per 8-ounce serving, according to the statement. ...
The study's second phase used 16-ounce cups of Starbucks' Breakfast Blend, a mix of Latin American coffees, purchased on six consecutive days from a single Gainesville store and analyzed by the same method. Results for the six days were, in order: 564 milligrams, 498 milligrams, 259 milligrams, 303 milligrams, 300 milligrams and 307 milligrams.

http://wilstar.com/midi/flush.wav

for the moment just realize with me that the only company that truly benefits from Boot Camp is Microsoft, because they'll get to sell a retail copy of Windows XP for every copy of Boot Camp now where did I put that link to the pirate WAV files collection?

That is an ignorant and stupid thing to say. How about you define for us how you test ID as a scientific theory in the first place. There is a lot of evidence supporting Evolution as a "SCIENTIFIC" Theory http://wilstar.com/theories.htm and once you tell us how we can test the "theory" of ID then we can get scientific about it and then it will no longer be pathetic and sad religion.

if you think that the caffeine contained in 3 black tea's is in anyway less harmful in your teacup then you should just check up your facts again.

http://wilstar.com/caffeine.htm

just as one example. read. think. you'd be better off with decaf coffee than with black tea.

i however ignore the fact and enjoy my coffe. what's the point of having a half value long life versus a shorter at full throttle ? sure you can still see girls on the streets when i'm in the grave but you'll be getting laid at 80 as much as i do 6 feet under.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

When did "theory" get redefined to mean "Here's something you can take as true, or make up anything you like"?

Furthermore, I would graciously request that the Creator (or spokespeople thereof) explain to me what my tailbone and appendix are for.

Whenever someone says 'theory' in a derogatory manner I point them to this page which does a very nice job of explaining the differences between a hypothesis, theory and law.

It doesn't change their mind but at least they can't claim they weren't informed of the differences the next time someone (again) corrects them.

Jolt doesn't beat the caffeine in most types of coffee. The sugar, on the other hand, is a different story :)

You might have to drink a lot more though, depending on how much caffeine they recommend. According to this, green tea only has about 15mg of caffeine versus 65 in the least potent coffee. If the study is as decribed, my regular Coke intake (34mg per can) will benefit me similarly :)

In science distinction between "theory" and "law" has nothing to do with whether it can be disproved or not. A "law" discusses a rather specific phenomenom (like Newton's Law of Gravitation or Kepler's Second Law), while a "theory" discusses a broader set of topics (General Relativity or Evolution). Both "theories" and "laws" and can be altered and falsified as more data becomes available. See this discussion for more details.

Your idea, while interesting, doesn't answer the question, as you admitted to. All you are testing for is a persons chemical state when they believe there is a god compared to if they don't believe. After all, that is what happiness is. A chemical state. One could be just as happy not believing as believing and your test would be just as valid.

As far as why do I care, because that is the crux of the matter. ID says that an intelligent being must have created things but some things seem to be too complicated to be natural.

If the ID supporters go around saying this or that of evolution isn't proven then it is a perfectly valid question to ask of them, prove that an intelligent being exists.

As I said in my original post, the ID supporters start with the presumption that such a being exists and then try to prove that existence through observation (and only observation I might add) when in reality one would start with the end result and work backwards to find a cause.

Newtons laws aren't known to be factual, they are merely helpful

You might want to rethink that. I would direct you to this page which gives an easy to understand definiton of what a hypothesis, theory and law are along with examples. Newton's laws are about as factual as one can get.

Mainly because there is circumstancial evidence for, and no evidence against.

And what might that evidence be? Again, you're stating that there is some evidence to support the idea of a supernatural being but you never say how you arrive at that conclusion. You are doing the very thing that I mentioned above: you're starting with the conclusion and trying to make things fit what you believe.

He said 5 gallons of caffeine, not 5 gallons of caffeine-containing products.

With 37.5mg of caffeine per 12oz. Pepsi and 1.2g of caffeine per milliliter, I figure that to be just under 606 cans of Pepsi, vs. just over 227 2-ounce shots of espresso.

Either way, the OP may be on to something. At that point, you'll definitely have the energy to programatically define every single grammatical rule in the English language. Assuming, of course, that your ticker holds out that long...

If you're going to call it a theory, one out to teach it as such.

You mean, like this sticker?

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Good point! May I also suggest some more:

"This textbook states that the earth is over 4 billion years old. Because some people strongly believe that the earth cannot be this old, the material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

"This book promotes the theory of plate tectonics, the gradual movement of the major land masses. Because nobody observed this process, this material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

"This textbook suggests that the Earth is roughly spherical. The shape is a controversial topic, and not all people accept this theory. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

"This book contains material on gravity. Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding a force which cannot be seen. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

"This book discusses heliocentrism, that the Earth orbits around a centrally located sun. Because astronomers still disagree over the details of the heliocentric model, this material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

"This book contains material on special relativity. Special relativity is a scientific theory, and very few scientists fully understand it. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

"This textbook claims that evolution is not fully accepted by scientists because it is just a theory. The author hopes to confuse you into equating "scientific theory" with "cockamamie theory." To read a short blurb on what a scientific theory is, go to, http://wilstar.com/theories.htm."

"This book does not contain the word evolution, the unifying principle in biology and an important component of the National Science Standards and the Scholastic Achievement Test. For an overview of what your class is missing, go to http://evolution.berkeley.edu/"

"This book was anonymously donated to your school library to discretely promote religious alternatives to the theory of evolution. When you are finished with it, please refile the book in the fiction section."

"This book mentions Creationism, New Creationism, Scientific Creationism, or Intelligent Design. All of these beliefs rely on the action of a supernatural entity to explain life on Earth. Scientists rejected supernatural explanations for life on Earth in the 1800s, and still do today."

"This book discusses gods. The existence of entities with supernatural powers is controversial, and many believe that myths, especially other people's myths, are fictional. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

"This book contains an evolution disclaimer sticker mandated by your local school board. For fun, submit an article to a local paper that probes the motivations of board members and analyzes the impact of weakened science instruction on students' college applications."

"This sticker covers a pre-existing sticker designed to subtly undermine the teaching of evolution in your class. To see the full text of the original sticker, examine the books of children of school board members, who mandated the stickering."

"This book discusses evolution. President George W. Bush said, "On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created th

PEOPLE!! STOP. Stop using "theory" in regards to science as a theory in the common definition. A scientific theory is very well backed up by facts.

"In layman's terms, if something is said to be "just a theory," it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true."

I will personally stangle the next person who does this. Pisses me off.
Scientific Theory = Scientific Fact. Bitches.
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

... and regarding our uniqueness, uh, so? We're the smart primate - depending on if you think what man's doing is smart after all.

Sit down child, because you're going to get a lesson in politics. When someone, especially a high-level, powerful, and influential person says "advocates for contrasting ideas" in the context of a specific "contrasting idea", that's an endorsement with plausible-deniability. (e.g. "Oh crap! I'm getting flak. Well...um...I didn't actually SAY that.")

Things like "exposing them to different ideas" and "properly taught" are what's known as "code words." Words that appear to be about one thing, but actually about something else entirely. Here are two examples. One code word that shows up when discussing Supreme Court nominees, "Plessy-vs-Ferguson." Now why on Earth would the 1892 case that created the now discredited and defunct idea of "seperate but equal" have any bearing on cases today? Why would that be brought up? Why would "Dred Scott", the 1857 case that ruled that slaves were property have any bearing on anything today? I'll tell you.
They're code words for "Roe v Wade", the case that legalized abortion nationwide. Everyone "in the know" knows what Dred Scott == Roe v Wade, but if you challenge the politico on about abortion, he'll say "Well that's a different case," and technically he's right, but the message has already been sent loud and clear.

Now back to the presidential endorsement of ID. Bush advocates "both sides" to be taught. Sounds like a reasonable position right? Only if you don't realize THERE ISN'T ANOTHER SIDE! No one. -- let me repeat that -- no one in the scientific community has any problems with the theory of evolution. That means there's abosultely no scientific controversy.

No supporters of ID say: "But evolution is just a theory, and that's only a guess. Scientitst don't know! ID is simply another guess. Who's say who is right and who is not?" That logic is based on a fundamental misunderstanding on just what a scientific theory really is.

A scientific theory is not merely "a guess" as IDers would have you believe. It's an archetecture explaining a whole series of observations that has been supported by many experiments by many different scientits. A "guess" isn't even a hypothesis. A guess is saying "heads" on a coin flip. A hypothesis is a testable (i.e. "falifyable") educated prediction about a single event. ID isn't falsifyable, and so it not even a hypothesis, let alone a theory. Read this for a good description of law versus theory versus hypothesis versus guess.

ID is a biblical creation myth wrapped in pseudoscience. The conclusion that the universe was created by an intellegent entity in a manner consistent with judeo-christian mythology is the predetermined. Then "facts" are manipulated to give the illusion of support for that conclusion. That's not science. Science gathers observations then arrives at conclusions that can explain the observations. If an observation contradicts the conclusions, the conclusions are modified and or replaced. Creationists, which IDers are all the way, don't do that. If an observation contradicts their conclusion, it's ignored.

Teaching ID along with evolution is a completly intellectually bankrupt idea. It equates a well supported scientific archetecture with demonstrably untrue mumbo-jumbo. It's the equivalent of saying that the Earth is round needs to be "balanced" by the Earth is flat. Or that a geocentric universe should be taught in order to "balance" the heliocentric solar system.

Even though this may be a troll, I want to respond anyway.

I cringe every time I hear someone say evolution is just a theory. They don't understand what it takes to get to the next step beyond theory (law). Let me go back a hundred years... This guy named Einstein proposed that Newton's Laws of Motion may be incomplete when the numbers get reallllllllly big. Turns out he was right. Well, the scientific community felt a great amount of embarassment that something they had accepted as law was flawed. Since then, pretty much nothing has become a law, just in case it gets proved wrong.

So, evolution is a theory because that's pretty much as far up the ladder as things go these days!!! Not because the scientific community isn't quite sure. What most people think of as a theory (a conjecture that hasn't been thoroughly tested yet) is really called a hypothesis in the scientific community.

Read here rof a second opinion http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Thus my theory

Your theory is more properly a hypothesis:

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

Thus the "Hellwig hypothesis". Nice alliteration as well.

Unfortunately, the link is down, here's the Google Cache.

Your story is incomplete and slightly inaccurate. First, George Washington was probably not a Christian, but a Deist, and while there are spiritual overtones to that proclamation, he clearly avoided any Christian references.

While Washington did devote a day in November to Thanksgiving, it was not a continuing holiday. It was Lincoln who established Thanksgiving day as we know it.

While there is no language in the proclamation regarding the Pilgrims, the Pilgrims' had a day of thanks after their struggles, and when the day of thinksgiving was announced there was some discord among the colonies, with many feeling the hardships of a few Pilgrims did not warrant a national holiday. It is clear that Washington's proclamation was an echo of the Pilgrim's Thanksgiving. So your elementary school teacher was actually correct.

Read more about it here

Nope, it contains less than a decent cup of coffee, (and a lot less than my indecent triple ristrettos) check out : this table

Here is a list of the amount of caffeine in drinks. You'll notice 2-ounces of esspresso has almost 2x the caffeine as a coke. Most people I know get a double shot when they drink at starbucks, so you do the math :)

Hypothesis -> Theory -> Law

No. Hypothesis does go to theory, but a law is a very basic observation that always happens as far as we've seen. A theory is an "explanation". See here for details.

No scientist would say that a law is written in stone, in any event. You can find something that breaks a law -- perhaps on Mars, gravity operates differently. Doesn't seem real likely, but nothing preventing it from happening.

just play this looped while you read thru the story ;)

It's a North American holiday