Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Monday, May 12, 08:44:40am

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Is it? Author: Damoclese [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 09/28/04 2:28pm In reply to: Duane 's message, "I think I've figured it out..." on 09/28/04 8:11am >A theory in the natural sciences is introduced when >some new phenomenon or set of > >phenomena are observed that either contradict an >existing theory's explanation, in > >which case that theory is replaced, or that tells us >something new, allowing us to > >add an explanatory theory where there wasn't one >before. I think this is where the twain no longer meets. The words "scientific theory" means a specific thing to scientists. All of the theories in science meet the criteria that we all know scientific theories must address, and therefore are either accordingly rejected or accepted based upon how well they hold up. Whatever the case, these are still scientific theories. On the other hand, in everyday languange people have taken the word "theory" to mean basically what the word "hypothesis" means in science. It basically means that they have a guess as to why things are as they are, allbeit an unvalidated guess. We have to ask ourselves how well ID meets the criteria to be a scientific theory, and we find it doesn't do a very good job because it fails to meet any of the stringent requirements that a scientific theory has to mandatorily accomodate. That only leaves one category; the commoner definition of the word. ID theory is more like a hypothesis than a theory. It simply isn't well defined enough to even begin to be a theory. It's just out there in a nebular way. It does make it handy to equivocate the scientific notion of the word theory. It confuses people because they think "theory" in everyday language, and not in scientific parlance. The way I see it, ID has been and never will be a scientific theory, and that's why we can't treat it as though it's a scientific theory. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date You've hit the nail on the head. Duane 09/29/04 2:56am Why not a scientific theory? Wade A. Tisthammer 10/ 9/04 6:46pm Things I'd consider -- Damoclese, 10/ 9/04 8:12pm Scientific theory or good scientific theory? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 10/16/04 3:12pm Comments -- Damoclese, 10/16/04 5:44pm My comments -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 10/31/04 2:44pm