|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Apr 4th, 2004 01:29 AM | ||
| Guderian |
From the 13th Floor: Quote:
http://abortionismurder.org/notconvinced.shtml And for the record, I'm pro-choice. I just wanted to post this. |
|
| Apr 3rd, 2004 04:01 PM | ||
| kellychaos | So much so that guys, like Pythagoras, made a religion (or at least a cult) out of it. | |
| Apr 2nd, 2004 12:11 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
You're not. Mathematics is the language of nature 
|
|
| Apr 2nd, 2004 09:32 AM | ||
| ziggytrix | A law is more basic than a theory. A theory is a modifyable, descriptive model of complex phenomena. A law is a descriptive model of something basic and irrefutable such as a mathematic equation. The law of gravity is F(g) = G * (m1 * m2) / r^2. All scientific laws can be stated as mathematical formulae, if I'm not mistaken. | |
| Apr 2nd, 2004 03:42 AM | ||
| Big McLargehuge | Newton was wrong jerk. | |
| Apr 2nd, 2004 01:01 AM | ||
| Big Papa Goat | Newtons gravity thing is a law not a theory I believe. A law is more certain than a theory, and as far as I know, there are no scientific laws outside of physics and chemistry. | |
| Apr 1st, 2004 11:22 PM | ||
| ziggytrix | It's Elementary Scientific Jargon! Hooray for compromise! | |
| Apr 1st, 2004 11:04 PM | ||
| Perndog |
So is it elementary or is it scientific jargon? You just said it was elementary, so I went by the elementary definition of scientific theory. You're right, I didn't know the difference between theory and theorem, and I wasn't even aware that theorem had standard usage outside of mathematics. And your quote: Quote:
|
|
| Apr 1st, 2004 10:27 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
Pern, there is a difference between a Theorem and a Theory. A Theorem has been demonstrated to be true, a Theory has not. Newton's Theory of Motion is a Theorem, Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not. Just because laymen don't appreciate the difference doesn't mean all should likewise ignore it. And Ziggy you're quite correct. In context of the topic, animal experimentation, I think more effort ought to go into the formation of hypothesis and the conclusion speculated before testing is done. I feel the Scientific community has become entirely too relaxed, going by the current vein of projects. For instance, take the above example. Newton's Theory of Motion, the amount of effort and observation which into the initial hypothesis is vastly different than say, 'how will insects be effected by a change in gravity.' A hypothesis should be like a mission statement not some vague curiousity. |
|
| Apr 1st, 2004 10:07 PM | ||
| ziggytrix |
in fairness to Ror, the words theory and hypothesis have several definitions outside the context of the scientific method. but a quick refresh of what is considered elementary physical science - Quote:
Fuck, now I'm gonna have thermodynamics on the brain for on hour... better go browse loveline. :P |
|
| Apr 1st, 2004 09:33 PM | ||
| Perndog |
Ror, what the fuck are you talking about? Newton's Theory of Motion cannot be observed or quantitatively tested? F=ma isn't quantitative and you can't watch something fall at 32.2 ft/s2 or watch pool balls bounce off each other? Evolution hasn't been well-observed in bacteria and other lower life forms? A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Source a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones Source A theory is a generalization based on many observations and experiments; a well-tested, verified hypothesis that fits existing data and explains how processes or events are thought to occur. Source A theory in science is an idea that has been tested thoroughly, and despite extensive testing, cannot be rejected. Source And I think this quote pretty accurately describes what Ror was trying to tell us earlier: Quote:
|
|
| Apr 1st, 2004 04:36 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
If we already know the outcome, what is the point of experimentation? Ror sounds like he's promoting a priori physical sciences - kinda like what Mises was promoting in economics. Only, a priori physical sciences, and, for that matter, purely a priori economics, can never work. |
|
| Apr 1st, 2004 04:29 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
A theory cannot be observed, quanitatively tested or otherwise proven. Such as the theory of Evolution. Come on people, this is elementary here. |
|
| Apr 1st, 2004 03:40 PM | ||
| Perndog |
Yes. A hypothesis is nothing more than an assumption or a speculation, albeit one that must have reasonable grounds. Once it is supported by a good amount of data (as you say any good hypothesis must) it is then a theory and no longer a hypothesis. As I said before you started getting whiny, if you only test things that are already supported by a lot of experimental data (theories), you aren't going to get anywhere. Hypotheses should NOT be so good that they don't have to be tested. That's the entire purpose of experimentation, to enter an experiment with several hypotheses about possible outcomes and then toss out the ones that don't work. Extensive engineering does not go into a hypothesis, engineering goes into a working theory. |
|
| Apr 1st, 2004 03:36 PM | ||
| Emu |
Quote:
|
|
| Apr 1st, 2004 03:23 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
Nope.
|
|
| Apr 1st, 2004 01:20 PM | ||
| ziggytrix | I think you're confusing theory and hypothesis, in terms of the scientific method. | |
| Apr 1st, 2004 01:13 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach | The experiments because the outcome is uncertain Ziggy, no matter how much thought, planning and engineering goes into a hypothesis the outcome is still uncertain - if it is carried out consistant with the Scientific Process. | |
| Apr 1st, 2004 12:55 PM | ||
| Protoclown |
BUNNIES LIKE HAVING LIPSTICK PUT ON THEM PLAYING "DRESS-UP"
|
|
| Apr 1st, 2004 12:48 PM | ||
| ziggytrix |
They are called "experiments" not "verifications". And frankly, I support animal testing in general, while recognizing frivalous tests (something akin to injecting cosmetics into animals eyeballs) should not occur. That is a very fine line to attempt to regulate and I'd rather cosmetic testing occur, than medical testing not occur. |
|
| Apr 1st, 2004 12:09 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach | I'm not suggesting it, I'm saying it. A lawyer never asks a question they do not already know the answer to, a scientist should do no less. Such perfection is, of course, impossible. There are simply too many variables, both known and unknown, to consider for one to properly cover all the bases. It is the attempt which is important. | |
| Apr 1st, 2004 01:22 AM | ||
| Big Papa Goat | Ror, are you suggesting that hypothesis' should be so good that they don't have to be tested? | |
| Mar 31st, 2004 04:42 PM | ||
| kellychaos | There is a quote of which, at this time, I know neither the author or the exact quote but, paraphrasing, says that you have no real knowledge of what it means to be a pilot until you experience it in real time under real conditions. I think the same point can be made for animal testing. You can hypothesis all you want about how an experiment should go according to what is currently known about physics, biology, chemistry, ect. That does not mean that the expected results will happen or even happen a large percentage of the time. That's why a theory has to be repeated several times under strict control and by different people and even revisited from different viewpoints. Even a hypothesis that is proven so many times that it has essentially become a theory is not an ultimate truth, it just has a high probability of being the truth with the potential to be disproven at any time in the future ... or at least altered to meet a new perspective or new knowledge. | |
| Mar 31st, 2004 01:29 AM | ||
| Big Papa Goat |
|
|
| Mar 30th, 2004 10:53 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
Argument does not necessarily need to be combative, it can also be conciliatory. The aim of argument is, ultimately, to arrive at a truth -acceptable or absolute is for those involved to decide. I'm neither debasing nor proving anything. Simply tossing a few pennies into the Arena. |
|
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
