Which philosophers would be rolling over in their graves because I said that?
Name names... post quotes
Theories require testing, they can be disproved.. I said nothing to the effect of turning theories into facts. They remain as theories to be improved with facts or fall apart.
Plate tectonics is a theory.
In fact, gravity is a theory.
Theory just means that it is a hypothesis that has been repetitively tested and has yet to be falsified.
Last edited by SheWolf; 10-22-10 at 12:33 AM.
Just in case Taylor comes back
... or anybody is interested.. and because I have a self interest in showing how wrong Taylor is still
This is Arthur A. Meyerhoff.. respected scientist and best know opponent of the theory of Plate Tectonics.. He has accused educational facilities of so called, spoon feeding this theory to pupils with little to no discussion in the classroom.
AAPG FoundationHis opposition to the plate tectonics concept was indefatigable and made him famous. He saw the flaws and contradictions of plate tectonics. There is something exhilarating about a man going against the main stream of scientific thought and not yielding – providing his objections have substance. Art’s do. At first he was involved in often passionate debate. Later, his writings were often left unanswered – as though science is served by silence.
By 1988 Art Meyerhoff, with the help of coworkers, had developed an alternate hypothesis called “surge Tectonics.” They suggest that all major features of the earth, including those beneath the sea, are underlain by more or less fluid igneous rocks, which tend to flow parallel to these features. These channels are inter-connected, forming a worldwide hydraulic network. This hypothesis explains a remarkable number of observed earth phenomena. These ideas were published in 1992 by Texas Tech University Press in the book, New Concepts in Global Tectonics, edited by S. Chatterjee and N. Hotton III.
Surge tectonics: a new hypothesis of ... - Google Books
Last edited by SheWolf; 10-22-10 at 12:32 AM.
Who wouldn't have a problem with what I said.. Kant and Hegel, and that is off the top of my head. I bet Hegel wouldn't have a problem with it, being he talked a lot about logic and ripping open the pages of history, time is progress and understanding.. don't agree, challenge it
And the statement wasn't too ridiculous for you to address it. What is ridiculous is you not standing your ground...
Last edited by SheWolf; 10-22-10 at 01:00 AM.
It's traditionally considered a law as there was no generally accepted theory - but is now subsumed under the general theory of relativity.
You may arrive at a theory that way, but that's not what a "theory means." The general theory of relativity did not come about as a "hypothesis that has been repetitively tested."
Last edited by Taylor; 10-22-10 at 01:19 AM.