• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

Oh no you just didn'!

SheWolf said:
Sometimes theories are more popular than others. Plate Tectonics is a popular theory, it doesn't mean it's true or scientists are pushing it as truth.
Click to expand...
What?? Did you really just say that? Good lord! I hate to call you out publicly like this, but you're every bit as bad or worse than the "evolution is just a theory" crowd you claimed had a "lack of brains":

SheWolf said:
O Donnell's lack of brains really shined through on this one.. I hated how she tried to argue it's just a theory, like it shouldn't be taught in a classroom because it's a THEORY.

Theories are commonly taught in science classrooms.. such as the THEORY of Plate Tectonics (one of my favorite theories). The point of studying scientific theory in a classroom is to learn about the scientific method.
Click to expand...
:lamo LOL - you even referenced Plate Tectonics as one of your favority theories. Congratulations, that's just about the most embarrassing thing I've seen on a forum in quite some time.

Lesson's over.
 
Taylor said:
Yes, science uses logic. No, science is not a "form of logic." You've got a hell of a lot of philosophers rolling over in their graves with that remark.


None of this refutes the fact that science isn't inherently objective. Objectivity applies to theories as well as facts. If you're not convinced by my little blurb, there are a dozen books on amazon that deal specifically with the failure of the scientific community to accept Wegener's objectively superior alternative theory. Pick one.

What's more disturbing is your misconception that science is in the business of turning theories into facts. Theories are not "proven." Theories and facts represent different kinds of knowledge. Theories are models of reality used to explain natural phenomena (i.e. facts) and to perhaps make predictions.
Click to expand...

All you have is semantics.. Prove something for once.

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.
 
Re: Oh no you just didn'!

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.
 
Re: Oh no you just didn'!

Taylor said:
What?? Did you really just say that? Good lord! I hate to call you out publicly like this, but you're every bit as bad or worse than the "evolution is just a theory" crowd you claimed had a "lack of brains":


:lamo LOL - you even referenced Plate Tectonics as one of your favority theories. Congratulations, that's just about the most embarrassing thing I've seen on a forum in quite some time.

Lesson's over.
Click to expand...

You taught me nothing... Go head and post a site or source.
 
Re: Oh no you just didn'!

CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...

:lamo

I thought the same thing.. and this person is lecturing me that theories aren't facts and that theories are about understanding teh world. If this person thinks Plate Tectonics is a fact, then the discussion is over

:peace
 
Taylor said:
Great. At some level you understand that science is fallible, whether you want to admit it to yourself or not. We can move on.
Click to expand...

Pathetic... just because I said "science doesn't claim to be true or to find the truth as a whole, hence somethings are laws and theory" doesn't mean science is fallible, because science is not failing to meet it's own goals. Science isn't failing to meet it's own principles.. so science isn't fallible by it's own definition of science
 
Last edited:
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.

His 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.
Click to expand...

AAPG Foundation

Surge tectonics: a new hypothesis of ... - Google Books
 
Last edited:
SheWolf said:
All you have is semantics.. Prove something for once.

Which philosophers would be rolling over in their graves because I said that?

Name names... post quotes
Click to expand...
Wow... take your pick? The statement is so ridiculous I doubt anyone would bother to address it. I can see someone claiming that deduction or abduction are a forms of logic. But science? I may as well be looking for quotes to prove that science isn't a form of writing.
 
Taylor said:
Wow... take your pick? The statement is so ridiculous I doubt anyone would bother to address it. I can see someone claiming that deduction or abduction are a forms of logic. But science? I may as well be looking for quotes to prove that science isn't a form of writing.
Click to expand...

If it's so easy to take a pick, then start naming them off.. Go head, fire away.

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:
Re: Oh no you just didn'!

CriticalThought said:
Plate tectonics is a theory.
Click to expand...
Right

CriticalThought said:
In fact, gravity is a theory.
Click to expand...
Iffy

It's traditionally considered a law as there was no generally accepted theory - but is now subsumed under the general theory of relativity.

CriticalThought said:
Theory just means that it is a hypothesis that has been repetitively tested and has yet to be falsified.
Click to expand...
Wrong

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:
SheWolf said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hegel wouldn't have a problem with the (absurd) statement that science is a form of logic because "he talked a lot about logic and ripping open the pages of history".... gotcha.

No, really - I'm convinced. I mean, how are we supposed to rip open those pages unless we classify science as a form of logic?
 
SheWolf said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have no idea how this shows "how wrong I am still" but am quite amused that SheWolf -- with her steadfast faith in science as infallible and objectively pure -- is now championing Meyeroff as a "respected scientist" who...

....get this...

...is angered by the "flaws and contradictions of plate tectonics."
 
Taylor said:
Hegel wouldn't have a problem with the (absurd) statement that science is a form of logic because "he talked a lot about logic and ripping open the pages of history".... gotcha.

No, really - I'm convinced. I mean, how are we supposed to rip open those pages unless we classify science as a form of logic?
Click to expand...

:roll:

You're asking me to debate myself for you. No sources, no challenge. Brilliant..

Should I throw you a bone?

No.. Because I know you'll just start looking for the next thing to argue with me about instead of standing your ground. First it was evolution, then science in general, then the solar system, then Plate Tectonics, and now this.

Instead of trying make me look incompetent.. prove how much you know for once. Go ahead naming the names of those philosophers rolling over in their graves.. post some statements.. site publications on logic.

.. site ANYTHING..

If you're so confidence it's was absurd, you'd have no problem finding an authoritative voice in agreement with you.
 
Taylor said:
I have no idea how this shows "how wrong I am still" but am quite amused that SheWolf -- with her steadfast faith in science as infallible and objectively pure -- is now championing Meyeroff as a "respected scientist" who...

....get this...

...is angered by the "flaws and contradictions of plate tectonics."
Click to expand...

You obviously have some big agenda with using the words subjective and fallible to describe science.. I am starting to believe that you think anything that is subjective is inherently fallible-- all feelings, all emotions, all forms of faith and belief, all perceptions about anything and everything.

I have always said there is room discerning opinions and views in science. That doesn't mean science is flawed and fallible. You went from criticizing the scientific method in this thread, to lecturing somebody else on it. You even said the solar system was subjective.. talk about absurd.

I have also always said that science isn't promising all arrows will point to the objective truth.. so you're not really doing anything clever here. I know what science is. I know how it's used and applied to the world. I don't find it offensive, useless, or fallible.
 
Re: Oh no you just didn'!

Taylor said:
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."
Click to expand...

Um...actually yes, the theory of relativity was a hypothesis that has been repetitively tested. Hundreds of times in fact in various different experiments.

And I'm sorry, but laws in the scientific sense are simply generalizations of theories. Nobody says "law of gravity" because there is no need to generalize the concept of gravity. Thermodynamics you have to generalize.

You can argue the semantics all you want, I'm just the guy who has to read several scientific journals every week.
 
Last edited:
Re: Oh no you just didn'!

CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...

Huh. So we're all sticking to the surface of this planet based on a theory. So tell me... the world is round right? Or is that a theory too and there's some cliff a little beyond the sunset and we're all going to fall off the edge of the earth and be eaten by monsters?
 
Gray_Fox_86 said:
OMG!?!

This post is why I fear American's role as the world's superpower. Yikes!
Click to expand...

And yet, you still don't know. How'd it begin? What created that first living cell. Where did that first drop of water come from? What created that first two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen.

The arrogance to pretend to know something that you - or anyone - could not possibly know is astounding. You just throw insults and run. Must come from getting stuffed in too many trash cans once upon a time.

Einstein believed in a higher being. Take it up with him.
 
Re: Oh no you just didn'!

CriticalThought said:
Um...actually yes, the theory of relativity was a hypothesis that has been repetitively tested. Hundreds of times in fact in various different experiments.
Click to expand...
Sure it's been tested. But it didn't start out as a hypothesis that was repeatedly tested and eventually became a theory. Completely false. The theory provided a new model to account for existing, known phenomena that had startling implications. It wasn't that scientists tested the "relativity hypothesis" - the relativity theory suggested multiple, new hypotheses that were tested and confirmed.

"Repetitive testing" of a hypothesis, by itself, is not very convincing evidence that you've figured out how things work - common misconception.

CriticalThought said:
And I'm sorry, but laws in the scientific sense are simply generalizations of theories. Nobody says "law of gravity" because there is no need to generalize the concept of gravity.
Click to expand...
More rubbish. Laws generalize observations, not theories. Laws describe, theories explain.

How you tried to define a theory: "a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested" is actually closer to a description of a law.

CriticalThought said:
You can argue the semantics all you want, I'm just the guy who has to read several scientific journals every week.
Click to expand...
"Scientific journals" (the vast majority of them) don't discuss these topics, and many of the people who publish in scientific journals don't understand them either.

What you claim to read is irrelevant. If you want to debate, then debate. Don't expect me to be swayed or impressed by an appeal to authority - an unsubstantiated one at that. You don't see me talking about my education on this forum. Besides, it only makes you look more foolish when you're shown to be wrong.
 
Last edited:
SheWolf said:
You obviously have some big agenda with using the words subjective and fallible to describe science.. I am starting to believe that you think anything that is subjective is inherently fallible-- all feelings, all emotions, all forms of faith and belief, all perceptions about anything and everything.
Click to expand...
No, no big agenda. To anybody that practices science or is trained in science, it's blatantly obvious that science in neither inherently objective or infallible. Knowing this makes you a better scientist. I merely stated it was a common misconception among high-school aged kids to believe otherwise. Why you're trying to prove that misconception is beyond me, but I'm happy to continue replying to your posts.

You claim "I have always said there is room discerning opinions and views in science" - so maybe you're having difficulty with what it means to be infallible or objective, or maybe what "science" is.

You went from criticizing the scientific method in this thread, to lecturing somebody else on it. You even said the solar system was subjective.. talk about absurd.
Click to expand...
The point about the "solar system" is true, but can be a difficult to grasp. It will probably never come up in your studies unless you end up taking graduate courses in something like philosophy or cognitive science. The idea of a "solar system" is a concept - a simplification of the real world. That's what science does - it doesn't uncover "the truth" so much as simplify the world in terms we can understand. It tends to be only as accurate as it needs to be.

SheWolf said:
I have also always said that science isn't promising all arrows will point to the objective truth.. so you're not really doing anything clever here. I know what science is. I know how it's used and applied to the world. I don't find it offensive, useless, or fallible.
Click to expand...
You say science won't always point to objective truth, but is nonetheless infallible. That makes no sense.
 
US economy on the verge of collapse, currency wars being conducted in private.

TOP NEWS STORY: someone who doesn't matter said something that is kinda right and kinda wrong, but its Christian ... ATTACKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!

America loses, and fails, again.
 
Taylor said:
No, no big agenda. To anybody that practices science or is trained in science, it's blatantly obvious that science in neither inherently objective or infallible. Knowing this makes you a better scientist. I merely stated it was a common misconception among high-school aged kids to believe otherwise. Why you're trying to prove that misconception is beyond me, but I'm happy to continue replying to your posts.

You claim "I have always said there is room discerning opinions and views in science" - so maybe you're having difficulty with what it means to be infallible or objective, or maybe what "science" is.


The point about the "solar system" is true, but can be a difficult to grasp. It will probably never come up in your studies unless you end up taking graduate courses in something like philosophy or cognitive science. The idea of a "solar system" is a concept - a simplification of the real world. That's what science does - it doesn't uncover "the truth" so much as simplify the world in terms we can understand. It tends to be only as accurate as it needs to be.


You say science won't always point to objective truth, but is nonetheless infallible. That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

The solar system exists.. understanding how it works is a scientific concept.. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, but yes there is subjectivity in science. However, science isn't all about subjectivity. It involves many areas that are objective... objective areas exist in science as a whole and in understanding the solar system, and I am not even going to point it out.. You think you know more than me, then you should already understand that.

And declaring science as over all fallible is guess what... subjective. It isn't taught or understood that science is completely flawed or fallible.. testing and judgement can be, not the entire field.. Science is critical and the most respected scientists try improve the field and the understanding of the world constantly..

Science has made great contributions in the world in the areas of engineering, physics, chemistry, astronomy, medicine, etc.etc. and it has saved lives, increased our standard of living and our knowledge, and encourages exchange of ideas and debate.. if you want to keep saying the entire practice is fallible go on ahead. I don't give a ****.

I know what subjectivity and objectivity actually means. It looks like you don't..
 
SheWolf said:
It isn't taught or understood that science is completely flawed or fallible.. testing and judgement can be, not the entire field..
Click to expand...
Nobody is claiming that science is "completely flawed." It is fallible and it is understood to be fallible. To claim otherwise is to say science only produces knowledge that is certain and devoid of error.

Once again, at some level you seem to understand that science is fallible, you're just unwilling to label it a such. I think because you either don't understand what "fallible" means or don't understand what "science" is.
 
Re: Oh no you just didn'!

Taylor said:
Sure it's been tested. But it didn't start out as a hypothesis that was repeatedly tested and eventually became a theory. Completely false. The theory provided a new model to account for existing, known phenomena that had startling implications. It wasn't that scientists tested the "relativity hypothesis" - the relativity theory suggested multiple, new hypotheses that were tested and confirmed.

"Repetitive testing" of a hypothesis, by itself, is not very convincing evidence that you've figured out how things work - common misconception.


More rubbish. Laws generalize observations, not theories. Laws describe, theories explain.

How you tried to define a theory: "a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested" is actually closer to a description of a law.


"Scientific journals" (the vast majority of them) don't discuss these topics, and many of the people who publish in scientific journals don't understand them either.

What you claim to read is irrelevant. If you want to debate, then debate. Don't expect me to be swayed or impressed by an appeal to authority - an unsubstantiated one at that. You don't see me talking about my education on this forum. Besides, it only makes you look more foolish when you're shown to be wrong.
Click to expand...

a1%20sci.method.jpg


Gravity started out as a hypothesis.. We know "what goes up must come down" and about falling apples, but the concept that it is gravity doing it and what gravity actually is- is a theory. Newton's hypothesis of gravity involved three laws of movement, which he tested with observation and demonstrated to others to support his hypothesis.. After that testing and additional testing, his hypothesis became known as the "Newton's law of universal gravitation."

Later Einstein rendered the objections of Newton's Law moot.. with the theory of relativity..

If you want to keep arguing it's false.. source it.. site it. Just claiming so, doesn't make it so. It's really trivial to have debates over what the scientific method actually says..
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
Nobody is claiming that science is "completely flawed." It is fallible and it is understood to be fallible. To claim otherwise is to say science only produces knowledge that is certain and devoid of error.

Once again, at some level you seem to understand that science is fallible, you're just unwilling to label it a such. I think because you either don't understand what "fallible" means or don't understand what "science" is.
Click to expand...

You finally define the terms of subjectivity... If that was your initial premise, you shouldn't have been arguing with me in first place.. being that I have never ONCE changed anything that I have ever said. I am unwilling to label the entire practice as fallible and subjective, and I am not incorrect. If you think I am incorrect, then back it up.

*noticed you dropped that word, btw.. subjective..

:2brickwal:2brickwal:2brickwal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom