My Theory Challenge Poll

[AV1611VET]

I voted.

Oh, my.

I'm sorry.

I'm showing zero votes.

 

[Laodicean60]

I show 3 No and 2 yes.

 

[Yttrium]

Oh, my.

I'm sorry.

I'm showing zero votes.

Zero? I'm currently showing 2 for yes and 3 for no.

 

[pgp_protector]

Oh, my.

I'm sorry.

I'm showing zero votes.

Maybe because you didn't vote?

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, thanks guys.

 

[Bob Crowley]

Have all [and are all] scientific theories been valid ones?

A theory is either true or false. If it's true then it always was valid, and if it was false then it was always invalid.

I suppose the glaring example was the theory the sun revolved around the earth, only to be oveturned post-Galileo. The Ptolemic earth-centric theory was believed to be valid prior to Copernicua and Galileo, but it was always invalid.

Incidentally Galileo wasn't always right himself -

Science writer tells of Galileo's modern-day struggles

www.princeton.edu

Galileo also had his share of mistakes. According to Sobel, “Galileo missed the discovery of Neptune; could not accept the moon’s impact on tides; and was convinced that comets were atmospheric disturbances instead of objects in the heavens.”

 

[AV1611VET]

The Ptolemic earth-centric theory was believed to be valid prior to Copernicua and Galileo, but it was always invalid.

But at the time, geocentrism was considered valid, was it not?

If you lived back then and had it on a test and said the earth revolves around the sun, it would be counted WRONG, would it not?

 

[Laodicean60]

But at the time, geocentrism was considered valid, was it not?

If you lived back then and had it on a test and said the earth revolves around the sun, it would be counted WRONG, would it not?

As man gets smarter and test equipment improves science has to adapt unless there is an agenda. Science is coming to learn that everything vibrates at certain frequencies and that each cell has an electrical potential of .07 volts. We are wonderfully made.

 

[Bob Crowley]

The poll question asked by AV1611VET was not if they were "considered" valid but if they were (factually) valid.

To include theories because they were "considered" valid the wording needs to change in the poll.

 

[AV1611VET]

As man gets smarter and test equipment improves science has to adapt unless there is an agenda. Science is coming to learn that everything vibrates at certain frequencies and that each cell has an electrical potential of .07 volts. We are wonderfully made.

But until that happened, geocentrism was considered valid, was it not?

If you lived back then and had it on a test and said the earth revolves around the sun, it would be counted WRONG, would it not?

 

[pgp_protector]

considered valid != valid

 

[AV1611VET]

considered valid != valid

Let's get this straight.

If you lived back then, and you wanted to be an academic dilbert, then you had better push geocentrism.

Or you may just end up on house arrest, like Galileo was, for being right (but not in their eyes).

Scientists worked hard back then to raise their junk up to the level of "valid," and they weren't about to consider anyone disagreeing with them.

That is, until some new discovery came along that made them realize they were wrong.

 

[Laodicean60]

Let's get this straight.

If you lived back then, and you wanted to be an academic dilbert, then you had better push {fill in the blank}. Or you may just end up on house arrest. Sounds like today and I guess it's true, nothing new under the sun.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you lived back then, and you wanted to be an academic dilbert, then you had better push {fill in the blank}.

Yup.

Or you may just end up on house arrest.

Yup.

Sounds like today and I guess it's true, nothing new under the sun.

Well ... today ... it's not so much as house arrest, as it is academic failure.

For instance, from 1930 - 2006, you'd better include Pluto in your diagrams of the solar system, or you'll get a failing grade.

 

[Laodicean60]

Well ... today ... it's not so much as house arrest, as it is academic failure.

In my view, he was on house arrest because they didn't want him talking. I was on a modified house arrest in 2020 then you had censorship.

 

[driewerf]

Now there is an honest answer!

How about an honest vote now please?

You lost all rights to an honest answer and all expectation of a discussion in good faith with this post:

Evidence for macro-evolution

There are no examples of one genus evolving from another Fossils and genetics Pan, Australopithecus and Homo.

www.christianforums.com

 

[AV1611VET]

You lost all rights to an honest answer and all expectation of a discussion in good faith with this post:

Evidence for macro-evolution

There are no examples of one genus evolving from another Fossils and genetics Pan, Australopithecus and Homo.

www.christianforums.com

You really like my reply, don't you?

I'll admit, that was a classic.

 

[Halbhh]

Have all [and are all] scientific theories been valid ones?

If by 'valid' you mean they survived observational tests, then 'no' -- very many have been shown invalid through observations and tests. So, there are 3 classes of theories in that regard: A) those that have been proven false by observations, B) those that haven't yet been disproven nor in any way yet supported by any observations that make them seem more likely than other competing theories, and finally, C) theories that have been supported in extensive observations in ways that make them seem more likely correct (or correct so far to date, if not yet ascertained to fully apply in every possible future scenario) and thus clearly more reliable/valid than other competing theories that apply to their same subject but don't have such observational support.

 

[AV1611VET]

If by 'valid' you mean they survived observational tests, then 'no' -- very many have been shown invalid through observations and tests. So, there are 3 classes of theories in that regard: A) those that have been proven false by observations, B) those that haven't yet been disproven nor in any way yet supported by any observations that make them seem more likely than other competing theories, and finally, C) theories that have been supported in extensive observations in ways that make them seem more likely correct (or correct so far to date, if not yet ascertained to fully apply in every possible future scenario) and thus clearly more reliable/valid than other competing theories that apply to their same subject but don't have such observational support.

How does something become a theory, without first clearing all the hurdles in its path?

Take your first example:

A: those that have been proven false by observations.

So scientists work tirelessly to get this thing -- (let's use Phlogiston) -- up to theory status, then turn around and prove it false by observation???

Something sounds fishy in Hong Kong.