Prove a Scientific theory ?

[Ophiolite]

A scientific theory is a temporary scientific belief awaiting override.

You want examples?

Geocentrism, Phlogiston theory, spontaneous generation, alchemy, how we got our moon, static universe, Lamarckism, maternal impression, Recapitulation theory, scientific racism, Caloric theory, Aryan supremacy.

Just to name a few.

And in all the ramblings and fulminations and implict outrage and repetition and disdain and snide mumblings (I think there were some) and castigation and defamation and thesaurus wrenching explications I haven't discerned any hint of what you don't like about theories. Just that you don't like them. It won't put me out of my misery - it may even deepen it - but would you care to specify exactly what it is you have against them?

 

[AV1611VET]

And in all the ramblings and fulminations and implict outrage and repetition and disdain and snide mumblings (I think there were some) and castigation and defamation and thesaurus wrenching explications I haven't discerned any hint of what you don't like about theories. Just that you don't like them. It won't put me out of my misery - it may even deepen it - but would you care to specify exactly what it is you have against them?

How about YOU pick one and tell me what YOU have against it?

Here, I'll pick one.

Tell me what YOU have against spontaneous generation.

And if YOU have something against spontaneous generation, is it okay if I have one too?

 

[Estrid]

And in all the ramblings and fulminations and implict outrage and repetition and disdain and snide mumblings (I think there were some) and castigation and defamation and thesaurus wrenching explications I haven't discerned any hint of what you don't like about theories. Just that you don't like them. It won't put me out of my misery - it may even deepen it - but would you care to specify exactly what it is you have against them?

Perhaps creationists' misdirected contempt
for theory in science could, say, for even an hour be
turned to consideration of all the competing
religious theories* from what sort of god down to
just how much water produces a True baptism.

And how this relates to the notion that " god";
"never changes"

* efficacy of purchased indulgences, legitimacy
of the divine right of kings, what heresies warrant torture,
would be good ones.

This might talke more than a hour.

 

[Ophiolite]

Perhaps creationists' misdirected contempt
for theory in science could, say, for even an hour be
turned to consideration of all the competing
religious theories* <snip >

This might take more than a hour.

Possibly more than a lifetime.

 

[Estrid]

Possibly more than a lifetime.

Maybe meantime maundering matters
of that nature can be carried out elsewhere.

 

[AV1611VET]

* efficacy of purchased indulgences, legitimacy of the divine right of kings, what heresies warrant torture, would be good ones.

And how would science go about showing these "good ones" to be wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

Possibly more than a lifetime.

Possibly never.

Most of religious doctrine is outside of the realm of science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe meantime maundering matters of that nature can be carried out elsewhere.

You mean like in a church?

Where scientists dare to venture?

You're going to tell me that scientists can enter a church and find out empirically how the purchase of indulgences is a violation of the scientific method?

I don't think so.

Scientists can make blueprints for mousetraps that can catch mice in church, but as far as church doctrine, science can take a hike.

And not an hour hike.

Not a lifetime hike.

A forever hike.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Tell me what YOU have against spontaneous generation.

It's not a scientific theory. It's not even a plausible hypothesis given current knowledge.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not a scientific theory.

Ya ... I think you're wrong here.

It may be a discarded theory.

But a discarded theory is still a theory.

You can't burn your bridges behind you.

Except on paper.

It's not even a plausible hypothesis given current knowledge.

Ya ... methinks some would disagree.

I had Googled "obsolete theories" and found this:

Superseded theories in science

Of which spontaneous generation is one of them.

 

[Estrid]

It's not a scientific theory. It's not even a plausible hypothesis given current knowledge.

I guess our friend again demonstrated a lack of
basic knowledge?

It would be OK with me if nobody responded to
such efforts to derail.

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess our friend again demonstrated a lack of basic knowledge?

Well, since I used Wikipedia to show him wrong, I guess you want to chime in and join him in his error.

It would be OK with me if nobody responded to such efforts to derail.

He's trying to make Ophiolite look good.

Don't let him drag you down with him.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I had Googled "obsolete theories" and found this:

Superseded theories in science

Of which spontaneous generation is one of them.

If you'd read what it said about spontaneous generation, you'd have seen that the second sentence says it was, "Falsified by an experiment by Louis Pasteur".

You may recall what I said about a scientific theory in #56: "If we confirm ... that it doesn't correspond with how the observable universe behaves, it will have been falsified and will no longer qualify as a scientific theory."

I hope that clarifies why spontaneous generation is no longer a scientific theory.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, since I used Wikipedia to show him wrong, I guess you want to chime in and join him in his error.

He's trying to make Ophiolite look good.

Don't let him drag you down with him.

Don't forget the Law of Holes

 

[AV1611VET]

I hope that clarifies why spontaneous generation is no longer a scientific theory.

Key words: "no longer."

Mike Tyson is "no longer" heavyweight boxing champion, is he?

No longer ≠ never was.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I guess our friend again demonstrated a lack of
basic knowledge?

More a lack of attention and/or effort ;-)

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't forget the Law of Holes

I like it!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Key words: "no longer."

Mike Tyson is "no longer" heavyweight boxing champion, is he?

No longer ≠ never was.

Correct. Mike Tyson was the heavyweight boxing champion. He isn't now.

Spontaneous generation was a scientific theory. It isn't now - as I said.

Don't wear out your spade.

 

[Estrid]

More a lack of attention and/or effort ;-)

That's the cause, I spoke of effect.

 

[Estrid]

If you'd read what it said about spontaneous generation, you'd have seen that the second sentence says it was, "Falsified by an experiment by Louis Pasteur".

You may recall what I said about a scientific theory in #56: "If we confirm ... that it doesn't correspond with how the observable universe behaves, it will have been falsified and will no longer qualify as a scientific theory."

I hope that clarifies why spontaneous generation is no longer a scientific theory.

I kinda doubt it ever was a theory. More like a folk
belief.