{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Delta E27:
3/18/2015 6:53:10 PM
41
It's not fact. It is most likely correct, to be sure, but as it stands it is only a scientific theory. Claiming a scientific theory as fact is incorrect.
They have wide bases of evidence and substantiation, but are always subject to more studies, more experiments, etc. that may provide more information, more proof, or even disprove the theory, in which case a more accurate theory will, hopefully take their place. The fact that they are testable and falsifiable is what makes them theories. It's semantics, but it's important, since this is part of the foundation of how science works.
Evolution's a very good theory, though.
Edit: apparently, if one uses the scientific definition of fact, then evolution is one. It is not a fact in the general sense, however. So depending on the definition used, it's both
English
-
Theory is second to law and I think bass is pretty happy with it I wouldn't see the pope going on a space journey to disprove the Big Bang
-
-
[quote] it is only a scientific theory. Claiming a scientific theory as fact is incorrect. [/quote]Your ignorance is showing. A scientific theory explains how/why an observed phenomena occurs - in this case, evolution. Observing and documenting evolution indicates that it is real and is a fact. The theory of evolution explains how it happens. A theory does not graduate to scientific fact or law once a certain threshold of evidence is met.
-
Edited by Delta E27: 3/18/2015 5:18:09 PMA scientific theory documents how something happens, but it is also by its very definition falsifiable. It may never be falsified, but the possibility remains.
-
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html Just read this.
-
So what I see here is basically exactly what I've been saying along with a scientific (ass opposed to colloquial) definition of fact. If that is how it is actually used, then that is correct.
-
Science's foundation is that everything is falsifiable. If it isn't, it isn't science.
-
Exactly. And something falsifiable cannot be considered a "fact". But it can also be assumed that something that has a lot of supporting evidence and has not been disproved despite multiple efforts is as close as possible to a "fact" that one can get. It just is incorrect to refer to it as such.
-
Evolution is a fact man. I give you the credit for realizing it's a scientific theory and not just a colloquial theory,as many ppl believe. But it is a fact. Evolution is both a fact and a scientific theory. Evolution is the change in gene frequency. Evolution by natural selection is the theory that explains the fact of change in the gene frequency.
-
A scientific fact cannot also be a theory ... Theorys aren't facts until proven ... Then once proven ... They are now a fact ... So they are no longer theorys ..
-
I am aware what evolution is. I am also not arguing whether it is true or not. The vast majority of evidence suggests that it is what governs life on earth. What I am arguing is the actual statement "evolution is a fact". Not what that statement, but the actual semantics and wording of the statement itself. Considering that the ability of scientific theses to be built on and disproved is an essential part of the scientific process, it is an incredibly important distinction to make
-
I guess I don't understand because I don't see any semantics at play. It seems straight forward to me.
-
It's simple: if a fact is something that is indisputably true, no scientific theory, even if it is true, can be case. This is because scientific theories are by their definition testable and falsifiable. They can be built upon and changed. If it is not falsifiable, it isn't a scientific theory. Even if evolution or gravity are never disproven, the possibility still exists. And as such, they are disputable, and therefore not facts. If the original statement was "it's not even a debate, evolution governs the development of life", I would have less of a problem with it. It would be even better of it was "it's not even a debate, evolution is the single best explanation we have on the origins of life", but that isn't nearly as simple a statement.
-
You're not understanding. The change in the gene frequency can be seen. It is a fact. We call that change in gene frequent evolution. That is why evolution is a fact. An observed occurrence. Then the theory comes in. It explain the fact we observe. Evolution by natural selection. That is what I'm talking about, that's why I don't see any semantics. All the definitions and meanings are there. Therefore evolution is a fact and a scientific theory.
-
The challenge with this idea is that when people refer to evolution, they generally mean the theory and the actual action, not one or the other. So while you specifically may mean the genetic changes that have been observed, many won't see it that way, and will respond or react accordingly.
-
Then they don't understand evolution. Theory's explain facts. That is the reason we have the theory of evolution. It is explaining evolution Lol. They go together
-
Theories explain observations, not facts. An observation is something like "this organism's genetic code is different from that of its ancestor." There is no "fact" of evolution. There is only a theory, which is humanity's best guess at explaining how life came to reach its current state
-
Edited by IamPluto: 3/18/2015 5:34:32 PM[quote]this organism's genetic code is different from that of its ancestor."[/quote] That would be the fact that's being observed.
-
Yes. But that observation is not evolution. That observation is exactly what is observed, no more, no less
-
That fact that is being observed, is what we call evolution. Gravity. Can be observed. Drop a pen and watch it "fall". That action is called gravity. The theory of gravity explains why/how that happens.
-
Not quite. That fact is an observation. Evolution would be the proposed process by which it happens. To use your example, the observation would be "things move towards objects with mass", not gravity, which is the proposed force that makes this event happen
-
No the theory of evolution would be the process by which it happens.
-
Evolution, as defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is "the process by which changes in plants and animals happen over time"
-
[quote]"the process by which changes in plants and animals happen over time"[/quote] Have I not been staying that? That is evolution. It is an observed fact. How it happens is explain by the theory of evolution. The theory explains that process..
-
No, you've been saying that observed differences in genetics when compared to previous generations is evolution. That is what is observable, and is not the process itself, which [i]is[/i] in essence the theory
