New poll on Global Warming

[boatmike]

Thanks to all those who gave an input to what the questions should be.
Here is the result of the input.

 

[vivace]

but guess what, doesn't matter what the vote is - either the science is right or wrong and no amount of voting will change it.

 

[savageseadog]

[ QUOTE ]
but guess what, doesn't matter what the vote is - either the science is right or wrong and no amount of voting will change it.

[/ QUOTE ]That's why I said don't know to everything except the last question to which I answered yes.

I will say that I think the science in favour of man made global warming is extremely flimsy and easily contradicted.

 

[DavenHelen]

[ QUOTE ]
but guess what, doesn't matter what the vote is - either the science is right or wrong and no amount of voting will change it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that is what Science is, a number of scientist looking at an issue/theory and agreeing/disagreeing with it. If they all agree then it is deemed to be "fact", if they disagree then it is rejected and if it is a bit of both then everyone argues about it.

 

[boatmike]

No, a theory or hypothesis is only deemed to be fact if it is proven.
Even the scientists who believe in the case still present it as a theory that has a great deal of data to support it, not yet a proven fact.

 

[chuckaduck]

[ QUOTE ]
but guess what, doesn't matter what the vote is - either the science is right or wrong and no amount of voting will change it.

[/ QUOTE ]

sCIENCE WHAT SCIENCE all this has ever been is conjecture with out any real scientific proof

 

[DavenHelen]

Hence " " round the fact. Most scientific "fact" is theories with a lot of supporting data which has been defended against peer review.

 

[[3889]]

A theory cannot be proven, only disproven. The longer it lasts without being disproved the more probable that it is correct.

 

[mono]

Hmm...are you sure? Do we deduce, on that basis, that Jesus WAS the son of God? It hasn't been disproved in more than 2,000 years. Darwinism, on the other hand, has only been around for about 150 years.

No, I rather think you have to offer something in the way of proof in support of your theories.

 

[cliffordpope]

The point about a good theory is that it should not only explain all the so-far observed facts, but should also be capable of making predictions about other events that have not yet occured or been tested. These can then be tested in turn, so subjecting the theory to continuing rigorous scrutiny. Until it fails, it remains a good theory.

If an event happens that is not in accordance with the theory, it means either the theory was wrong after all, or that it was partially correct but requires modifying.
Jesus being the son of God is not a theory, it is a fact or a belief, depending on your inclination. But it is useless as a theory because it says nothing beyond its own statement. Even if true, no further deducible facts follow from that, apart from more beliefs.

 

[mono]

You make the point well...but I was challenging the following post:[ QUOTE ]
A theory cannot be proven, only disproven.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't making an argument for Creationism - merely questioning the assumption of our pickled friend.

 

[boatmike]

Quite correct of course. I missed your perenthesis. There are very few scientifically "proven" facts. (Note my perenthesis) Often a theory can be supported by a mathematical or experimental "proof" but it was always impressed upon me when I did my degree in Physics (a long time ago) that the Newtonian universe is only valid within the boundaries of our knowledge of it. Science and philosophy sometimes knock on one anothers door. "Laws" of physics like the law of conservation of energy and matter, accepted before Einstein, had to be wre-written after the discovery of nuclear fission. Time, once taken as an absolute is now accepted as relative.... Actually thats what I meant to say. A fact is only a fact when it's proven and very few facts are proven absolutely. They are accepted as facts subject to further discovery within limits. Sorry I misunderstood you. That is indeed what you meant I think! The interesting thing in this case is that some people have taken a very polarised position on the basis of what I called a pseudo- religious attitude in the other post. This thread and the poll that started it are an attempt to see what the majority think in the absence of any proven facts.

 

[[3889]]

Jesus as the son of God is a hypothesis, not a theory, as there is no testable evidence producing predictable and repeated results, to support it . The theory of evolution is just that - theory that has not yet been disproved and even ardent supporters of it, myself included, accept this argument (and only this argument) against Darwinism when Creationists attempt to deconstruct it. In law there is a burden of proof: 50% in civil matters and beyond reasonable doubt in criminal trials. There is no defined proof for a theory - if it continues to resist efforts to disprove it it is valid. Newtonian gravitation did this for 300 years and is still used to good effect today. No scientist, however, would say the theory was proven and it has been disproven by relativity.

 

[mono]

This is in danger of becoming somewhat semantic. There are several interpretations of what is meant by 'theory'. I see no reason not to use the term in the context of religion - nor does the astrophysicist Bernard Haisch, who wrote a book called 'The God Theory'.

Interesting website here -
The God Theory

 

[stephenh]

Almost as good as Bertie Russells 'Celestial Teapot ' theory ..............!!!!!

 

[LymingtonPugwash]

Mono.... thank's for the link to the short intro video, it was very interesting and the book certainly seems worth a read!

 

[[3889]]

"In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation...In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis..."
Open University, Discovering Science Course S103.

Not semantics but the importance of precision in scientific language. I suspect Haisch's title was tongue in cheek.