[video=youtube;-M1hxGj5bMg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M1hxGj5bMg[/video] Eugenie Scott explaining what fact, hypothesis, theory and law means in science. Thought I'd put it up since so many people on this website *cough* the religious *cough* are always trying to argue that scientific theories are just guesses and are waiting to be proven to become law.
I think the main issue is that some enlightened people understand that science is not infallable. And some people think it is.
The basic premise of science is that science is not infallible. That's why reliability and predictability are key issues. That's why scientists support the wide-spread availability of research so that it can be reviewed and tested. Sure, paradigms are certainly established that influence thinking, but eventually incorrect paradigms are disproved.
Corruption, intimidation, ego and the need to make a living is not factored in or acknowledged. Also--some branches of science are stricken with "group think". Thinking out of the box is simply not allowed.
And what does this have to do with using the correct terms. Sounds like you're trying to confuse the issue.
I've seen this related term thrown around without apparently knowing its meaning many a time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
Stop saying that. It's like saying that because there are hundreds of thousands of criminals in America we are a criminal country. In fact we have a system set up here that for the most part encourages people not behave criminally, despite the acts of a few. If you're going to condemns science because it's done by people then everything is rotten to the core. But if you pay some attention you'll see that the only catastrophic losses in knowledge or wholesale rejection of truths we now understand were always true comes not from science but from religion. The world is equally not the center of the universe today as when people were killing for saying so. And every single time some overhyped controversy erupts because someone fudged some data or took grant money despite know research would be fruitless it woud be wise to look further into each and every story and ask "who uncovered the shenanigans?" Scientists. Always scientists. Never the people who feign outrage over naturalism moral inferiority to the good book. When a scientist uncovers fraud he's not letting down science by going public, he's making science better and more accurate. But whenever someone starts to make noise about the illegitimacy of science scratch the surface and I guarantee you that person holds superstitious beliefs that are the opposite of rational or scientific. These people have an agenda. They want to diminish the respect science has and lower it to the level of alchemy because they are not interested in truth. Truth is the thing they're most afraid of, and reason, and evidence, and especially the idea that even asking those kinds of questions is something any decent person would consider. Get rid of science maybe nobody will think to ask for evidence, or want to believe in things because of the evidence, not in spite of its lack. Teach enough people that asking questions is wrong and these lunatics might have a chance. The only query these folks can get behind is an inquisition.
tell the wingnuts to go lay by their dish http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html for the basics
Well stated! This thread should be made a sticky so we can refer to it whenever anyone responds with "It's only a theory"!; or gives examples of iron rusting as a "proven" theory.
Thanks. I wish I hadn't typed it on an iPhone in the back of a cab, though. Between the missed words, dropped letters and other typos it's a little hard to take what I said very seriously. (edit) ...aaaaand it's too late to edit it, apparently. I don't know what to say except that I'd had a few ales.
This one is amazing. Freeman Dyson, a physicist-elder-statesman who worked on a wide range of seminal projects across different fields, from quantum electrodynamics to biology to the SETI project. Here, he gives an utterly charming and highly informative lecture about having lived through 4 different revolutions: Space Technology, Nuclear Energy, the Genome and the Computer Revolution. The site doesn't seem to support embedding here. Here's a link to the audio podcast version which is equally enjoyable - the video doesn't feature any graphics so it works fine in audio only. itunes podcast audio link