It's not "just a theory"!

[HazardYo]

Plenty of good information mixed in with the bad on the net, but it doesn't take much effort to find the correct answer.

It depends on what subject.
On the whole, yes, you can usually easily find the information you want to find.
But, especially when considering science, which is, for some reason, a highly controversial thing in the western world, you can find alot of sites which are simply wrong about what they say, yet popular enough to be listed by Google on the front page.

I had to take OP off my ignore list to see what it was about.. after reading it I still don't get what he wants to "debate" because it seems like he's telling us what it's like and there is no question or subject to discuss!

I was on your ignore list?

This thread is to talk about science, its importance for us and maybe how to fix the lack of scientific education in the western world, not just the USA (since people believe it is only a problem there), but everywhere.
The first step was to explain what a theory is. We may now discuss why it is important for others to know what the difference is.

[Datub]

The first law, or indeed any of the laws, of thermodynamics are not theories because they don't attempt to describe any sort of mechanism or provide an explanation for phenomena. They're essentially a concise statement describing previously observed results and usually only remain true for a limited range of applications. Scientific laws and scientific theories are two completely different things that perform completely different functions and it's not the case that a theory eventually becomes a law. A theory is the end point for a scientific explanation, it's as high as you can go.

okay i see what you want to say here and i agree to what you say BUT i have one question: one of newtons law is F = m*a isn't this a perfect explanation for the phenomena force, isn't mass multiplied by acceleration a valid explanation for the question what is force ?

edit: nvm forgot that newton's law isn't correct in all cases sorry
edit2: but is the part of the law saying that energy can only be changed in an other sort of energy, can't be destroyed or created an explanation or do you want your explanation's to go further to explain exactly why energy can't be destroyed or created, but can only change form (and in that case how)

[Deleted]

okay i see what you want to say here and i agree to what you say BUT i have one question: one of newtons law is F = m*a isn't this a perfect explanation for the phenomena force, isn't mass multiplied by acceleration a valid explanation for the question what is force ?

No, it's a valid explanation for how you calculate the force given the mass and acceleration (or indeed calculate the mass or acceleration if you are given the other two variables), i.e. it describes the relationship between the elements. It doesn't however describe any mechanism or provide an explanation for why that relationship is as it is.

edit2: but is the part of the law saying that energy can only be changed in an other sort of energy, can't be destroyed or created an explanation or do you want your explanation's to go further to explain exactly why energy can't be destroyed or created, but can only change form (and in that case how)

No, saying energy cannot be created or destroyed and can only be transformed from one state to another is not an explanation. An explanation does need to go on to explain why that is the case and how the mechanism for it being transformed from one state to another operates.

[Dariela]

Your trying to talk science and sense on a WoW forum?

Stay where you are, the men in the white coats will be there soon, they will take care of you. It will all be ok.

[HazardYo]

Stay where you are, the men in the white coats will be there soon, they will take care of you. It will all be ok.

Good.
I've been waiting for them for the last 10 years and wondered, why they didn't pick such a nutjob like myself up already :O

[haxartus]

This thread is to talk about science, its importance for us and maybe how to fix the lack of scientific education in the western world

The problem originates from the early school education. The system discourages kids from studying science due to the fear of being rejected from their social group as "nerds".

[Sneezeburger]

Yeah whatever, nerd. Here's a theory: you're dumb.

In all seriousness, excellent post OP.

[Datub]

No, saying energy cannot be created or destroyed and can only be transformed from one state to another is not an explanation. An explanation does need to go on to explain why that is the case and how the mechanism for it being transformed from one state to another operates.

those two thing's are extremely hard to explain, thats why i think the OP stated law's are the base for a theory
i mean try to explain why energy can't be destroyed

[HazardYo]

The problem originates from the early school education. The system discourages kids from studying science due to the fear of being rejected from their social group as "nerds".

Aren't nerds mainstream nowadays?
Surely, I have met alot of people who are nerds (like myself!) and are proud to be so, while also being accepted by everyone.
I think that the true problem seriously must lie somewhere else and that this was a problem of the past :P
Maybe people stopped dreaming and think too much about money and real-life advantages? One could argue that with the decline of NASA's space program, the western world lost a huge motor of inspiring people to learn about science and to achieve more in their life and for our whole species.

[Bethan]

The problem originates from the early school education. The system discourages kids from studying science due to the fear of being rejected from their social group as "nerds".

I've always been proud and totally assumed being considered as a nerd and able to beat everyone in maths & physics exams in my classroom, but then maybe it's just me... :P

edit : beaten to it by OP, at least I'm not the only one !

[nixcookies]

Agreed. Having done quite a lot of studies, It always make me cry inside when I hear someone say "I don't like math" while they don't know at all what they're talking about.

No offence but you sound like an elitist ass-hole. Not everyone has to like maths, it is their opinion it's not your place to say if they're right or wrong, they don't like it simple as. Also what's wrong if a person decides not to go down the academic route?

OT:

Yeah but even if these theories are based on some kind of fact or research, they often prove wrong and get amended all the time. In my opinion they are just theories because the way science decides if it is a fact is by offering up a theory and its up to science to prove him wrong not him that has to prove himself right. Thus it's quite fair to say that they are nothing but theories and science will take them as fact until someone can prove it wrong.

I partially agree with this, however I think the scientific community is a lot more critical on suggested theories and are not naive enough to accept them at face value.

The problem originates from the early school education. The system discourages kids from studying science due to the fear of being rejected from their social group as "nerds".

Don't you think this is just a stereotype? In the school I went to that culture never existed, you where encouraged to study hard. Although I have only studied in England, don't you think that stereotype is a little dated? Most people I knew didn't care what their labels where, they just done what they enjoyed the most.

[Deleted]

Oh lord, type in "science" and "theory" and you get tons of sites with different definitions, all saying something entirely different.
Sure, some are religiously motivated, some are simply wrong, some are correct, but those are hard to find.

Too many people use the Internet as their only source of knowledge nowadays (never heard of a library?), and the Internet offers too much... false information, let's call it that way :P

I don't completely agree with your last statement. While it is true that there is incorrect information on the net, I don't think you can say there is MORE incorrect info. Things can be written false in books as well. The key is to read sources that you can trust, use websites that are directly linked with the subject you are searching.

My point is that books are just a physical catalogue of information. The internet is a virtual catalogue of information. Both can be wrong, both can be right. In both situations you need to make sure you are looking at the right Book/Website if you want to ensure you are looking at the right stuff.

The difference in books and the internet is freedom. People only went to get books if they knew what they were looking for otherwise it would be time wasting. So they knew from the get-go what book they wanted (Or at least which section). With information just a few key presses away on the internet, people search more freely for things they wouldn't usually. Maybe things they don't understand. I think in some occasions, context is key.

[Sneezeburger]

Aren't nerds mainstream nowadays?

I'm convinced that nerds and jocks never existed outside of bad 1980s teen movies. When you talk to most people about science or politics or anything else traditionally associated with "nerd culture," there's rarely any judgment on the part of the person with whom you are conversing. In my experience, the response in 90% of cases is something along the lines of "don't care lol," and that's the end of it.

[Deleted]

those two thing's are extremely hard to explain, thats why i think the OP stated law's are the base for a theory
i mean try to explain why energy can't be destroyed

I don't think anyone's disputing that scientific laws can be, and are, used in theories. It'd be crazy to have a situation where they couldn't be. But it still remains the case that a scientific theory is a different thing to a scientific law and theories don't become laws and vice versa.

[HazardYo]

I don't completely agree with your last statement. While it is true that there is incorrect information on the net, I don't think you can say there is MORE incorrect info.

I further explained it later on in one of my posts.
It is usually true that you can instantly find something correct on the Interwebz.
It is although also true that you can find bull on the Internet about things which are too controversial, especially if you type in anything about a "Theory". Let's not talk about "Big Bang" and "Evolution" :P
The shitstorm those things cause on the Internet is astounding.

[Zathrendar]

Good post. People tend to throw around the word "theory", completely oblivious to just how potent its meaning is.

[makak]

Too many people use the Internet as their only source of knowledge nowadays (never heard of a library?), and the Internet offers too much... false information, let's call it that way :P

hmmmm...... when i read this and go to 1st post of this tread and look where im at the moment it make shit in my head (you cant claim that internet is full of bs while trying to prove something there :P because some of those sites (even if they are bs) have more scientific background than random guy on random wow forum :P )

but seriously for me biggest problem with scientific theories is that some of htem are bassed on things we know shit about like alot of astronomic theoreis are based on existence of Dark matter that we know so small about that we are trying to make theoreis that dont base on it :P

and well sciensific theories arent called theories only because "theory" sound cool :P well they have alout research behind them and all but they can still occur to be false after some time and sciencist that made them know about it and that why they call them "theory"

and you cant rly say that sciensific theories are true if there is chance that in future they wont because it cant be true today and not true tommorow it's contradiction because it mean that it was never true

[killzwitch]

Totally agree with you OP, and perhaps my point is more philisophical than it is scientific but the 'facts' as you mention can never truely be 100% facts as we know it. It was always explained to me that there is a non-zero possiblity of ANYTHING happening, my arm suddenly dissapearing, my cancer going into remission or gravity flipping out, when creating any scientific theory you must always be mindful that factors which are currently a mystery to science (ie particle theories) can and will affect the fact you are trying to achieve.

Hopefully the below img explains this slightly better.



1. Standard Theory: This can be made by anyone, it is a fairly simple analysis of the situation and given minimal evidence a hypothisis on future such events can be made.
2. Scientific Theory: The difference here for me is an analysis of the situation and all controlled and uncontrolled factors, done via testing and investigations, you basically cover 99% of the Earths knowledge, leaving small holes in your theories due to small gaps in physics.
3. Fact: This to me could be an impossibility, we may never know 100% of everything (you can't guarantee we ever will or wont ;D). Ignoring numerical fact, anything we feel via our senses cannot be assured, Red for some is grey to others is green to others etc. When I used to referee fights in Martial Arts (4 refs) we were all told "There is no fact, there is no 'that punch defintely hit his head' there is only what you believe you saw, that is all we can go by" - I liked that, although I'm pretty sure a bloody broken nose means something hit something!

Enjoyed your post OP, something different it is important to isolate the differences between theory and scientific theory (which is regarded as fact) and then the true fact - which we will most likely never know for sure.

Doubting something tends to just show you have a believe in something else.

[HazardYo]

and you cant rly say that sciensific theories are true if there is chance that in future they wont because it cant be true today and not true tommorow it's contradiction because it mean that it was never true

We ourselves decide what facts are, what is true and what not.
If we have no better explanation for an observation, the one that fits it best at any given time is called "fact" and is therefore true, unless we find new evidence that points into a different direction.

What you refer to is a real fact, something eternally true.
That, we may never know of.

*post*

A great read, I really enjoyed it.
And yes, that is what I was trying to say.

May I quote and add everything to my initial post? Since it perfectly describes what a real fact and a scientific fact is?

[Zathrendar]

and you cant rly say that sciensific theories are true if there is chance that in future they wont because it cant be true today and not true tommorow it's contradiction because it mean that it was never true

Depends on how you define "knowledge". Just because something -might- be false doesn't mean it can't be called true, especially since a theory is something that gives either certain or at least very good grounds for thinking something is true, and that's what matters. When most people toss about the word "theory", they mean something in line with hypothesis, or worse yet, a mere guess.