- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why are theories on evolution, climate change, etc sacrosanct,
Posted on 4/1/17 at 10:00 am to Joshjrn
Posted on 4/1/17 at 10:00 am to Joshjrn
quote:
We now know that Newton's Law isn't nearly as "universal" as it claims to be, and we're not even certain if it's perfectly true in any circumstance, so it's status as "law" is tenuous at best.
The light came on about what you are talking about....I believe. It has more to do with whether it is universal or not? (Universal meaning that it fits all situations all the time, I am thinking?) Am I understanding you correctly?
Now...since we have both taken it down a notch (
) My point is that what we know today, and accept as fact today will change tomorrow. (Tomorrow meaning, well it could mean tomorrow or it could mean 400 years from now) Our information and understanding of information changes as time passes. In 400 years scientist will look at us much the same way we look at the great minds of science of 400 years ago. They were smart, and truly on to something, but naive and did not have all the information they truly needed, therefore some pf the things they thought of as fact were not.
As time passes, it is inevitable that much of what we accept as fact today will be thought of as naive and incomplete.
2
Posted on 4/1/17 at 10:19 am to DawgsLife
quote:
The light came on about what you are talking about....I believe. It has more to do with whether it is universal or not? (Universal meaning that it fits all situations all the time, I am thinking?) Am I understanding you correctly?
With Newton's law, yes, kind of?
A scientific law must perfectly describe the effects of a phenomenon within the constructs it claims to describe. Your law can be as specific as you want (within reason), but it has to be perfect within that construct. The problem with Newton's "law" is that it purported to be far more universal than is true, so at best, the application of his law has been substantially limited. The "kind of" I keep putting out is because we're so fricking clueless about gravity at this point that scientists are a bit hesitant to give anything the status of law at this point.
But you're absolutely right that the march of science is (for the most part) ever forward. There may come a time when future scientists look at our understanding of natural selection as absurdly simplistic. Hell, modern geneticists consider Darwin's proposed explanation for the mechanism of natural selection to be simplistic.
But while the mechanism will be refined and expanded in its complexity, it's almost absurdly unlikely at this point that one day we'll discover that our underlying understanding [1. That organisms change over time 2. And those changes are caused by some combination of genetic mutations and environmental pressures] is just dead wrong. Is it possible? Sure, I suppose, but again, almost absurdly unlikely.
But again, with all of this said, while intelligent people can discuss and debate the evidence for and against any explanation for natural phenomena, we need to kill with fire any argument predicated on "yeah but it's not a law!" if it pertains to explanations of cause, because once again, if it purports to explain cause, it can't be a law, by definition. I think if we can all accept that as a starting point, we'll get along much better
Posted on 4/1/17 at 10:24 am to DawgsLife
quote:
As time passes, it is inevitable that much of what we accept as fact today will be thought of as naive and incomplete.
Yes and no. The fact science is self correcting and there have, in the past, been times where it has corrected in large jumps, say from a earth centric to a heliocentric model of the solar system, in no way suggests that every and all scientific theories are bound to be overturned and THEREFORE we ought now give much weight to them because, after all, things have been over turned in the past. That's either a ruse to discredit a theory you don't happen to like, or a misunderstanding of what's actually happening.
It's a bit long and some find the narrator boring, but I've always loved this Issac Asimov piece on this topic. It's called The Relativity of Wrong. Enjoy.
LINK
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News