- 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 10:19 am to DawgsLife
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 10:27 am to Joshjrn
Thanks for a mostly civil conversation!
I think the main point I was trying to make got lost, (At least by most in the thread, however, you picked up on it. Everything changes in regards to science.
In all honesty, I was merely reacting to some who argue that the science of Climate Change is settled....when, in fact, rarely is ever "settled" and with a subject as new as climate change, it is nowhere near being settled.
HOWEVER, Climate Change is an entirely different subject and I don't have the time nor inclination to go into another argument!
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News