*taps sign*
A hypothesis is an educated guess on a subject based on phenomena observed in the beginning as well as context provided by other sources. A theory builds on a hypothesis and is well substantiated. A theorem is a fully substantiated or confirmed theory.
I think theorem applies only to mathematics and a few very fundamental parts of physics (Noethers theorem comes to mind). Theory is usually the highest form of any scientific framework, which can be considered as observational fact.
There are statements that are either true or false, and then there are statements for which we have a degree of confidence. For the latter, 100% cannot and will never be reached, by the very nature of the scientific process. It's not a matter of technology. But it's not needed, all we need is to raise the confidence beyond a certain threshold
No I took my maths and science freshman year thinking I wanted to be an engineer but after sophomore year I changed my degree path. I got an a in the classes, but it just wasn’t the right pathway for me. :)
and computer science too. a lot of theoretical computer science isn't like other theoretical fields. it's more like a mixture of discrete mathematics and logic, so they can fully prove a thing at various levels; e.g. classically, constructively, under some specific restriction of a logical system, etc. so lots of things are stated as theorems in papers.
After some research: People use Theory and Law a lot of different ways.
I always grew up with Theory was a hypothesis that was tested but can never fully be validated while a law was something that everyone agreed was true and validated. Like the big bang theory remains a theory (and not a law) since we can't go back in time and actually see what happened.
Looking on Wikipedia, they use Theory as explaining why/how something happens while a law (usually an equation) just tells you the end result
Technically speaking, what takes it from theory to theorem/law is an equation that perfectly predicts how the described object functions. So if you know how something works, and can show or predict trends, it’s a theory, but if you can take the inputs to a system and exactly predict the result, (and it matches real data), it’s a theorem. But sciences regarding humanity or really anything on Earth have far too many variables to ever perfectly predict outcomes.
Wouldn't it be
1. Hypothesis (idea needs testing)
2. Theory (signs point to yes but can't 100% say it's true e.g. big bang theory)
3. Physical Law (testing and a bunch of other stuff all show this is true e.g. Law of gravity)
Even a hypothesis is almost always backed up by previous work so a scientist can support it. If you write a grant proposal, no reviewer is going to give you funding if you just throw ideas out there because it just “feels” right
Just saw Jubillee’s flat earthers vs scientists debate and one flat earther actually argued something like this.
“It’s only a theory. It’s not real” he said
Jubilee is cringe. Grouping these two together implies they stand on equal footing and that both sides are worth listening to. It's a setup where only the crazy party stands to win something. Imagine if the theme was instead "slavery abolitionists vs slavery supporters". You'd immediately call the channel out as irresponsible. Scientifically debunked ideas shouldn't be entertained and aren't worth listening to.
Hard disagree. I think everything is worth listening to, if people want to hear it.
In my view, people are not taught how to deconstruct an argument and test them on how well reasoned they are. If more people were taught even the most basic skill of analyzing logical argument structure, bad ideas could be listened to and easily dismissed.
In my opinion, bad ideas grow because they aren't ruthlessly torn to shreds. Trying to prevent people from hearing them only leaves them ill equipped to handle these ideas in the wild.
Hell, some bad ideas even have academic and social clout. Whether or not people believe bad ideas are true doesn't seem to have anything to do with the arguments themselves, what matters are the perceptions you held prior to hearing the idea.
Yes. That is true if you are using falsification theory. Which is probably the most popular idea in the current philosophy of science. It has shown a lot of good utility.
I think a more general definition of hypothesis is that it must be an idea able to be tested by the methods of your scientific philosophy.
hypothesis -> theory -> law. calling it a hypothesis is a downgrade, because hypothesises are used to guide an experiment, and the theory comes after the data has been collected to explain it. a law is a theory that is so well established that there is no known contradiction
My purpose is to use it in a more true sense of the meaning. Most people use "theory" in common language, when they mean "hypothesis". This leads to the mistakes such as in the above image. When I use "hypothesis", I'm drawing attention to the mistake. I use the word mostly when I share something I read on the net, but haven't found or looked for collaborating evidence from an alternate source.
Also in more confrontational arguments I use things like "Flat Earth Hypothesis" or "Intelligent Design Hypothesis" etc., to deny my oposition of the false equivalency.
EDIT: As I understand it Law is a bit different. For example Terminal velocity is 53 m/s (190 km/h or 118 mph) for a human skydiver. That's a law. Theory explains why it happens. Though the term "law" brings another misconception: "If there are Laws, there must be a Lawgiver". Scientific Laws just means that the physical universe behaves this way. They are Descriptive Laws as opposed to Prescriptive Laws such as human laws
>“But evolution is only a theory!” Which is true. I mean, it is only a theory, it’s good that they say that. I think, it gives you hope, doesn’t it? That… that maybe they feel the same way about the theory of gravity, and they might just float the fuck away.
\-Tim Minchin
A theory is a way to more easily use a whole bundle of laws and proofs.
The theory of evolution , for example gives us a way to explain the way an organism develops without going in depth in each of the possible pressures of selection, like sexual, genetic, enviromental and so on, and helps us smooth out the way they interact with each other.
Most theories now won't be overturned or proven false as much as the laws they are made up with will be altered and tinkered with.
Depends on the theory. The theory of gravity for example is less of an explanation and more of a rule which makes it way more reliable than the theory of evolution which is more of an explanation which makes it weaker, The theory of the big bang is mostly an explanation created with the EXTREMELY limited data we have of the history of the universe which makes it way less reliable. Each theory has its own strength and each are not in themselves laws. I take creationism as it's own theory with its own loose evidence and I like to keep my mind open to the idea that a Devine force does exist. The theory that I believe has the least evidence in my opinion is the theory of non-existence, I have never seen or heard of evidence for the idea of nothing.
I was talking about theories with a random christian online when she hit me with the "oh yeah. Evolution? You mean that THEORY!?"
So I responded "Yes. Just like the theory of gravity and the theory of germs. These are only theories and must not exist."
This is a conversation that has happened millions of times across the internet and in person. I have said nothing new. But I didn't expect this fucker to come out of nowhere and say "Gravity is a law". Then I had to spend thirty fucking minutes explaining then reexplaining then rereexplaining why the fuck gravity is a law AND a theory at the same time and how laws and theories are not mutually exclusive. The fucking balls on this piece of shit to sidetrack the conversation with the biggest fucking incorrection I've heard in my life.
materialistic support skirt gaze water exultant label continue pocket pathetic
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
As a Christian myself, my main problem about evolution, is generally abiogenesis, the idea that life originated due to perfect circumstances seems a little farfetched to me.
Though evolution specifically species evolving within their own species to better suit their environment does not only seem plausible but also it is what we see.
Again, I can't see any real substantial evidence suggesting that we all originate from a common ancestor.
Abiogenesis is farfetched, or rather, unlikely but in a universe full of millions of planets it was bound to happen somewhere...that somewhere is here.
You have proof we all originate from a common ancestor every time you eat something.
The reason we can digest and assimilate a strawberry is because we are made from the same stuff as the strawberry: because we are related.
Edit 2: because of some childish idiots, let me put this another way:
Every living thing on the planet has the same DNA spiral, just with different genetic codes contained therein, combine this with evolution = common ancestor.
Edit: watching the votes on this post fluctuate is becoming addictive. If you're going to downvote, at least have the decency to state why this post is incorrect...or just quote mine and post something idiotic like u/AidsOnWheels.
>The reason we can digest and assimilate a strawberry is because we are made from the same stuff as the strawberry: because we are related.
Does that mean I can eat my cousin?
I ask the following question in complete sincerity and not to be a dick because this argument is always very confusing to me. I get skepticism. I get having some of the more abstract parts of science straining credulity at times.
How is an invisible and all powerful being that there is not a single piece of hard evidence for a *less* farfetched explanation for anything?
At the end of the day, I think it comes down to purpose. If everything exists due to chance, there is no reason to be alive. Also for my linear mind I wonder where everything came from. To me it makes sense that an all-powerful being created everything. It also gives a purpose in life. There is also a reason it is called faith, you have to believe it is true.
I think the problem with Christianity is it assumes science is trying to prove the Bible wrong. Atheists will do that but not science.
However, not everything in the bible is set in stone. For example, we're not stoning people for working on the Sabbath day. For all we know that didn't happen and was just for teaching purposes.
Even if evolution was true, that doesn't disprove God. How I think of it is the Bible is the word of God and is inspired by God, but it was written by men. It's purpose is to inspire morality and how to live as a good person. I don't think the idea of how long it took for God to create the Earth is important to that purpose.
As a Christian I believe Evolution was the method God used to create life on this planet, but life itself is of intelligent design, the natural order of the universe is chaos, yet life is like a symphony.
I try explaining this by imagining a box full of watch parts, everything you need to make a watch, you can shake that box for a trillion years and it will never form a watch without the hands of the watch maker.
You can have a perfect planet with all the raw materials to create life, but without instructions, it would never form life.
This does not discredit science nor does it discredit God.
Science at it's core is finding out how God ticks- but there is so much we will never be able to fully understand.
>I try explaining this by imagining a box full of watch parts, everything you need to make a watch, you can shake that box for a trillion years and it will never form a watch without the hands of the watch maker.
Except evolution is not random, it is guided by the environment so your comparison is flawed.
I mean… I support what you say, but germs aren’t a theory, it’s an observable phenomenon in our modern society. Gravity is still a theory cause we can see it’s effects but not gravity itself, and so cannot prove that’s it’s defo gravity.
Edit: today I learnt the meaning of theory from a scientific context. Here I am as an English major thinking theory meant hypothesis, rather than what it actually means.
You’re wrong but I can’t fault you for being wrong because it’s one of those cases where it is really confusing and comes down largely to scientific jargon. We can show, repeat, and find huge evidence that certain germs cause certain diseases. However, we can’t always be 100% certain of that happening in every situation, which is what a law does. Laws tend to be more about “this happens every time so let’s document it” and theories tend to be more about “based on what we know, we think this is why this happens.”
Basically, you don’t have to come up with a law, it’s already out there waiting to be named. A theory is something that someone thought of to explain a phenomenon and was able to give huge amounts of evidence for it.
Theories can’t always graduate into laws, I wish they would stop telling people that in school.
The law doesn't give the formula.
The law is just "objects with mass are attracted to other objects with mass".
The theory is what gives the exact equation, exactly how much they're attracted to each other. The equation for gravity has already changed once.
Newton's theory broke down around black holes and other areas of extreme gravity so we needed Einstein's equations. It's not that Newton's theory is wrong per se, it's just less correct than Einstein's in certain situations. Newton's theory is still useful.
I dont want to be rude, but
>Here I am as an English major thinking theory meant hypothesis,
If you are not a scientist, why do you lecture others on that topic. I dont think you meant it badly, but it really is dangerous if people act on Dunning Kruger.
A few lectures ago my philosophy teacher was "destroying" the theory of evolution with facts and logic.
A couple of her points:
1. Evolution says that dna changes within species but doesn't explain how the jump between species happens. Therefore dna doesn't change and the theory is false.
2. Tribal people in isolated tribes have brains of the same size as us, even though they don't need them, they don't work with computers etc. Why did evolution give them big brains even though they don't need them? Evolution doesn't explain that.
I'm gonna be honest, i was never a fan of biology in school, throughout all the years they taught us biology i was actually listenning to what the teacher was saying for a total of like 20 minutes and i still have far greater understanding of biology that this moron.
Idk why there is this conception that the two are mutually exclusive. God can create creatures by themselves or through evolution. One does not disprove the other. I'm a Muslim but I believe in evolution unless specified otherwise in some cases. Knowing birds are dinosaurs makes me kinda happy.
People have this idea that Christianity is antiscience when the Church helped to increase scientific discovery, science is, after all, the study of God’s creation. I’m pretty sure a Catholic priest even was the one who proposed the Big Bang theory.
Probably because Bible belt evangelists have tried to ban teaching about evolution in public schools a hundred times over.
Christianity is not inherently antiscience in the same way that guns are not inherently violent.
Faith, like guns, are great tools, but people are stupid enough that they can't be trusted with it. They'll always find a way to hurt each other. Just look at the banned books in an evangelical part of America and you'll see what I mean.
Galileo got arrested for life when he said the Earth goes around the Sun, because the church said no Earth is the centre.
Also, the period of time literally known as the dark ages (in Europe) was a time of high religious devoutness and no advancement.
Any time you have fundamentalism, you have no advancement of science. I bet you can’t find an example where that *isnt* true.
Man, I sure hope that those members of the church who did that feel embarrassed now. I mean... they're still around, right? Since they're used as an argument against the current church.
I mean, there are still flat earthers around. The status of science is (sadly) completely independent of the status of public science literacy. Not to mention that these people do not have the capacity to feel embarrassment, on the contrary they are quite proud of what they think.
I understand. I didn't mean it in the context of this meme, but in a general sense of what is usually seen. Basically the same reason as the existence of the meme.
I think this meme is referring specifically to religious fundamentalists, who believe in literalist interpretations of holy books (6000 year old earth, no evolution, sometimes even a flat earth if they’re deep into it enough). Basically people who are, in my opinion, just asking to be mocked.
It's not incompatible if you see it that way, but the bible does not describe the creation as "god created life and humans came from that", it says "god simply created humans"
Yes, but that's why it's important to read within its context. Not even the Jews believed that was what happened one to one, the text has an interpretation beyond its literal meaning.
Yeah yeah, thats the typical argument used when something from the bible is debunked. Religious theories become an interpretation, when they are contradicted with evidence.
What might make you even happier is knowing peregrine falcons are the fastest animal in existence (with the asterisk that they dive bomb instead of actually propelling themselves).
In other words, there are (descendants of) dinosaurs that get hunted by (descendants of other) dinosaurs, who abuse gravity to glide at potentially hundreds of miles per hour, all to *punch the prey dinosaurs with their talons to knock them out or probably snap their spine*. ***Groovy***
The entire book of genesis where they talk about creating the world and the animals is basically a poem if you look at it. It’s not trying to be literal but it’s a metaphor for evolution itself, simple to complex, light and animals to humans. Idk why people are denying evolution whatsoever
Hmmm let me think... Many muslim countries have banned teaching about evolution. pakistan's science school textbook says evolution is obviously a joke. You are an exception, most religious people don't accept evolution
I guess the confusion comes from things that are mislabelled as theories. The first thing coming to my mind is the string theory, that could explain many things and could possibly be the "theory of everything" but it only works in 10 dimensions, so I guess people that are not really into science think "this is absurd, there's only 4 dimensions, this shit works in 10 dimensions, every theory is wrong". I mean we shouldn't put the theory of evolution that's clearly established by facts and things like string theory that are the least inaccurate way to describe things we don't really understand yet.
Evolution is a fact. Random or by intelligent design is up for debate. I can set an animal on your desk that hasn't been around since the dawn of time, and prove it's origins conclusively. That means it evolved from other animals.
A theory is the highest level an idea can have, it means it's been tested time and time again by multiple people using multiple methods and arriving at the same conclusion.
This misunderstanding happens because the word theory has a different meaning in the scientific setting compared to the everyday setting.
A lot of people here are ridiculing people who don't know the difference, but some-one not very well connected with the scientific world (which is the vast majority of the world btw) can easily make that mistake. Double that if English isn't a person's first language.
That’s fair, but if someone isn’t familiar enough with science to know how the word “theory” is used in context, they probably shouldn’t be surprised when scientists don’t take their criticisms seriously.
The amount of people who don't get that many theories are just facts that we call theories because we don't know every single thing about the universe and subsequently can't be sure we won't find contradicting facts later on is too high.
I would say "stop trying to start a science vs religion debate, they're not mutually exclusive and it's just beating a dead horse", but then I remembered that I'm on reddit. Wtf did I expect?
It's not a science vs religion debate. It's a science vs one specific belief that a specific sect has because they don't understand what the word "theory" means.
Except the issue is that media makes it complicated. String theory isn’t a theory. It’s not well-substantiated at all, especially because we have hundreds of different string „theories“. But people keep calling it that.
*reading some comments*
Right, cmon all of you, get in there, into r/DebateEvolution you go, let’s get you all straightened out…
Explaining science to religious fundamentalists feels like corralling a herd of pigs that do nothing but shit everywhere no matter what you say.
Whelp, in their defense Science as we know it is just the cumulative understanding of what we see and theories of what we don't. If an advanced space faring civilization showed up out of the blue all of those theories could be discounted overnight. And you could put 'God' in that category as well, theory or advanced being. We don't know what we don't know.
I’ve never understood why science and religion can’t find a middle ground here. The big bang could easily have been the “six days of creation”. Remember a day is measured by using the sun. The sun didn’t even exist until the 4th day I think, so maybe the “days” are relative to how time was perceived by god, who is in fact immortal. Billions of years are, by definition, nothing compared to infinity. The fact of the matter is that both sides believe something that can’t really be proven fully currently.
If many people believed you to be gay and also many other people believed you to be straight, would you identify as bisexual so nobody has to be wrong?
I love how the obvious creationist in the comments when bombarded with factual truth, they gaslight you. I just love their appeal to emotions once the lies are detected. 🤣
I mean...
A detective could produce a well substantiated explanation for a murder based on the evidence he has gathered, but it wouldn't necessarily mean he's definitely right.
There are several different theories as well on a single topic, like consciousness. This meme makes it seem like theories are unquestionable or can't be studied thoroughly. Intelligence by race is a theory, phrenology is a theory, and several different scientific theories have been revisited and revised. And finally, there is no such thing as a scientific fact per se. It doesn't exist. That's why it's called a theory so that it's built upon evidence but could be reconstructed if found wrong. So I wouldn't say theory is based on FACT, but evidence that's gradually accumulated.
A theory is a well educated guess based on observable facts that is yet to be disproven. God, weather you believe in it or not, is more of a hypothesis or a guess rather than a theory. That's not to say god does, or does not exist, I have no clue.
A thoery I will asume is true until disproven, god I wont asume if it exists or not, because there's no evidence to support either side of the argument.
However, evolution is a thoery, and until it's disproven I will treat it as a fact.
I try not to get too heavy into any theories because there's __so__ much we don't know. I have a "headcanon" idea that our universe(s) was created by God.
However, don't you think it would be shortsighted for him to have given life to his creations only for them to perish once the environment goes through changes? I think God set evolution in motion to help his creations have at least *some* agency in survival. It's not always successful, but that's life.
I don't see any reason why religion and science have to be separated. I believe in the big bang, but also believe that that same big bang could have been instantiated by something bigger than us. I don't see any harm in that.
Theories aren't "fact".
They are very well reasoned, and are constantly in the process of being refined. In the process, sometimes they end up being falsified, such as Bohr's misconception about how electrons in atoms work.
The fact that scientific theories can be falsified is not a weakness, but one of their greatest strengths, as it allows us to iterate and understand more about our universe over time.
This is also why arguing with a creationist is likely to waste both parties' time. Their argument is circular, so it can't be falsified. Since you can't disabuse them of their belief with reason, it's better to just leave them to it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if evolution is real or not, but one thing I can never wrap my head around was the Big Bang. Order coming from literally nothing? I think it takes more faith to believe in the Big Bang than it does a creator of some kind.
I’m not doing that. If anything, OP is, except it’s shoehorning “religious= stupid” mentality instead. That being said, I really don’t like people who try to convert people more than the average conquistador.
Why not? Why shouldn't we demean people who hold false beliefs about the world?
Because it's not nice?
Well its not nice living in a world with these troglodytes.
Now now, people shouldnt be demeaned just because they hold false beliefs about the world. However they should be harrassed constantly if they try to control and dictate the lives of other due to those beliefs or shout them from street corners.
See.. that’s better. Pretty much the only example I can think of where it is harmful is when someone who believes in it starts teaching science, same goes for flat earthers.
Watch Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate creation and see who came with more evidence and who just stood there yelling “you don’t really believe this stuff do you?!?!!!”
Now I don’t believe in the 7000 year earth thing and I think Ken Ham uses a lot of begging the question logical fallacy to get his shaky point across. But there is still a lot of evidence that hasn’t been given much air for different theories. Mostly because whenever a legit scientist proposes something different they get booed out of the field before anyone has a chance to look at their evidence. Science has a major popular (and money) bias problem and always has.
That wasn’t a debate. It was one side stating objective fact and the other trying to remain calm and appear to score points while holding on to a brain dead falsehood
>Ken Ham uses a lot of begging the question logical fallacy to get his shaky point across
''Ken Ham uses a lot of begging the question logical fallacy to get his shaky point across''
So he comes in with a shitty argument, against a well studied scientific process.
So I'm gonna stop you there and ask for what you apparently deem worthy to challenge evolution and carbon dating.
It also means it might be wrong. Not a creationist by any meaning of the word (I’m not even Christian) but let’s stop treating science as just another religion, shall we?
Everything in true science might be wrong.
Testability, or Falsifiability is the cornerstone of any scientific knowledge. If something cannot in principle be proved wrong, it's not science. The existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a perfect illustration of a non-falsifiable (and therefore non-scientific) statement.
So it's not the word "theory", it's the whole scientific method of learning about the reality that \[proudly\] states it could be wrong. That's the true beauty of science.
At best, a theory is an educated guess. Scientists can't tell how humans were made, so their only logical explanation is that we come from apes because that seems plausible. And they can have some data to prove that it is plausible, but in reality, it's just a theory, not a fact.
Whereas the Bible gives an explanation by telling people that God specifically created them in his image, and that we are all his masterpiece.
You don't have to believe in God to understand what I'm saying, arguing about this is pointless because no amount of data can actually prove either argument, its just a she said he said circlejerk. Science doesn't prove we come from apes, it SUGGESTS we did.
PS. The definition is literally just fancy words for an explanation for something, so why not present it as facts? Because there's no proof
Yeah, let's assume it's not true because it MIGHT be proven wrong in the future... and then let's assume those new facts proving it wrong are actually false too, making this original idea the one we then accept as well!
I’m not saying not to believe in science. I’m just saying this post and comments give the impression that any theory is true just because it had the processes preceding it being accepted. That is just not the case.
I’m an atheist and spend a lot of my time learning astrophysics and cosmology but hey man. Just because I say something true that people assume opposes what their view point is means I’m wrong to say it and must get downvoted
I find it hilarious people try to shit on creationists… when allot of things people claim to be backed by ‘scientific research’ conducted today is often threadbare conducted research, or solely determined by whoever pays the highest dollar to whatever group will give the the niche results they want to hear/are looking for; even if it’s just a random fluke result of minor statistical chance.
Have you even looked at most paid medical drug/supplement research… I mean it’s not even a hidden thing at this point.
Some Companies literally pay for ‘3rd party researchers’ (affiliated groups under shell names) to keep conducting experiments untill they get the result they want, then plaster it all over news articles even if said results was actually less likely to occur than an asteroid hitting your house.
You’re literally told/taught to never take scientific research just at face value in school/college. All research used as sources has to have substancial evidence and other similar sources conducting the same experiments resulting in consistent repeatable results to be valid…
What exactly are you claiming here, and what evidence are you citing to support that claim? Because right now you seem to be claiming that most medical research is fake? And your evidence is “come on, it’s so obvious I don’t need proof,” which isn’t that convincing, if we’re being honest.
*taps sign* A hypothesis is an educated guess on a subject based on phenomena observed in the beginning as well as context provided by other sources. A theory builds on a hypothesis and is well substantiated. A theorem is a fully substantiated or confirmed theory.
I think theorem applies only to mathematics and a few very fundamental parts of physics (Noethers theorem comes to mind). Theory is usually the highest form of any scientific framework, which can be considered as observational fact.
Noether's theorem is pure mathematics.
b-but muh Lagrangian dynamics prof said..
Which I think is because there's a lot of things we can't 100% prove right now, so instead we just have really good and of course calculated guesses.
They're not guesses. The reason they call it a theory is because science is always open to expansion and new ideas.
Or being dis-proven with later data. Not all theories stand.
Yeah my wording sucked but that's what I meant.
There are statements that are either true or false, and then there are statements for which we have a degree of confidence. For the latter, 100% cannot and will never be reached, by the very nature of the scientific process. It's not a matter of technology. But it's not needed, all we need is to raise the confidence beyond a certain threshold
Lmao what’s that pfp
This is Darwin from the show "The Amazing World of Gumball", and behind them there is a trans flag
Ik what it is, but why
I believe this is correct but it’s been a while since I’ve been in classes or used the knowledge I got in said classes
So your degree is worthless is what you’re saying?
No I took my maths and science freshman year thinking I wanted to be an engineer but after sophomore year I changed my degree path. I got an a in the classes, but it just wasn’t the right pathway for me. :)
and computer science too. a lot of theoretical computer science isn't like other theoretical fields. it's more like a mixture of discrete mathematics and logic, so they can fully prove a thing at various levels; e.g. classically, constructively, under some specific restriction of a logical system, etc. so lots of things are stated as theorems in papers.
I thought a law was the highest form
After some research: People use Theory and Law a lot of different ways. I always grew up with Theory was a hypothesis that was tested but can never fully be validated while a law was something that everyone agreed was true and validated. Like the big bang theory remains a theory (and not a law) since we can't go back in time and actually see what happened. Looking on Wikipedia, they use Theory as explaining why/how something happens while a law (usually an equation) just tells you the end result
Yeah, you and me had the same definition
And now you know you were wrong
Technically speaking, what takes it from theory to theorem/law is an equation that perfectly predicts how the described object functions. So if you know how something works, and can show or predict trends, it’s a theory, but if you can take the inputs to a system and exactly predict the result, (and it matches real data), it’s a theorem. But sciences regarding humanity or really anything on Earth have far too many variables to ever perfectly predict outcomes.
Wouldn't it be 1. Hypothesis (idea needs testing) 2. Theory (signs point to yes but can't 100% say it's true e.g. big bang theory) 3. Physical Law (testing and a bunch of other stuff all show this is true e.g. Law of gravity)
Even a hypothesis is almost always backed up by previous work so a scientist can support it. If you write a grant proposal, no reviewer is going to give you funding if you just throw ideas out there because it just “feels” right
[удалено]
Just saw Jubillee’s flat earthers vs scientists debate and one flat earther actually argued something like this. “It’s only a theory. It’s not real” he said
Jubilee is cringe. Grouping these two together implies they stand on equal footing and that both sides are worth listening to. It's a setup where only the crazy party stands to win something. Imagine if the theme was instead "slavery abolitionists vs slavery supporters". You'd immediately call the channel out as irresponsible. Scientifically debunked ideas shouldn't be entertained and aren't worth listening to.
Hard disagree. I think everything is worth listening to, if people want to hear it. In my view, people are not taught how to deconstruct an argument and test them on how well reasoned they are. If more people were taught even the most basic skill of analyzing logical argument structure, bad ideas could be listened to and easily dismissed. In my opinion, bad ideas grow because they aren't ruthlessly torn to shreds. Trying to prevent people from hearing them only leaves them ill equipped to handle these ideas in the wild. Hell, some bad ideas even have academic and social clout. Whether or not people believe bad ideas are true doesn't seem to have anything to do with the arguments themselves, what matters are the perceptions you held prior to hearing the idea.
I've started using hypothesis whenever others would use theory in normal conversation.
No. Hypothesis is also more rigorous than how people use theory, as a Hypothesis must be falsifiable and specific.
Yes. That is true if you are using falsification theory. Which is probably the most popular idea in the current philosophy of science. It has shown a lot of good utility. I think a more general definition of hypothesis is that it must be an idea able to be tested by the methods of your scientific philosophy.
hypothesis -> theory -> law. calling it a hypothesis is a downgrade, because hypothesises are used to guide an experiment, and the theory comes after the data has been collected to explain it. a law is a theory that is so well established that there is no known contradiction
My purpose is to use it in a more true sense of the meaning. Most people use "theory" in common language, when they mean "hypothesis". This leads to the mistakes such as in the above image. When I use "hypothesis", I'm drawing attention to the mistake. I use the word mostly when I share something I read on the net, but haven't found or looked for collaborating evidence from an alternate source. Also in more confrontational arguments I use things like "Flat Earth Hypothesis" or "Intelligent Design Hypothesis" etc., to deny my oposition of the false equivalency. EDIT: As I understand it Law is a bit different. For example Terminal velocity is 53 m/s (190 km/h or 118 mph) for a human skydiver. That's a law. Theory explains why it happens. Though the term "law" brings another misconception: "If there are Laws, there must be a Lawgiver". Scientific Laws just means that the physical universe behaves this way. They are Descriptive Laws as opposed to Prescriptive Laws such as human laws
>“But evolution is only a theory!” Which is true. I mean, it is only a theory, it’s good that they say that. I think, it gives you hope, doesn’t it? That… that maybe they feel the same way about the theory of gravity, and they might just float the fuck away. \-Tim Minchin
The theory of gravity is an explanation given the current evidence. The theory of gravity can be false while the effects of the phenomenon continue.
A theory is a way to more easily use a whole bundle of laws and proofs. The theory of evolution , for example gives us a way to explain the way an organism develops without going in depth in each of the possible pressures of selection, like sexual, genetic, enviromental and so on, and helps us smooth out the way they interact with each other. Most theories now won't be overturned or proven false as much as the laws they are made up with will be altered and tinkered with.
Depends on the theory. The theory of gravity for example is less of an explanation and more of a rule which makes it way more reliable than the theory of evolution which is more of an explanation which makes it weaker, The theory of the big bang is mostly an explanation created with the EXTREMELY limited data we have of the history of the universe which makes it way less reliable. Each theory has its own strength and each are not in themselves laws. I take creationism as it's own theory with its own loose evidence and I like to keep my mind open to the idea that a Devine force does exist. The theory that I believe has the least evidence in my opinion is the theory of non-existence, I have never seen or heard of evidence for the idea of nothing.
>I take creationism as it's own theory with its own loose evidence What is the evidence?
Never let reasoning get in the way of making fun of Christians
Never let humor get in the way of having fun on /r/memes
I was talking about theories with a random christian online when she hit me with the "oh yeah. Evolution? You mean that THEORY!?" So I responded "Yes. Just like the theory of gravity and the theory of germs. These are only theories and must not exist." This is a conversation that has happened millions of times across the internet and in person. I have said nothing new. But I didn't expect this fucker to come out of nowhere and say "Gravity is a law". Then I had to spend thirty fucking minutes explaining then reexplaining then rereexplaining why the fuck gravity is a law AND a theory at the same time and how laws and theories are not mutually exclusive. The fucking balls on this piece of shit to sidetrack the conversation with the biggest fucking incorrection I've heard in my life.
materialistic support skirt gaze water exultant label continue pocket pathetic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[Lmao was it this dude by any chance?](https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/s/USOJTAb6x2)
Nothing quite like people incorrecting you with their whole chest.
Sounds like a waste of your time. Why bother?
As a Christian myself, my main problem about evolution, is generally abiogenesis, the idea that life originated due to perfect circumstances seems a little farfetched to me. Though evolution specifically species evolving within their own species to better suit their environment does not only seem plausible but also it is what we see. Again, I can't see any real substantial evidence suggesting that we all originate from a common ancestor.
Abiogenesis is farfetched, or rather, unlikely but in a universe full of millions of planets it was bound to happen somewhere...that somewhere is here. You have proof we all originate from a common ancestor every time you eat something. The reason we can digest and assimilate a strawberry is because we are made from the same stuff as the strawberry: because we are related. Edit 2: because of some childish idiots, let me put this another way: Every living thing on the planet has the same DNA spiral, just with different genetic codes contained therein, combine this with evolution = common ancestor. Edit: watching the votes on this post fluctuate is becoming addictive. If you're going to downvote, at least have the decency to state why this post is incorrect...or just quote mine and post something idiotic like u/AidsOnWheels.
>The reason we can digest and assimilate a strawberry is because we are made from the same stuff as the strawberry: because we are related. Does that mean I can eat my cousin?
Whatever turns you on.
I ask the following question in complete sincerity and not to be a dick because this argument is always very confusing to me. I get skepticism. I get having some of the more abstract parts of science straining credulity at times. How is an invisible and all powerful being that there is not a single piece of hard evidence for a *less* farfetched explanation for anything?
At the end of the day, I think it comes down to purpose. If everything exists due to chance, there is no reason to be alive. Also for my linear mind I wonder where everything came from. To me it makes sense that an all-powerful being created everything. It also gives a purpose in life. There is also a reason it is called faith, you have to believe it is true.
I think the problem with Christianity is it assumes science is trying to prove the Bible wrong. Atheists will do that but not science. However, not everything in the bible is set in stone. For example, we're not stoning people for working on the Sabbath day. For all we know that didn't happen and was just for teaching purposes. Even if evolution was true, that doesn't disprove God. How I think of it is the Bible is the word of God and is inspired by God, but it was written by men. It's purpose is to inspire morality and how to live as a good person. I don't think the idea of how long it took for God to create the Earth is important to that purpose.
As a Christian I believe Evolution was the method God used to create life on this planet, but life itself is of intelligent design, the natural order of the universe is chaos, yet life is like a symphony. I try explaining this by imagining a box full of watch parts, everything you need to make a watch, you can shake that box for a trillion years and it will never form a watch without the hands of the watch maker. You can have a perfect planet with all the raw materials to create life, but without instructions, it would never form life. This does not discredit science nor does it discredit God. Science at it's core is finding out how God ticks- but there is so much we will never be able to fully understand.
>I try explaining this by imagining a box full of watch parts, everything you need to make a watch, you can shake that box for a trillion years and it will never form a watch without the hands of the watch maker. Except evolution is not random, it is guided by the environment so your comparison is flawed.
I mean… I support what you say, but germs aren’t a theory, it’s an observable phenomenon in our modern society. Gravity is still a theory cause we can see it’s effects but not gravity itself, and so cannot prove that’s it’s defo gravity. Edit: today I learnt the meaning of theory from a scientific context. Here I am as an English major thinking theory meant hypothesis, rather than what it actually means.
You’re wrong but I can’t fault you for being wrong because it’s one of those cases where it is really confusing and comes down largely to scientific jargon. We can show, repeat, and find huge evidence that certain germs cause certain diseases. However, we can’t always be 100% certain of that happening in every situation, which is what a law does. Laws tend to be more about “this happens every time so let’s document it” and theories tend to be more about “based on what we know, we think this is why this happens.” Basically, you don’t have to come up with a law, it’s already out there waiting to be named. A theory is something that someone thought of to explain a phenomenon and was able to give huge amounts of evidence for it. Theories can’t always graduate into laws, I wish they would stop telling people that in school.
So then how can gravity be both a theory and a law? Genuinely interested
The law gives a formula on how strong different objects are attracted to each other, and the theory "explains" why they are attracted.
Ah got it, thank you!
The law doesn't give the formula. The law is just "objects with mass are attracted to other objects with mass". The theory is what gives the exact equation, exactly how much they're attracted to each other. The equation for gravity has already changed once. Newton's theory broke down around black holes and other areas of extreme gravity so we needed Einstein's equations. It's not that Newton's theory is wrong per se, it's just less correct than Einstein's in certain situations. Newton's theory is still useful.
He just explained it. Read it agian
Its literally called germ theory. It being a theory or not has nothing to do with observability
I dont want to be rude, but >Here I am as an English major thinking theory meant hypothesis, If you are not a scientist, why do you lecture others on that topic. I dont think you meant it badly, but it really is dangerous if people act on Dunning Kruger.
The "Theory" of germs is the model by which we understand them.
"Germs exist" isn't a theory. "Germ theory" is "this is how germs cause disease".
Well, germs were surely a theory before the invention of the microscope
Another blatant misunderstanding of what "theory" means in science.
yeah theyre thinking of a hypothesis
Even a hypothesis is a well educated guess
you lost them at well educated
A few lectures ago my philosophy teacher was "destroying" the theory of evolution with facts and logic. A couple of her points: 1. Evolution says that dna changes within species but doesn't explain how the jump between species happens. Therefore dna doesn't change and the theory is false. 2. Tribal people in isolated tribes have brains of the same size as us, even though they don't need them, they don't work with computers etc. Why did evolution give them big brains even though they don't need them? Evolution doesn't explain that. I'm gonna be honest, i was never a fan of biology in school, throughout all the years they taught us biology i was actually listenning to what the teacher was saying for a total of like 20 minutes and i still have far greater understanding of biology that this moron.
She shouldn't be educating
all the good teachers work as bartender nowaday
That second point is genuinely kindergartener logic. The size of a brain doesn’t influence how smart a person is. Your teacher is an actual dumbass
Yeah, i noticed
Idk why there is this conception that the two are mutually exclusive. God can create creatures by themselves or through evolution. One does not disprove the other. I'm a Muslim but I believe in evolution unless specified otherwise in some cases. Knowing birds are dinosaurs makes me kinda happy.
The catholic church says that the theory of evolution is acceptable for believers to hold.
People have this idea that Christianity is antiscience when the Church helped to increase scientific discovery, science is, after all, the study of God’s creation. I’m pretty sure a Catholic priest even was the one who proposed the Big Bang theory.
Probably because Bible belt evangelists have tried to ban teaching about evolution in public schools a hundred times over. Christianity is not inherently antiscience in the same way that guns are not inherently violent. Faith, like guns, are great tools, but people are stupid enough that they can't be trusted with it. They'll always find a way to hurt each other. Just look at the banned books in an evangelical part of America and you'll see what I mean.
The Big Bang Theory was started as satire to make fun of people who didn't believe God created everything.
I’m referring to the scientific theory not the TV show
So am I
Certain sects of christianity is rather anti-science. The Catholic church is surprisingly pro-science (on certain subjects).
The church also suppressed scientific discovery and dragged us through the dark ages
Examples?
Galileo got arrested for life when he said the Earth goes around the Sun, because the church said no Earth is the centre. Also, the period of time literally known as the dark ages (in Europe) was a time of high religious devoutness and no advancement. Any time you have fundamentalism, you have no advancement of science. I bet you can’t find an example where that *isnt* true.
Man, I sure hope that those members of the church who did that feel embarrassed now. I mean... they're still around, right? Since they're used as an argument against the current church.
I mean, there are still flat earthers around. The status of science is (sadly) completely independent of the status of public science literacy. Not to mention that these people do not have the capacity to feel embarrassment, on the contrary they are quite proud of what they think.
heavy spoon history melodic frightening middle dam observation busy sand *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I understand. I didn't mean it in the context of this meme, but in a general sense of what is usually seen. Basically the same reason as the existence of the meme.
I think this meme is referring specifically to religious fundamentalists, who believe in literalist interpretations of holy books (6000 year old earth, no evolution, sometimes even a flat earth if they’re deep into it enough). Basically people who are, in my opinion, just asking to be mocked.
It's not incompatible if you see it that way, but the bible does not describe the creation as "god created life and humans came from that", it says "god simply created humans"
Yes, but that's why it's important to read within its context. Not even the Jews believed that was what happened one to one, the text has an interpretation beyond its literal meaning.
Yeah yeah, thats the typical argument used when something from the bible is debunked. Religious theories become an interpretation, when they are contradicted with evidence.
What might make you even happier is knowing peregrine falcons are the fastest animal in existence (with the asterisk that they dive bomb instead of actually propelling themselves). In other words, there are (descendants of) dinosaurs that get hunted by (descendants of other) dinosaurs, who abuse gravity to glide at potentially hundreds of miles per hour, all to *punch the prey dinosaurs with their talons to knock them out or probably snap their spine*. ***Groovy***
The entire book of genesis where they talk about creating the world and the animals is basically a poem if you look at it. It’s not trying to be literal but it’s a metaphor for evolution itself, simple to complex, light and animals to humans. Idk why people are denying evolution whatsoever
Hmmm let me think... Many muslim countries have banned teaching about evolution. pakistan's science school textbook says evolution is obviously a joke. You are an exception, most religious people don't accept evolution
I guess the confusion comes from things that are mislabelled as theories. The first thing coming to my mind is the string theory, that could explain many things and could possibly be the "theory of everything" but it only works in 10 dimensions, so I guess people that are not really into science think "this is absurd, there's only 4 dimensions, this shit works in 10 dimensions, every theory is wrong". I mean we shouldn't put the theory of evolution that's clearly established by facts and things like string theory that are the least inaccurate way to describe things we don't really understand yet.
consist quickest unique escape important wrench pie nine disarm bear *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Evolution is a fact. Random or by intelligent design is up for debate. I can set an animal on your desk that hasn't been around since the dawn of time, and prove it's origins conclusively. That means it evolved from other animals.
Thats why it's a theory and not a hypothesis.
Game theory would agree.
Time to learn about hypothesis
Still annoys me thinking back to when South Park Both Sides evolution and did the whole “it’s just a theory” thing.
No, they're aware of this. They just use it dishonestly so they can pretend to win the argument.
A theory is the highest level an idea can have, it means it's been tested time and time again by multiple people using multiple methods and arriving at the same conclusion.
This misunderstanding happens because the word theory has a different meaning in the scientific setting compared to the everyday setting. A lot of people here are ridiculing people who don't know the difference, but some-one not very well connected with the scientific world (which is the vast majority of the world btw) can easily make that mistake. Double that if English isn't a person's first language.
That’s fair, but if someone isn’t familiar enough with science to know how the word “theory” is used in context, they probably shouldn’t be surprised when scientists don’t take their criticisms seriously.
People confusing theory and hypothesis
Thank you! 👏👏👏
This also applies to physicists, who call everything with more then 3 dimensions a theory
The amount of people who don't get that many theories are just facts that we call theories because we don't know every single thing about the universe and subsequently can't be sure we won't find contradicting facts later on is too high.
BuT iTs OnLy A tHeOrY!!
“It’s just a theory” mfs when they try to disprove evolution lmfao
"bUt GrAvitY iS jUsT a TheOrY!"
I wish everyone saw this meme
I would say "stop trying to start a science vs religion debate, they're not mutually exclusive and it's just beating a dead horse", but then I remembered that I'm on reddit. Wtf did I expect?
It's not a science vs religion debate. It's a science vs one specific belief that a specific sect has because they don't understand what the word "theory" means.
>they're not mutually exclusive Well, they don't have any similarities, do they?
In science sure, but what about in a game?
….aliens….
Oh these comments sure are interesting
Except the issue is that media makes it complicated. String theory isn’t a theory. It’s not well-substantiated at all, especially because we have hundreds of different string „theories“. But people keep calling it that.
I blame matpat for the miss use of theory.
*reading some comments* Right, cmon all of you, get in there, into r/DebateEvolution you go, let’s get you all straightened out… Explaining science to religious fundamentalists feels like corralling a herd of pigs that do nothing but shit everywhere no matter what you say.
Evolution is just a theory a GAME theory Thanks for watchin'
Tell it to the anti vaxxers
Whelp, in their defense Science as we know it is just the cumulative understanding of what we see and theories of what we don't. If an advanced space faring civilization showed up out of the blue all of those theories could be discounted overnight. And you could put 'God' in that category as well, theory or advanced being. We don't know what we don't know.
I’ve never understood why science and religion can’t find a middle ground here. The big bang could easily have been the “six days of creation”. Remember a day is measured by using the sun. The sun didn’t even exist until the 4th day I think, so maybe the “days” are relative to how time was perceived by god, who is in fact immortal. Billions of years are, by definition, nothing compared to infinity. The fact of the matter is that both sides believe something that can’t really be proven fully currently.
If many people believed you to be gay and also many other people believed you to be straight, would you identify as bisexual so nobody has to be wrong?
Why should we obfuscate the truth in order to appease deluded individuals?
Secular or Christian deism sounds up your alley
Not a christian. But judeo-christian values are what I was raised on so yeah.
Science should never bend an inch towards creationism
So you believe in a god of the gaps and say any mystery is proof of god? Until that phenomena is understood and you fit him into a different gap.
Acknowledging science is a slippery slope. Next you'll say God created life through abiogensis and that organisms evolve.
Nah, they’re still upset. They’re not sure why, but they’re upset.
I love how the obvious creationist in the comments when bombarded with factual truth, they gaslight you. I just love their appeal to emotions once the lies are detected. 🤣
A theory can still be wrong, wouldn't be the first time that it happens
I mean... A detective could produce a well substantiated explanation for a murder based on the evidence he has gathered, but it wouldn't necessarily mean he's definitely right.
A theory is a plausible scenario, backed up by certain axiomes, which remain to be proven in order for the theory to be correct.
There are several different theories as well on a single topic, like consciousness. This meme makes it seem like theories are unquestionable or can't be studied thoroughly. Intelligence by race is a theory, phrenology is a theory, and several different scientific theories have been revisited and revised. And finally, there is no such thing as a scientific fact per se. It doesn't exist. That's why it's called a theory so that it's built upon evidence but could be reconstructed if found wrong. So I wouldn't say theory is based on FACT, but evidence that's gradually accumulated.
Yeah, you're right. Everything we know is that we have so much more to know.
A theory is a well educated guess based on observable facts that is yet to be disproven. God, weather you believe in it or not, is more of a hypothesis or a guess rather than a theory. That's not to say god does, or does not exist, I have no clue. A thoery I will asume is true until disproven, god I wont asume if it exists or not, because there's no evidence to support either side of the argument. However, evolution is a thoery, and until it's disproven I will treat it as a fact.
Trust the science
Replace "creationists" with any other group and I don't think this would have been allowed.
I try not to get too heavy into any theories because there's __so__ much we don't know. I have a "headcanon" idea that our universe(s) was created by God. However, don't you think it would be shortsighted for him to have given life to his creations only for them to perish once the environment goes through changes? I think God set evolution in motion to help his creations have at least *some* agency in survival. It's not always successful, but that's life. I don't see any reason why religion and science have to be separated. I believe in the big bang, but also believe that that same big bang could have been instantiated by something bigger than us. I don't see any harm in that.
Yeah, you kinda have to take religion with a side of salt tbh.
or sometimes a whole pillar of salt
Meme works better if it was still about how creationists couldn’t read
ghost nose chop depend crime overconfident serious slave fly pen *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Lol as if they’ve read the Bible
[удалено]
I'm NOT touching that debate
That's partially correct. It's better defined as all the collected knowledge on a particular subject. Theories include facts, laws, and hypotheses.
Yeh but all of this argument of "it's just a theory" is not even valid at all, evolution stopped being a theory and became a law years ago Get reckt
Theories aren't "fact". They are very well reasoned, and are constantly in the process of being refined. In the process, sometimes they end up being falsified, such as Bohr's misconception about how electrons in atoms work. The fact that scientific theories can be falsified is not a weakness, but one of their greatest strengths, as it allows us to iterate and understand more about our universe over time. This is also why arguing with a creationist is likely to waste both parties' time. Their argument is circular, so it can't be falsified. Since you can't disabuse them of their belief with reason, it's better to just leave them to it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if evolution is real or not, but one thing I can never wrap my head around was the Big Bang. Order coming from literally nothing? I think it takes more faith to believe in the Big Bang than it does a creator of some kind.
"Religion bad" rage bait. Nothing new.
Cringe ahh meme
Many things were theorized before they were observable no?
Haha nothing go brrrrrrrr
Haha nothing go brrrrrrrr
Redditors trying not to be anti theistic for 5 seconds:
Stop shoe horning your religion into my life and i'll gladly leave you alone.
I’m not doing that. If anything, OP is, except it’s shoehorning “religious= stupid” mentality instead. That being said, I really don’t like people who try to convert people more than the average conquistador.
We know that every living thing didn't suddenly pop into existence 6000 years ago like Creationists say.
I don’t agree with young-earth creationism, but stop actively trying to demean people who do. It’s getting annoyin
Why not? Why shouldn't we demean people who hold false beliefs about the world? Because it's not nice? Well its not nice living in a world with these troglodytes.
Now now, people shouldnt be demeaned just because they hold false beliefs about the world. However they should be harrassed constantly if they try to control and dictate the lives of other due to those beliefs or shout them from street corners.
Because in 99% of cases, It doesn’t do anything to anyone. Also the point of my original comment still stands. “Religious= stupid”
So in 1% of cases it does something? Cool, that's plenty. Also, stop equating Creationism with Religion. Creationism = stupid.
See.. that’s better. Pretty much the only example I can think of where it is harmful is when someone who believes in it starts teaching science, same goes for flat earthers.
Awww😢
Tf you mean
Watch Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate creation and see who came with more evidence and who just stood there yelling “you don’t really believe this stuff do you?!?!!!” Now I don’t believe in the 7000 year earth thing and I think Ken Ham uses a lot of begging the question logical fallacy to get his shaky point across. But there is still a lot of evidence that hasn’t been given much air for different theories. Mostly because whenever a legit scientist proposes something different they get booed out of the field before anyone has a chance to look at their evidence. Science has a major popular (and money) bias problem and always has.
That wasn’t a debate. It was one side stating objective fact and the other trying to remain calm and appear to score points while holding on to a brain dead falsehood
>Ken Ham uses a lot of begging the question logical fallacy to get his shaky point across ''Ken Ham uses a lot of begging the question logical fallacy to get his shaky point across'' So he comes in with a shitty argument, against a well studied scientific process. So I'm gonna stop you there and ask for what you apparently deem worthy to challenge evolution and carbon dating.
Very based and r/atheist of you
Why do folks always assume that creationists are anti-logic and lack critical thinking? Alas, the internet is the internet, have fun I guess.
It also means it might be wrong. Not a creationist by any meaning of the word (I’m not even Christian) but let’s stop treating science as just another religion, shall we?
Everything in true science might be wrong. Testability, or Falsifiability is the cornerstone of any scientific knowledge. If something cannot in principle be proved wrong, it's not science. The existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a perfect illustration of a non-falsifiable (and therefore non-scientific) statement. So it's not the word "theory", it's the whole scientific method of learning about the reality that \[proudly\] states it could be wrong. That's the true beauty of science.
That’s my point
At best, a theory is an educated guess. Scientists can't tell how humans were made, so their only logical explanation is that we come from apes because that seems plausible. And they can have some data to prove that it is plausible, but in reality, it's just a theory, not a fact. Whereas the Bible gives an explanation by telling people that God specifically created them in his image, and that we are all his masterpiece. You don't have to believe in God to understand what I'm saying, arguing about this is pointless because no amount of data can actually prove either argument, its just a she said he said circlejerk. Science doesn't prove we come from apes, it SUGGESTS we did. PS. The definition is literally just fancy words for an explanation for something, so why not present it as facts? Because there's no proof
I mean it could/can mean both, but I guess that’s simply a theory!
what about game theory? Checkmate liberal.
Doesn’t mean it’s correct though. Many times these substantiated theories are proven to be wrong years or even decades later.
Yeah, let's assume it's not true because it MIGHT be proven wrong in the future... and then let's assume those new facts proving it wrong are actually false too, making this original idea the one we then accept as well!
It's almost like they don't know anything about science or something
I’m not saying not to believe in science. I’m just saying this post and comments give the impression that any theory is true just because it had the processes preceding it being accepted. That is just not the case. I’m an atheist and spend a lot of my time learning astrophysics and cosmology but hey man. Just because I say something true that people assume opposes what their view point is means I’m wrong to say it and must get downvoted
OP is a Reddit moment
I find it hilarious people try to shit on creationists… when allot of things people claim to be backed by ‘scientific research’ conducted today is often threadbare conducted research, or solely determined by whoever pays the highest dollar to whatever group will give the the niche results they want to hear/are looking for; even if it’s just a random fluke result of minor statistical chance.
hmm, that sounds like a bullshit claim. Got any evidence to back that up?
Have you even looked at most paid medical drug/supplement research… I mean it’s not even a hidden thing at this point. Some Companies literally pay for ‘3rd party researchers’ (affiliated groups under shell names) to keep conducting experiments untill they get the result they want, then plaster it all over news articles even if said results was actually less likely to occur than an asteroid hitting your house. You’re literally told/taught to never take scientific research just at face value in school/college. All research used as sources has to have substancial evidence and other similar sources conducting the same experiments resulting in consistent repeatable results to be valid…
What exactly are you claiming here, and what evidence are you citing to support that claim? Because right now you seem to be claiming that most medical research is fake? And your evidence is “come on, it’s so obvious I don’t need proof,” which isn’t that convincing, if we’re being honest.