Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
Knifemissle:
I don't have time to reply fully right now, as I have to be down at the hospital shortly for some tests. Regardless, I will give you two questions now, and will address your further points this afternoon.
|
No worries. Life comes first...
Quote:
|
1) Typical debate practice when accusing someone of begging the question is to ask the question being begged. Where is the unasked question in my earlier statements?
|
I'm guessing that you're in such a hurry that you didn't have time to read the link of "begging the question." I'm using the classic meaning of the term, rather than the modern bastardization because I don't believe in changing the meaning of terms through ignorance and I've expressed this opinion on many threads, here, on the TFP...
Quote:
|
2) You seem to use hypothesis and theory interchangeably, which they are not. Do you understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis in a scientific context?
|
I am using the two words interchangeably and this may be confusing. Please assume I've been using it in the colloquial sense since I don't think I've used it in its sceintific sense in this discussion...
I do understand the difference between a scientific theory and a colloquial theory. So much so, in fact, that I feel free to use the term in both senses because I understand the motive behind the use of the word in science and don't, personally, see any confusion. The difference between the two are generally overstated for a public unequiped to understand the nuances of scientific discourse.
The reason why the word "theory" is used to describe well supported scientific models is to remind ourselves that no matter how well supported a scientific theory may be, it can always be overturned in the face of new, contradictory evidence. That is to say, not matter how well supported a theory is, it is always tentative and, thus, will always be a theory. In a sense, nothing in science is absolute truth, which is why it's all "just theory." Some theories just happen to be better supported than others.
To give you an idea of how closely related the two senses of the term "theory" are, take a look at
string theory. We call it a theory even though it has no supporting evidence and few physicists (no, really, not like
the alleged scientific dissent from Darwinism, whatever that's supposed to mean) have any faith in it. As it is, unless it's injected with some actual testable hypotheses, it's about to implode. Yet, we still call it a theory. Why is that? It's because a scientific theory and a colloquial theory aren't so different...