RE: [asa] fact vs. theory

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 12:15 PM
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] fact vs. theory
>
>
> " Somewhere along your
> discussion, he got the impression that you were using these terms in the
> vernacular."
>
> The context for the discussion is here:
> http://www.meetup.com/sciligion/messages/boards/thread/6211893

I see. Thanks. He may have picked up on your comment that facts change.
Facts really don't change. These are the observations. Observations don't go
away with the addition of new observations, it is the explanation of the
facts that can change with the addition of new observations. The Theory
changes to accommodate the "addition" of more recent observations.

Think of a Flat Earth Theory. The observation that I can make by going
outside (in Dallas) and look around. Is it ever flat here. Even flying into
DFW Airport, you can see how flat it really is, seeing the Dallas skyline
out one side of the plane and Ft. Worth out the other side with no
noticeable topographic relief. This observation (fact) can be observed over
and over - it remains. However, while these facts are still observable,
other observations that are just as measurable and repeatable lead us to
realize that FET is not a viable theory in trying to incorporate new
observations from a more remote POV. It can only take us just so far and
still be practical.

> Chris is a YEC, I'm an evolutionary creationist, and Kurt is an atheist.

And y'all walk into a bar. <:rim shot>

>
> (There was also additional discussion elsewhere over email.)
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: skrogh [mailto:panterragroup@mindspring.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:08 AM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] fact vs. theory
>
> He wasn't making the point of Evolution is "just" or "only" a Theory and
> thus not as certain as a Fact. In that sense, people aren't using
> Theory as
> it is used in science and are using "theory" in a vernacular sense, as
> merely one of the rungs on a ladder of certainty. Somewhere along your
> discussion, he got the impression that you were using these terms in the
> vernacular.
> ======
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:23 AM
> > Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> > Subject: [asa] fact vs. theory
> >
> >
> > An atheist in my discussion group wrote the following. Any
> > comments? It doesn't seem right to me to say the heliocentric
> > model is a theory, not a fact. I think his (unstated) point is
> > that evolution is a theory, but it is still very solid just as
> > the heliocentric view of the solar system is only a theory.
> >
> > ...Bernie
> >
> > - - - -
> > He wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to point out the difference between a scientific fact
> > and the English word 'fact'. The geocentric model was never a
> > scientific fact... just as the heliocentric model is not a
> > scientific fact. These are both scientific theories. The
> > scientific facts are the measurements of planets' movements in
> > the sky relative to the earth.
> >
> > "facts" are the measurable and repeatable data points. These
> > don't change, though the error bars for the measurement get
> > smaller and smaller as we get more sensitive equipment.
> >
> > "theories" are the constructs that generalize the thousands of
> > facts that have been observed. They "fill in the gaps" between
> > the measured facts, and allow us to predict where we can measure
> > future facts to verify or repeal the theory. Much of the data
> > facts that we observe initially have large error bars which often
> > lead us to wrong generalized conclusions. Once the data is
> > refined with better or more measurements, we often will modify
> > the theories with more specific ones (Newton's Laws of Motion -->
> > Einstein's Relativity).
> >
> > Only once we had telescopes did we have a sensitive enough
> > measurement device to measure the precise movement of the planets
> > in the sky. It was these more accurate (smaller error bar) facts
> > that allowed us to see that the heliocentric model was more
> > correct than the geocentric model.
> >
> > In the English language, we call the heliocentric model a "fact"
> > because it's a scientific theory that has so many scientific
> > facts to support it ... which is another way of saying true
> > beyond a reasonable doubt. In the English language "fact" =
> > Truth. In science, "fact" simply means a data point with a
> > certain error bar. A "fact" in science is not all that meaningful
> > (at least compared to a theory). But, facts don't change; theories do.
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> > Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.17/1931 - Release Date:
> > 2/2/2009 7:21 PM
> >
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.17/1931 - Release Date:
> 2/2/2009 7:21 PM
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Feb 3 14:18:38 2009