Talk:Theory and fact

From Conservapedia

Naturally they do not mean that an explanation and an observation are the same thing, but that they are quite certain that the theory in questions is "factual", i.e., true.

This is a charitable view of what they mean. Actually, they quite often intend to confuse the reader (or listener). They don't want people to consider the relationship between (1) the observed facts and (2) the theory which explains them. The last thing they want is for people to start comparing the theory to the facts, and to question whether they are consistent.

According to the scientific method, if the facts and the theory are inconsistent, then the theory must be discarded. Politicians and other advocates are unwilling to junk their theories, simply because facts are getting in their way. They prefer to stonewall, deny, obfuscate, change the subject, demonize their opponents, etc.

But scientists nearly all support the following:

1. Usually a theory predicts a certain outcome.
2. If the predicted outcome does not occur, then the theory is false.

So all you have to do to test a theory is:

1. Figure out what we ought to see, if the theory is true.
2. Check to find out whether we see what the theory predicts.
3. If what we get contradicts what the theory predicts, the theory is false.

I learned this at an early age, and I find that it has been applied throughout history by the world's most successful scientists. But I've also seen that many scientific advances were opposed by the scientific establishment. Learned men (and their powerful groups) would frequently refuse to consider the new ideas.

Often they would not even look at the data gathered by researchers and experiments which contradicted the "old view". The case of Semmelweis and childbed fever would be trumpeted by feminists, one would think, as an example of how men are "wedded" to their theories more intensely than they care about the well-being of women. --Ed Poor ^Talk 09:12, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Evolution

I removed some of the evolution example, because it was contractory, confusing, and raised irrelevant issues. For example, it said that "Scientists consider ... descent from a single common ancestor ... to be scientific fact." For support, it cited a page saying this: "Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives."[1] Hence it is false that scientists consider "single common ancestor" to be a scientific fact. The examples given here should be clearly correct. RSchlafly 14:57, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

I removed "The idea that all life on Earth is descended from a single common ancestor is supported by uncontested evidence, however, it is usually not considered scientific fact. Natural Selection and Modern Synthesis are both scientific theories used to explain the mechanism of Evolution." It was confusing, and not helpful in distinguishing theory and fact. The article is on theory and fact, not evidence for evolution. RSchlafly 16:26, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

The information you removed wasn't about evidence for or against evolution; the article specifically mentions gravity, global warming and evoluion as examples in the separation of fact and theory in terms of science - Your edits were in contradiction to the purpose of the article, as delineated in the title - Theory and fact. I have reinserted the relevant info. It's concise and to the point.

I removed the sentence saying that single common ancestor descent "is supported by uncontested evidence". Yes, that is a statement about evidence for evolution. What do you call it? Is the single common ancestor idea a theory or a fact? Now you put in a couple of links to articles that don't even exist. I don't know what point you are trying to make here, but you are not making any sense. I don't want to get into an evolution debate here. You haven't justified any of your edits. Was there something wrong with what you removed? RSchlafly 02:35, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

I really don't see what is so confusing about the information I am trying to include in this article - but I assure you, it isn't to promote support FOR Evolution or spark a heated debate. The information that I removed about "gene sequences" was done so because it wasn't entirely accurate - it's not an example of evolutionary fact, at least not when you compare those examples mentioned for gravity and global warming. In other words, "gene sequences", while a scientific fact in the field of biology, is not the same as "allelic" or "gene frequency changes in a population over time". That's why I removed what I did and put in those statements. As for modern synthesis and natural selection, those are the THEORIES for the mechanism of evolution. I am trying to treat the three examples as equals. There are facts for Gravity, Global Warming and Evolution, and then there are paradigms or models (theories) that scientists have formulated to explain the facts (i.e data) - theory of gravity, theory of global warming, theory of quatum mechanics, theory of relativity, theory of evolution (e.g Natural Selection etc..etc..) Do you see what I'm trying to get at here? Wisdom89 14:56, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

One another thing - what do you mean "articles that don't even exist"? If you are referring to bracketting Natural Selection and Modern Synthesis, isn't that one of the purposes of Conservapedia? Red links signify topics that should be started and then expanded on? No? Wisdom89 15:03, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

You say that a gene sequence is a scientific fact, and a biological fact, but not an evolutionary fact. You are not correct. There are literally 1000s of papers that cites gene sequences in support of some evolutionary hypothesis. Gene sequences certainly are evolutionary facts.

You are the one who put in the universal common ancestor. Now you want it out. Why?

Empty articles do not make good examples.

You have links to long talk.origins opinionated rants. Why? Are you trying to say that the distinction between theory and fact is some sort of anti-creationist opinion? RSchlafly 15:51, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

Yes, commonalitites in DNA sequences between organisms in the same genus/family etc..etc.. ARE used as evidence in support of common ancestry - but I qualified my statement with (more or less) "when comparing to what is given for gravity and global warming". I didn't feel they were equal. "Gene sequences" is way too broad and doesn't convey the message. YOU were the one who iniitially removed "gene frequency changes" and replaced it with "gene sequences". That remains unclear to me. So I changed it back. Allelic frequency changes in a population is a fact, and the backbone/definition for biological evolution.

I never said I wanted it "out", but common ancestry doesn't seem like something we're going to reach consensus about

Empty articles may not make good "examples", but it doesn't negate their validity - besides, empty articles tell Conservapedia users that information can be expanded - and maybe somebody will take up the helm. That's how this site will grow.

talk.origins is an extremely informative site of evolutionary text - a repository of lucid and scientifically sound information. I'm not sure why you view as a page full of "rants". Are they rants because you disagree with evolution, or because you actually took the time to peruse the site thoroughly. The site is not anti-creationist nor does it smear their beliefs. It hosts quite a bit of creationist viewpoints.

As for the fact and theory distinction, yes, creationists are the ones who tend to make that mistake. They fail to see acknowledge or see how they differ. Look, all I'm trying to do is expand this article - I mean, come on, it's titled "Theory and Fact" - I'm merely providing examples for readers so that they can understand the difference. Wisdom89 19:06, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

Where is any creationist viewpoint on the talk.origin site?

Since you say we disagree on the universal common ancestor, and refuse to explain further, I guess that you still think that it is fact, contrary to your cited talk.origin source. RSchlafly 19:44, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html#further

Indeed I do consider it fact based on all of my research - and if a blurb at origins happens to contradict or even dispute this, then oh well. Not all scientists agree on all aspects in a particular field.

No comments on any of the other points? Wisdom89 23:37, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

Your link does not give any creationist point of view. You link to a talk.origins essay that is not helpful. It quotes Gould saying nonsensical things like, "Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, ... Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory". And you have apparently adopted some bizarre definition of "fact" that is at odds with common usage. You say something is a fact, but then concede that other scientists disagree. If there is legitimate disagreement, then it is opinion, not fact. I don't want to debate evolution, or cite idiotic rants. I just want to give a couple of clear-cut examples. If there is something wrong with my examples, then please let me know. RSchlafly 01:18, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

If you consider those statements "nonsensical", then you obviously haven't done enough research on what someone means when they refer to something as scientific fact/theory. There are everyday usages of these words (fact and theory), then there are scientifically appropriate usages.

I already told you what was wrong was your example. "Gene sequences" is insufficient. I reiterate, numerous times you removed the following (paraphrasing now) "changes in allelic frequencies within a population...is an example of biological evolutionary fact". Yet you continually replace this with a sub-par and highly generic example - e.g. "Gene Sequences" and reinsert things about common ancestry. This boggles my mind, it honestly does. If you want to keep in gene sequences, fine, but it's relatively flimsy. However, why are you so staunchly opposed to the examples I am giving. Phenotypic changes over time involving allelic frequency modulation within a specie's population/gene pool is Evolutionary FACT. I could get much more detailed, and provide many other examples such as allopatric speciation and common misconceptions about Evolution, but that's an entirely different article and is not appropriate here. The mechanisms or theories that attempt to explain these occurrences/changes are Natural Selection and Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. You continuously feel compelled to remove the information, citing it as confusing or invalid. Which leads me to your editorial attitude - so far you have called the information "junk" and referred to my source as "idiotic rants". Not exactly the most constructive way to improve Conservapedia articles. It just makes you sound stalwartly opposed to something you perhaps know little about. I maybe wrong - perhaps you're a scientist, perhaps you've done your homework. I'm not challenging your knowledge, but I'm inclined to think that you fall within the category of individuals who haven't thoroughly researched evolution or the meaning of theory and fact when they are used in a scientific context - which is what this article is about (Theory and fact, not evolution). This isn't a philosophical discussion - but facts don't mean 100% certainty and absolute truth and scientific theory isn't a synonym for guess. I don't see you removing or changing anything about Global Warming or Gravity, yet Evolution seems to be your target. They are all on equal footing scientifically - They all have facts/data and all are classified as scientific theories, the latter needing to meet special requirements. I am not an atheist, I am not an Evolutionist, I'm not a liberal. I'm not anti-conservative. I don't like such classifications - so I hope you realize my edits are in good faith and that you're not taking offense to anything I've said - as I mentioned before I am trying to help Conservapedia. You mention clear cut examples - how much more clear cut can you get than my last edit which you recently reverted? Wisdom89 14:35, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

The problem with "changes in allelic frequencies within a population" is that it is not a specific fact. It is too vague. Saying that the XYZ allele increased from 20% to 25% of the buffalo population from 1980 to 1990 might be a fact (if it were true). Yes, I think that your sources are idiotic rants, and not helpful. They were written to put down creationism, and they promote a particular point of view rather than reflect common scientific usage. Finally, saying that the "modern synthesis" is an example of a theory, when it isn't even defined anywhere, is vacuous. Give a theory that the people can understand. I didn't change the global warming and gravity examples because those were understandable and correct for the reader. Those examples don't say idiotic things like "climate change is a fact" or "modern meteorology is a theory". RSchlafly 15:35, 4 September 2007 (EDT)