614
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 57:
Line 57: + +
Talk:Evolutionist style (view source)
Revision as of 13:31, October 9, 2008
, 13:31, October 9, 2008→Is Evolution Truly Scientific?
::::If Anthropogenic Global Warming, the Big Bang, and Evolution had been disproven, they would be discarded, that's the point. Now, they've been modified, but that's also the point. Science changes its view of the world based on new information as it comes in. What you call "near religious fervor" is based on evidence gathered to date. If evidence comes up that appears to go against a widely held theory, fine, but unless the new evidence proves false or irrelevant all of the earlier evidence that lead to the theory attaining widely-held status in the first place, it's not enough to disprove the theory.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 09:02, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
::::If Anthropogenic Global Warming, the Big Bang, and Evolution had been disproven, they would be discarded, that's the point. Now, they've been modified, but that's also the point. Science changes its view of the world based on new information as it comes in. What you call "near religious fervor" is based on evidence gathered to date. If evidence comes up that appears to go against a widely held theory, fine, but unless the new evidence proves false or irrelevant all of the earlier evidence that lead to the theory attaining widely-held status in the first place, it's not enough to disprove the theory.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 09:02, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::You might want to read some Kuhn, ''On the Structure of Scientific Revolutions''. Your view of how scientific revolutions occur is a bit naive. The "scientific community" is notorious for hanging on to bogus ideas long after they've been discredited. They are humans, not prophets, and they are as subject to inertia, politics, and social pressures as anybody else. They just don't like to admit it. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 09:31, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
:This should probably go to one of our [[Debate Topics]], but here's my 2 cents: If a good idea is warped by madmen, we keep the good idea and criticize the madness. When a false idea is used by madmen to justify mass murder, we criticize both their madness and the false idea that used for justification. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:This should probably go to one of our [[Debate Topics]], but here's my 2 cents: If a good idea is warped by madmen, we keep the good idea and criticize the madness. When a false idea is used by madmen to justify mass murder, we criticize both their madness and the false idea that used for justification. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT)