https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Jewsosity 2026-10-08T02:12:22Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.14 https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_theory&diff=53358 2007-03-21T02:56:45Z

<p>Jewsosity: Okay. This is it. If you wish to revert it. Please tell me what is wrong with this Article.</p> <hr /> <div>A theory is what a bunch of drunken liberals come up with after a hard day's night. Jesus comes down and makes laws. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Stupid white scientists make theories. This is an example of a logical fallacy. Do not use them.<br /> <br /> <br /> Jesus wept. <br /> <br /> and then passed on some laws.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Jesus does not, as many believe, think negatively about gays. Jesus, as ultimately powerful omnibenevolent, sees all people as possible sexual prey. This is an example of a theory. Jesus will smite me, which is a law.</div>

Jewsosity https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Scientific_theory&diff=53354 2007-03-21T02:55:43Z

<p>Jewsosity: Blocking and reverting</p> <hr /> <div>&quot;Why are scientists pushy about their theories (opinions).&quot;<br /> So hilariously bad, that it must be vandalism. Oh, and you forgot a question mark.<br /> --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 03:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> Yes, vandalism, or some sort of joke. &quot;Everyone had a thermometer that measured differently, which is why we have two temperature scales; fahrenheit and celcius.&quot; Ha ha. Please revert. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Theory v hunch ==<br /> This article is still in bad shape. It is not true that there is any big difference between scientific and non-scientific usage of the word &quot;theory&quot;. Scientists use the word to describe a hunch as much as non-scientists do. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> That's not necessarily true. Scientific &quot;hunches&quot; are known as hypotheses, and most hypotheses are disproved. Theories have corroborating evidence to suggest that they are accurate. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 13:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> : No, you are not correct. If you were, then give me some citation backing you up. Show me some scientific paper that says, &quot;That hypothesis might be good enough to be called a theory according to the layman's use of the word, it has not been proved accurate enough to be called a scientific theory.&quot; It doesn't happen. There are theories like String Theory that have not been confirmed at all. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:02, 10 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> Actually [[RSclafly]] the statement preceding yours is correct. Your demand regarding a scientific paper makes no sense; why would a scientist writing for an audience of other scientists ever make the statement you require? Next, the National Academy of Sciences, which has reasonable jurisdiction over basic scientific terminology, defines a theory as, &quot;a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.&quot; In other words, not a &quot;hunch.&quot; String Theory moreover doesn't really apply, since many physicists such as Carlo Rovelli and Philip Anderson contest the validity of calling String Theory a theory at all. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 20:10, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Theory v Scientific Theory==<br /> <br /> The [[Theory]] page seems to overlap with [[Scientific theory]] at least in intent, but the former takes a very different position on what the word &quot;theory&quot; means. In fact, it takes a position that makes other uses of the word here problematic. I made a note about that on [[Talk:Theory]]. Perhaps Theory could just redirect to this one? And it would be nice to see something here about how personal bias can lead to the word &quot;theory&quot; being attached to something that isn't really a theory at all (not falsifiable, for example, or having many inconsistencies that are overlooked because they contradict personal bias). Just because the word &quot;theory&quot; gets attached to something in common usage doesn't make it a theory. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 14:05, 10 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> : Scrap the other page. It just adds to the confusion. Make it redirect here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:05, 10 March 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Blocking and reverting ==<br /> <br /> Why is my version of the article being reverted? I see no fault in it. If you wish to block it, I request that you please give reason.</div>

Jewsosity