by Morgan Matthew
Jul 20, 2012
Pretty damn good.
Jul 21, 2012
Funny how he had to repeat himself like 5 times. It's hard to make a point to retarded theists.
Wow, this is incredible. The OP needs to post this EVERYWHERE.
Jul 22, 2012
So String Theory is an explanation of observable facts? What are they?
Jul 23, 2012
Jerome.. String Theory is basically what's referred at a Grand Unified Theory. And attempts to tie together both Einstein's Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory. So those observations you asked about would pertain to both those theories, while also pertaining to String Theory.
Jul 24, 2012
I think I'm going to start asking creatards if 'Music Theory' means music never happened.
Thanks for the response. So "String Theory is basically what's referred at a Grand Unified Theory. And attempts to tie together both Einstein's Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory." My understanding is that no current GUT (of which there are several) is commonly accepted, which would seem to indicate that theories can be disputed. Also, "attempts to tie together" theories would not seem to qualify as an Explanation of facts, but as conjecture of what might explain those facts. It seems any definition of the word theory includes a certain amount of conjecture, which is what would be expected but does not really fit the bill of rock-solidness that is being suggested here.
@Jerome - you are correct in stating that there is no currently accepted GUT. All the observations that lead to Relativity and Quantum theory are just what they are - observed facts. Both Relativity and Quantum theory give us predictive utility that allows us to anticipate future observations.
In the case of a GUT, to date, no theory has suitably tied together all of those observations into one eloquent explanation - thus there does not exist a Grand Unified Theory. String Theory is an attempt at a GUT that has yet met the mark, and has not been represented as having done so.
I'm not certain what sort of 'rock solidness' you are seeking. Music theory doesn't imply that music does not exist. It is not complete, and will likely never be complete. It's predictive utility doesn't fail, however. If we found that it did, then we would have to rethink it. Is there a particular theory that you are having trouble wrapping your mind around?
Uhm, NOT yet met the mark - I wish we could edit our posts here.
@Jerome - You are misunderstanding Rob's response (perhaps because he didn't explain it well - sorry Rob). String Theory is an accepted (though extremely hard to understand) theory regarding quantum physics. It is a *CONTENDER* for the GUT or TOE (Theory of Everything). There is still a lot of work to do to work out how everything works together.
Also, you missed the main point. All Theories are “contended”. Even Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is constantly under scrutiny. That doesn't mean that most scientists have any doubt that it's right, it’s just the "tao of science", so to speak. Many xians look at the fact that all Theories are constantly being tested and any Theory can be thrown out the window if evidence rules against it as a weakness. But in reality, that is science's strength. It means that anything that is considered a Theory by the scientific community is absolutely valid *considering the evidence that we currently have*. It means that Theories are as close to absolute truth as our feeble minds can get to right now.
Compare this to the "theory" of creationism where the term "theory" means "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge, a conjecture, abstract reasoning, or speculation". One big problem with religion is that it is so conceited that no matter how much evidence is presented to dispute it, the religious either just ignore this evidence or make up any fairy tale that they can think of to sidestep the evidence while at the same clinging to any sliver of evidence and take it as far out of context as they need to in order for it to fit into their delusions.
A really good example of this is the Great Flood. It is amazing how the religious will use sea shells on mountain tops as "evidence" of the flood, despite the fact that this evidence does nothing of the sort and, when viewed in its entirety, actually *disproves* the Flood. When asked "where did all the water come from and where did it go?" They always answer where the water came from with some fairy tale that they had to make up (because there is no evidence at all to support any of these "theories" and is a logical fallacy) and ignore any questions that they can only come up with an answer that even they can’t chew on.
Science is not allowed to ignore any facts, no matter how distasteful. Pure science MUST take into account ALL facts. This doesn't mean that science can't be manipulated, as we constantly see with the medical sciences or other junk sciences such as man-made global warming, because any time money is involved, you have to take a very close look at what people are pushing and what people are trying to suppress, but as a general rule, science is the pure, impassive, rational search for the truth.
Truth is personal and while I am not faithful to a god I am faithful to my journey for Truth. I have encountered too many people on both sides of this issue that fail to see faith as a journey and are of the belief that they have arrived at a destination. So they close their door to the possibility that another's Theory might be a truth.
We have thousands of laws and theories that organize the world around us into predictable patterns. Those patterns supply us with security among the chaos of life.
Paise the mathematician.
The more I study physics the more I realize faith.
Jul 25, 2012
It seems to me that the worst offenders of being closed minded are those that claim that "truth is personal". Truth is not personal. If it were, every inmate in every mental ward would have just as valid of a grasp on reality as anyone else. You can't claim 2+2=16 and say that is just as valid as 2+2=4 because it is a "personal truth". There is "personal speculation" and with that I have no issue with. Is it possible that a "god" or "gods" exist? My *personal speculation* is no. Do I claim that as any sort of "truth"? Of course not. Anyone who is open minded allows that there just *might* be a being out there somewhere, someplace that could be considered a "god" by someone's definition. But it is *NOT* a "personal truth" that one exists unless and until there is evidence to support (and ESPECIALLY no evidence to disprove) that that god exists. It is nothing but personal *speculation*.
When those "personal speculations" are forced only other people is when that belief system opens itself to attack. If someone insists that I live under their "moral code" which is based on their *personal speculation* (read: delusional superstition) that some "god" has "laid down the law", that is when we have the right to demand evidence and proof of that super sky fairy.
I suspect that there are almost no atheists that are closed minded to religion. Unless you consider "closed minded" to be of that mind that you have to provide extraordinary evidence (or really ANY evidence) to support extraordinary claims. Making the assertion that supposition and speculation is not "evidence" is also not being closed minded. Another thing that is not being closed minded is capitulating to a logical fallacy, such as the Great Flood. There is no evidence to support such nonsense, and especially the nonsense that such an event could have happened within the last few thousand years. Not accepting someone else's crazy assed delusions is NOT being closed minded.
It amazes me when xians start begging that we all just "let each other believe as we wish", since that is exactly what all atheists want. But the xian attitude is belied when they try to force "creation science" (again, that may be a "personal speculation" on someone's part, but it certainly is in no way a "truth") into our classrooms or claiming that we have gained ANY knowledge from a 1500 year old that has obviously be re-written multiple times to suit the powers that be at the time.
I have said it multiple times and will say it over and over again: I don't care what crazy nonsensical fairy tales you want to believe. Just don't try to legislate laws to restrict the civil rights of others based on those delusional superstitions and we'll get along just fine.
You write "String Theory is an accepted (though extremely hard to understand) theory regarding quantum physics."
The Layman's Explanation we're discussing says this: ""It is a theory, and always will be a theory. The word 'theory' does not mean it is 'disputed.' " However, that does not describe String Theory. String Theory is disputed, especially because there are no proposed experiments that can come close to the energy necessary to achieve the near-Planck length measurements that would be necessary to confirm, deny or even approach.
I perceive a classic Straw Man fallacy approach in this thread, and especially its raison d'etre. Since strict creationist 6000-year earth advocates misuse the term "theory" as it applies to Scientific Theory, then therefore Scientific Theories are bolstered to levels of surety that it does not deserve. In other words, if you can successfully out-argue a Young Earth Creationist, you then think you are on the right track, but the truth is you could very well be on a different but still very wrong track. (Not addressing that to you, personally.)
Jul 28, 2012
Well, if you want to get technical, "String Theory" is a framework, not an individual theory, but I do see your point. :-)
I also agree with your "strawman fallacy" point as well. Presenting evidence that disproves someone else's assertion does not automatically make your assertion correct, which I think really gets into the meat of the issue. I think the underlying assertion is that scientific theories *can* be disputed and disproved, and when they are, they are abandoned, whereas religious theories are *always* disputed and easily disproved, yet are only abandoned as slowly and carefully as necessarily so as not to disturb the rest of their delusional superstitions.
I'm not sure I understand your statement "therefore Scientific Theories are bolstered to levels of surety that it does not deserve." though. How does creationists trying to compare their crazy speculations and suppositions to scientific theories "bolster" the surety of those scientific theories? As far as I know, scientific theories are accepted or rejected based on the evidence that supports or disputes them, their acceptance has nothing to do with disproving anything else. Just as any religious assertion assertion being disputable based on the fact that there is no evidence to support any of them.
Jul 29, 2012