Best layman's explanation for Scientific Theory I have ever seen.

Best layman's explanation for Scientific Theory I have ever seen.

Views: 113606

Albums: Science

Comment by Dave G on July 21, 2012 at 2:59pm

Pretty damn good.

Comment by kOrsan on July 21, 2012 at 3:06pm

Funny how he had to repeat himself like 5 times. It's hard to make a point to retarded theists.

Comment by Bridget Rice on July 22, 2012 at 2:24pm

Wow, this is incredible. The OP needs to post this EVERYWHERE.

Comment by Jerome Kinsworth on July 23, 2012 at 9:33pm

So String Theory is an explanation of observable facts? What are they?

Comment by Rob Klaers on July 24, 2012 at 12:56am

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. 

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on July 24, 2012 at 9:05am

I think I'm going to start asking creatards if 'Music Theory' means music never happened.

Comment by Jerome Kinsworth on July 24, 2012 at 2:04pm

Rob Klaers:

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.

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on July 24, 2012 at 2:15pm

@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?

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on July 24, 2012 at 2:16pm

Uhm, NOT yet met the mark - I wish we could edit our posts here.

Comment by Dienekes on July 24, 2012 at 10:22pm

@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.


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2017   Created by umar.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service