It might just be me, but there seems to be a ridiculous and increasing number of people who don't have the proper definition of the word "theory" as it is used in the scientific field, and no interest whatsoever in trying to remedy their lack of knowledge.

One would think they'd want to know what they were talking about before they engaged in a discussion of the topic.

Evolution is a fact sounds like a religious dogma to me. Evolution is not a fact, that's why scientists refer to the Theory of Evolution and not the Law of Evolution. Lots of things about evolution are not proven yet.

Evolution is a fact. That statement may sound like dogma, but the difference is that it is a fact by merit of the mountains of supporting evidence from many different fields of study. The distinction between a Theory and a Law is that a Law does not answer the question "why". There is not any more certainty to Laws than there is to Theories. For example, consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened. This is a misunderstanding of the distinction on your part, and doesn't entail a greater veracity from scientific Laws. In both cases, Laws and Theories, neither can be proven. Depending on which law and which theory we want to examine, the verisimillitude depends on the available evidence. The Theory of Evolution has more evidence supporting it than many of the Scientific Laws. Demanding that parts of the Theory of Evolution be 'proven' is an excellent example of how unfamiliar you are with science. It is a fact supported by an indisputable amount of corroborated evidence, and the only reason to deny this stems from prejudice due to religious motive.

Interbane wrote:

Evolution is a fact sounds like a religious dogma to me. Evolution is not a fact, that's why scientists refer to the Theory of Evolution and not the Law of Evolution. Lots of things about evolution are not proven yet.

Evolution is a fact. That statement may sound like dogma, but the difference is that it is a fact by merit of the mountains of supporting evidence from many different fields of study. The distinction between a Theory and a Law is that a Law does not answer the question "why". There is not any more certainty to Laws than there is to Theories. For example, consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened. This is a misunderstanding of the distinction on your part, and doesn't entail a greater veracity from scientific Laws. In both cases, Laws and Theories, neither can be proven. Depending on which law and which theory we want to examine, the verisimillitude depends on the available evidence. The Theory of Evolution has more evidence supporting it than many of the Scientific Laws. Demanding that parts of the Theory of Evolution be 'proven' is an excellent example of how unfamiliar you are with science. It is a fact supported by an indisputable amount of corroborated evidence, and the only reason to deny this stems from prejudice due to religious motive.

Who da thunk that my seemingly harmless little post suggesting that if you wanted to see a shuttle launch you'd better make plans soon would mushroom into a ... well I guess it was to be expected.

I hear and see in BT posts that Evolution is not a theory but a proven fact so your attempt at equivocation is disingenuous.

"The problem of Verisimillitude—or truthlikeness—is the problem of articulating what it takes for one false theory to be closer to the truth than another false theory."
from wikipedia

So, for the word verisimillitude to be applicable; #1) you must admit that the TOE is false, & #2) be comparing it with another theory which is more false. What additional theory(ies) are you comparing it with?

I hear and see in BT posts that Evolution is not a theory but a proven fact so your attempt at equivocation is disingenuous.

Ug!

So, for the word verisimillitude to be applicable; #1) you must admit that the TOE is false, & #2) be comparing it with another theory which is more false. What additional theory(ies) are you comparing it with?

According to Popper, right. His books are fun, if outdated. Some of the more recent philosophers of science have further developed the idea. My choice in using the term is to avoid using the alternative "true", as speaking of the truth entails absolute knowledge. We can come close to the truth, but to achieve it is an impossible ideal. Coming close is the best we can do. Here's a definition: 1. the appearance or semblance of truth or reality; quality of seeming true

Even though there are problems with Popper's idea of falsificationism, I'd recommend reading some of his philosophy. It's a good starting point. Work from the old to the new. Most of our philosophy rests on the shoulders of giants.

"Popper's formal definition of Verisimilitude was proposed to be inadequate by Pavel Tichý[1] and David Miller.[2] Their theory gave rise to a number of new accounts of the concept. Some, (e.g. Miller, Kuipers) build on Popper's approach, guided by the notion that truthlikeness is a function of a truth factor and a content factor. Others (e.g. Schurz, Weingartner, Mortenson, Gemes) are also inspired by Popper's approach but locate what they believe to be the error of Popper's proposal in his overly generous notion of content, or consequence, proposing instead that the consequences that contribute to closeness to truth must be, in a technical sense, "relevant". A quite different approach (e.g. Tichý, Hilpinen, Niiniluoto, Oddie) takes the "likeness" in truthlikeness literally, holding that a proposition's likeness to the truth is a function of the overall likeness to the actual world of the possible worlds in which the proposition would be true. [3] There is currently a debate about whether or to what extent these different approaches to the concept are compatible. [4]"

Interbane wrote:

I hear and see in BT posts that Evolution is not a theory but a proven fact so your attempt at equivocation is disingenuous.

Ug!

So, for the word verisimillitude to be applicable; #1) you must admit that the TOE is false, & #2) be comparing it with another theory which is more false. What additional theory(ies) are you comparing it with?

According to Popper, right. His books are fun, if outdated. Some of the more recent philosophers of science have further developed the idea. My choice in using the term is to avoid using the alternative "true", as speaking of the truth entails absolute knowledge. We can come close to the truth, but to achieve it is an impossible ideal. Coming close is the best we can do. Here's a definition: 1. the appearance or semblance of truth or reality; quality of seeming true

Even though there are problems with Popper's idea of falsificationism, I'd recommend reading some of his philosophy. It's a good starting point. Work from the old to the new. Most of our philosophy rests on the shoulders of giants.

"Popper's formal definition of Verisimilitude was proposed to be inadequate by Pavel Tichý[1] and David Miller.[2] Their theory gave rise to a number of new accounts of the concept. Some, (e.g. Miller, Kuipers) build on Popper's approach, guided by the notion that truthlikeness is a function of a truth factor and a content factor. Others (e.g. Schurz, Weingartner, Mortenson, Gemes) are also inspired by Popper's approach but locate what they believe to be the error of Popper's proposal in his overly generous notion of content, or consequence, proposing instead that the consequences that contribute to closeness to truth must be, in a technical sense, "relevant". A quite different approach (e.g. Tichý, Hilpinen, Niiniluoto, Oddie) takes the "likeness" in truthlikeness literally, holding that a proposition's likeness to the truth is a function of the overall likeness to the actual world of the possible worlds in which the proposition would be true. [3] There is currently a debate about whether or to what extent these different approaches to the concept are compatible. [4]"

First of all, I am thanking you for the post.
I would like to know how something can be asserted to be partially true. Isn't that like being a little pregnant?

Random thoughts.
Is that guy's name really Oddie?
It seems like the introduction of the 'relevant' factor is an abitrary constraint almost designed to force one into the empirical arena. When I was six years old I caught a snake on a fish hook. My brother and I had been fishing. After we were done, I went on ahead while he secured the boat, and I encountered the snake on the way home. The snake startled me so I started whacking at it. The snake happened to bite the hook. Now I had a snake on the line and didn't know what to do about it. I stated whacking it on the ground to kill it and the snake got free and took off. When my brother caught up to me I excitedly told him about the snake but he didn't believe me. Relevant? No. Evidence? None. Truth factor? 100%

Suppose I have a statement consisting of two independent clauses, A, B.

A and B
If A is true and B is true that the statement A and B is true
If either A is false or B is false, then what is A and B?

It seems like the introduction of the 'relevant' factor is an abitrary constraint almost designed to force one into the empirical arena. When I was six years old I caught a snake on a fish hook. My brother and I had been fishing. After we were done, I went on ahead while he secured the boat, and I encountered the snake on the way home. The snake startled me so I started whacking at it. The snake happened to bite the hook. Now I had a snake on the line and didn't know what to do about it. I stated whacking it on the ground to kill it and the snake got free and took off. When my brother caught up to me I excitedly told him about the snake but he didn't believe me. Relevant? No. Evidence? None. Truth factor? 100%

HA! Snakes are evil. There are many different ways to chunk and separate our knowledge. A story such as yours, you know to be true. It's not an explanation or description of how the world works, it's a story. I'm not sure of the best way to approach it in an unbiased fashion. The story is believable, and I see no reason to not believe you. I believe the story is true. Now, if the story contained more fanciful elements, or had a greater bearing on my life, I'd analyze it a bit more. For example, if the story was about what happens when you eat a spoonful of cinnamon. I'll apply a little more brainpower to such a story and it's outcome, since I might attempt eating a spoonful of cinnamon in the future. As for whether or not it's relevant, the outcome wouldn't affect me either way. Whether your story was true or false would have no bearing on my life. There is no reason for me to waste mental energy examining your story in detail to determine how likely it is to be true. I'll trust that it's true, then move on.

But we can still examine it just for the sake of exercise. From my perspective, I'd say your story has a good chance of being true. You know it to be true, but I have nothing but your word. I'm also familiar with how flimsy memories can often be. This is precisely what verisimilitude means when I use it. Nothing more than "likeliness of truth". Your story is likely true, so it has high verisimilitude. I cannot say it's absolutely true. That would be absurd. If we were to change places, and I were to tell you a story, you would understand the situation. I could potentially be making the story up, or exaggerating one point or another. My memory could also be faulty. If I plead with you relentlessly that it is indeed 100% true, I could be 'acting', playing an 'idea salesman'. One of my friends had a favorite saying when we stumbled on a topic he was emotionally attached to(one way or another). He would tell me something, then say "trust me". I knew that when he spoke that phrase, he was perfectly confident in the truth of what he was saying. I also know that there had been times in the past where it turned out he was wrong. So, I would trust him, but never absolutely. It wasn't "absolute" trust, but rather something along the lines of a trust in the likeliness of truth in his statement.

Suppose I have a statement consisting of two independent clauses, A, B.

A and B
If A is true and B is true that the statement A and B is true
If either A is false or B is false, then what is A and B?

I would say partially false. Logic is a bit easier to work with than complex synthetic propositions about how the universe works. They're intertwined of course. Such a synthetic proposition could be clause A that you mentioned. Are you familiar with Hume's problem of induction? I think it was Hume, I'm too lazy to google it.

Star,

To pile onto Interbane's analysis a bit.

Your story about the snake corresponds with our own experience. We all know what you mean by snake, hook, fishing, and many other elements of your story. We all agree that it is certainly possible for a hook to snare a snake under the circumstances you describe. It is also entirely plausible, from my experience that your entire story is true, including the part about your brother not believing you.

It is easy for me to place confidence in the story you describe because it corresponds with my own experiences.

Now, using other things that are known to happen, things we can all agree are capable of happening, but adding them into a story and making it more and more complex and thus less likely, makes a story un-believable.

".... And the snake was shaken off the hook. Right before it escaped into the woods, a hawk swooped out of the air and grabbed the snake, when it tried to fly away, it was tangled in my fishing line. It flew a few feet with my fishing pole dragging behind it and the pole got tangled in a tree. Just then, a deer ran by and caught itself into the line, which pulled the bird out of the tree and tied it to the deer's back so that it looked like a cowboy on a bronco. They ran off into the woods that way and that image will always be stuck in my head.

My brother didnt believe that story, but it was 100% true."

Any one of these incidences could have happened, but each is unlikely. Add them all together and that is a highly un-believable story. Highly-unbelievable, yet each part of that story actually could happen, as it corresponds with various things we know about the universe, but added all together we reject this story as highly unlikely.

It only takes 1 supernatural event to turn our bull-shit meter into overdrive, where every other part of the story is completely believable.

"I was walking home from fishing and a space ship landed in front of me. An alien looked out at me through the window, waved, and flew away."

Completely unbelievable.

johnson1010 wrote:Star,

To pile onto Interbane's analysis a bit.

Your story about the snake corresponds with our own experience. We all know what you mean by snake, hook, fishing, and many other elements of your story. We all agree that it is certainly possible for a hook to snare a snake under the circumstances you describe. It is also entirely plausible, from my experience that your entire story is true, including the part about your brother not believing you.

It is easy for me to place confidence in the story you describe because it corresponds with my own experiences.

Now, using other things that are known to happen, things we can all agree are capable of happening, but adding them into a story and making it more and more complex and thus less likely, makes a story un-believable.

".... And the snake was shaken off the hook. Right before it escaped into the woods, a hawk swooped out of the air and grabbed the snake, when it tried to fly away, it was tangled in my fishing line. It flew a few feet with my fishing pole dragging behind it and the pole got tangled in a tree. Just then, a deer ran by and caught itself into the line, which pulled the bird out of the tree and tied it to the deer's back so that it looked like a cowboy on a bronco. They ran off into the woods that way and that image will always be stuck in my head.

My brother didnt believe that story, but it was 100% true."

Any one of these incidences could have happened, but each is unlikely. Add them all together and that is a highly un-believable story. Highly-unbelievable, yet each part of that story actually could happen, as it corresponds with various things we know about the universe, but added all together we reject this story as highly unlikely.

It only takes 1 supernatural event to turn our bull-shit meter into overdrive, where every other part of the story is completely believable.

"I was walking home from fishing and a space ship landed in front of me. An alien looked out at me through the window, waved, and flew away."

Completely unbelievable.

You didn't get probed?
No wonder no one believes you.

haha

Interbane wrote: Evolution is a fact. That statement may sound like dogma, but the difference is that it is a fact by merit of the mountains of supporting evidence from many different fields of study. . . .

In my introductory post I expressed great expectations from Booktalk and it is already working: You have rattled me out of my comfort zone to the point where I went down to the bunkhouse and rooted around in some boxes to find text books. Here is a quote from one:

“When Scientists talk about the theory of evolution, they are talking about a concept that has been supported by data from years of research. What scientists can never do, however, is claim that all of the details of evolutionary mechanisms have been worked out. Thus, scientific theories are always provisional.” (1991)

Nothing about facts or laws there.

But then I went further, since I upgraded my Hughes Net satellite service ( don’t believe their ad that says they provide high speed service, DSL in ain’t). I consulted the all knowing Wikipedia and here is what I found:

http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html

so there it is, I really did not know that there is such mass confusion about theories and laws and that I am one of many, don’t see anything in my text books emphasizing that distinction. There usually is something to that effect in the Introduction or Chapter 1.

Then there was this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
“Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things…”

and

Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

I hope by consulting the Wikipedia I am not just drinking the same coolaid.

My mother likes reading Richard Dawkins a lot and I bought some of the books for her online. And she kept insisting that evolution was a fact, but me just reading the ‘Scientific American” see it always referred to as the Theory of Evolution. So we argued. And I always will be more comfortable in calling it the Theory of Evolution (supported by facts).