Science facts
- Thread starter Riot87
- Start date
-
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
I disagree but, before I explain why I will just note that the Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory and so to make a conclusion based on a theory which has never been proven as a fact would be misleading and false. Same with Massive/Mini Black Holes etc, and Cosmic Wormholes.
You may be confusing a scientific theory with a theory.
Theory (Scientific vs layman's definition) | Thinking Critically
Thanks for this...my students (sixth-graders) have trouble understanding scientific theory. I think this article will help me better explain this to them.
No I am not. Why should I cloud the definitions of theory and fact by changing them depending on the situation. That would make for too much confusion instead of keeping a theory a theory all the time and a fact a fact all the time.
If there was a Big Bang with an expanding explosion universe then that continuing expansion of debris could never touch other debris of the explosion that is theoretically and continually expanding meaning no galaxy could collide with another.
That is why the following article sounds scientific but the basic facts do not corelate to other basic facts like an expanding universe. The last paragraph sums it up pretty good...
Galaxy Collisions
A pet peeve of mine is the misuse of the word theory as hypothesis. Thank you Jordan and danie for having the same, reasonable sensibility.
Yep, and that's where it is my belief "animal instincts", and many feelings of 'deja vu', come from.
I have my own hypothesis about deja vu. Perhaps I'll burden the tet with it one day.
Then we shall gladly be the beast of that burden
I have to figure up a brief way to talk too much.Then we shall gladly be the beast of that burden
A scientific theory is based upon observable phenomena, i.e., empirical evidence (arguably, facts). A lay theory isn't that same kind of thing at all.
Maybe this chart of the way the scientific method works will help clarify.
What Jordan is getting at is that the scientific definition of the word theory is fact. In science the two words are synonymous. In science the word theory does not mean opinion or hypothesis or best guess. In common parlance theory has come to mean that. "Well, my theory on this or that is...". When someone uses the word theory that way they are not speaking scientifically, or they are speaking in scientific error.
I do understand all that and you both give an example of what I mean. There are too many (lousy choices of new) scientific words, terms, and definitions that confuse the working folks with unneeded complexities, multiple meanings, and confusion. A theory should remain a theory and not be defined sometimes as a theory and sometimes as a fact. Any theory that is the best and probable answer should have its own neutrality in the definitions. For example, Unexplained Phenomena--theory--thact--fact...thact being the probable fact still a theory. Crude example but does illustrate my meaning which allows the average worker to follow scientific advances which is vital to our evolutionary advancement as a species. Why call objects of the cosmos matter, supposedly derived from the word material, losing the average street worker and a majority of the popualtion?? Don't tell me that it doesn't matter because, as a matter of fact (and theory), it does. Atter, cosmic stuff, or some other word would of been a lot better but who thinks of the answer perhaps hidden among the philosophers, oil painters, sculpturers, and other classic artists imprisoned as worker slaves by the high society leadership.