Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:33 am
You learn something new everyday. Newton's laws of gravity were disproved?Digit wrote:[...] a law can end up being disproved, such as Newton's laws of gravity.
Archaeologica.org
Your source on the web for daily archaeology news!
https://archaeologica.org/forum/
Darwin Online
Page 4 of 14
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:43 am
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.
Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:45 am
Rokcet Scientist wrote:You learn something new everyday. Newton's laws of gravity were disproved?Digit wrote:[...] a law can end up being disproved, such as Newton's laws of gravity.
Newton's Theory of Gravity has apparently been surpassed. The Law of Gravity remains unchanged...merrily holding us to the planet.
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:51 am
Pfffffffffff...!Minimalist wrote:The Law of Gravity remains unchanged...merrily holding us to the planet.
That's a relief!
But anyway... a law is a law until a better one comes along.
The law said the earth was flat, and that was good enough for man for thousands of years, wasn't it? (Well, was it really? As man may have been circumnavigating the globe since maybe even 3,000 to 5,000 BC!).
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:01 pm
I agree with you Ish that professionals follow Darwin to a great extent, but this probably is because there's a damn good chance that he was correct. After all, as Min pointed out, it's 150 yrs since he promulgated his ideas and they have, by and large, stood the test of time.
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:05 pm
150 years is nothing, Dig, in this game .... 
They follow him because he's the only game in town, and they wouldn't get the funding otherwise.
They follow him because he's the only game in town, and they wouldn't get the funding otherwise.
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:07 pm
RS - the Law of Gravity is being upheld by faith - faith in something called dark energy that you cannot see, touch, smell, hear or taste. You just have to believe it's there, and then the Law of Gravity works!
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:48 pm
Who the hell wrote that Min? How the hell can you promulgate a Law without first having a theory then having it tested to see if it holds up!
Newton's gravitational laws were tested and found to be accurate, for a certain period of time, years of observation then showed that Mercury was not following the Law, Albert sorted that one! Possibly!
My only comment to that ish is please offer an alternative if you don't accept the general viewpoint.
Newton's gravitational laws were tested and found to be accurate, for a certain period of time, years of observation then showed that Mercury was not following the Law, Albert sorted that one! Possibly!
My only comment to that ish is please offer an alternative if you don't accept the general viewpoint.
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:49 pm
But that theory can only be supported by another theory - a faith in something that isn't palpable, only its effects.Minimalist wrote: Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.
Gravity is real. No dispute. But are our theories about why it is real real? Are they 'scientific'? That's the question.
Plus - the theory of the Descent of Man from a common ancestor has never been tested. So it doesn't fit into these glorious "theories that are superior to laws" as explained by your writer.
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:54 pm
What? You want me to come up with an alternative to Darwin's theory...now?Digit wrote: My only comment to that ish is please offer an alternative if you don't accept the general viewpoint.
I'm sorry, I've got to watch The Apprentice.
(Dig - I don't have to come up with an alternative. The young boy was allowed to shout out that the emperor had no clothes on without having to be a trained tailor.)
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:00 pm
But are our theories about why it is real real? Are they 'scientific'? That's the question.
You could hold a bowling ball at waist level and let go. Would you be willing to leave your foot there and hope that "gravity" would not work this particular time?
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:01 pm
You misread what I said, Min. I said that gravity is real. But are our ideas about why it is real, real...?
So there'll be no need to drop a bowling ball on my feet!
So there'll be no need to drop a bowling ball on my feet!
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:02 pm
No you don't have to explain it Ish, but if you don't it's going to be dull evening as we'll have nothing to argue about!
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:35 pm
Ish:
It may seem strange, but I agree with you on this one.
There are a some of alternatives to Darwinism, but they require the acceptance of something more powerful than a human in the great scheme of things.
An acceptance that humans are not the highest form of life.
Thus anyone accepting that idea will never get any funding for anything, because he is “unscientific.”
He has succumbed to the dark side of extra terrestrials, as in sprits, gods, and demons.
It is, after all, a big universe.
It may seem strange, but I agree with you on this one.
There are a some of alternatives to Darwinism, but they require the acceptance of something more powerful than a human in the great scheme of things.
An acceptance that humans are not the highest form of life.
Thus anyone accepting that idea will never get any funding for anything, because he is “unscientific.”
He has succumbed to the dark side of extra terrestrials, as in sprits, gods, and demons.
It is, after all, a big universe.
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:01 pm
Don't you mean "succumbed to the dark energy", KB?kbs2244 wrote:Ish:
He has succumbed to the dark side of extra terrestrials, as in sprits, gods, and demons.
It is, after all, a big universe.
