Replies

I reject the premise that science requires either facts or evidence.

For example, it is possible to calculate the fundamental magnetic charge of a magnetic monopole. In reality, no magnetic monopoles have ever been found; indeed, they may not even exist. Nevertheless, the value of the magnetic monopole charge is a scientific statement. It is testable in principle, even though in practice it has not been (and may not be).

Another example would be the Higgs particle and the technirho. If the Higgs does not exist, then the technirho must exist; if the Higgs does exist, there won't be a technirho particle. Searches are being conducted for both particles; rest assured that all of the physicists involved in both searches are "doing science", no matter how it turns out.

Evolution is a scientific theory whether there's evidence for it or not. The same may be said of Lamarckism. As luck would have it, there is overwhelming evidence for the former, and overwhelming evidence against the latter.

Thank you physicist, those particle thingies, did I get the technical term right? ;) sound fascinating, someday I would love to see one of those accelerators in person.

It'll be WAY over my head, but it sure LOOKS cool!! lol

Toys, BIG toys, my best Toolguy impression!! huhuhuhuhu

I reject the premise that science requires either facts or evidence.

The examples you gave depend a great deal on evidence. Without the evidence of the senses, not even the questions could be formulated. What you are saying is that no new evidence is used in those descriptions, just an analysis of existing evidence--a new look at existing concepts.

Science IS the use of reason to interpret the evidence of our senses. Even the science of logic or mathematics uses evidence--introspective evidence. Even scientific speculation (theorizing about what might be real) must be consistent with reason and evidence.

Bad science occurs with faulty reasoning or a conceptual break with the observed. Often this is in the form of claiming as real that which has neither been rationally deduced nor observed.

Evolution is a scientific theory whether there's evidence for it or not.

If there is no evidence, the most it can be called is a hypothesis, not a theory. The phlogiston theory is also a scientific theory by your terms but since it has been shown to be false it is nonsense. What you are appealing to here is formalism not the truth or verity of evolution which is really all that matters.