Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: highball

You place a lot of weight in the words of wikipedia, which may or may not be correct as it is filled in by just about anyone who chooses to add to it (I think wikipedia has had some controversy lately over that very thing). Theories are not proven. LAWS are proven. Theories can, however, be tested, make predictions, and results repeated.


187 posted on 03/23/2006 9:36:40 AM PST by AnnoyedOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies ]


To: AnnoyedOne
Theories are not proven. LAWS are proven.

Neither are ever proven, and laws get superceded by more inclusive laws.

191 posted on 03/23/2006 9:47:47 AM PST by js1138 (~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies ]

To: AnnoyedOne
LAWS are proven.

Not true at all. Laws are parameterized. A law only holds if certain conditions (which are often not perfectly known), consistent with the framework of observation, are met. Newton's Laws were not ever proven, they were approximated from limited observations. The approximation of Newton's Laws doesn't work well for the very fast, very dense, very large or very small. (Curiously, of Newton's 3 laws, only the third is really a "law" in the scientific sense - the others are merely clever definitions used to declare what a "force" and "reference frame" is.)

Ohm's Law is an example of law that doesn't actually work at all for most substances. Laws are not "proven" at all.

197 posted on 03/23/2006 9:56:40 AM PST by Quark2005 (Confidence follows from consilience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies ]

To: AnnoyedOne
You place a lot of weight in the words of wikipedia, which may or may not be correct as it is filled in by just about anyone who chooses to add to it (I think wikipedia has had some controversy lately over that very thing).

Who brought Wikipedia into it? The definition didn't originate there - if somebody put it there, it has no bearing on this discussion. You're changing the subject.

Theories are not proven. LAWS are proven.

You're the one who brought up "proof". You said "If ANY of the theories can ever be PROVEN", which you now acknowledge is not possible with any theory. Mighty big "if" there, my friend.

And now you bring up Law. What does that have to do with it?

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"

Words mean things, after all.

Care to tell us how ID fits in there? We've established that it's not a Theory, what relevance does it have to a Law? Let's stay on track, shall we?

Theories can, however, be tested, make predictions, and results repeated.

Precisely why ID fails to qualify. It does none of those.

220 posted on 03/23/2006 10:36:23 AM PST by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson