It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How science literate are you?

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped


Wrong. There is no "proof" in science, only in math. A scientific theory does not become a scientific law once enough "proof" comes in. A scientific theory is the highest standard that can be achieved.

Theory > law




Right, I'm willing to accept that I made a mistake in regards to the terminology 'proof', so okay you are right in saying that proofs cannot be mentioned, as evolution is a theory that cannot be described a mathematical equation (hence proof cannot be put forward).

But I can say that your statement here is also incorrect:

Theory > Law

A scientific law is not "better" or "more accurate" than a scientific theory. A law explains what will happen under certain circumstances, while a theory explains how it happens. Source:

SoTheory is not better than a law..






A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.


en.wikipedia.org...

Scientific theories can contain scientific laws. Your idea that theories elevate to law status once they are "proved" is straight up incorrect.


I never actually said that a theories can be elevated to law status...

What I did say through my post was that the theory of evolution explains how the phenomenon could happen, but it does not mean that it WILL happen. A law means that a phenomenon WILL happen.

And seeing as Laws cannot ever be shown to be wrong (that is why there are many theories and few laws), the theory of evolution can be shown to be wrong, and hence the wording of question 7 is misguiding. A theory can be disproven, and has been in the past.



In question 7 where it says:

''Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.''

This statement is worded as a fact and scientific law, implying that this phenomenon of Evolution does actually happen as it says 'developed' and not 'can develop'.

And so regardless of my incorrect terminology that I have already conceded, my point still remains.


edit on 24-5-2015 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-5-2015 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-5-2015 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-5-2015 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 24 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Did you know that using the words "proof" and "proved" when talking about scientific literacy is a dead giveaway about your scientific literacy?

FYI that terminology is generally frowned upon with all scientific matters.


Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”



I have conceded that I used the words 'proof' and 'proves' incorrectly, when I meant something along the lines of confirming that a phenomenon will actually take place.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

A scientific law is not "better" or "more accurate" than a scientific theory.


I never stated otherwise.


What I did say through my post was that the theory of evolution explains how the phenomenon could happen, but it does not mean that it WILL happen. A law means that a phenomenon WILL happen.


Not true. Nothing is certain in science. A law is descriptive, a theory is explanatory. It has nothing to do with the certainty of a given event occurring.


And seeing as Laws cannot ever be shown to be wrong

Yes they can.


the theory of evolution can be shown to be wrong


All laws and theories are falsifiable. It's the cornerstone of the scientific method.





And so back to question 7 where it says:

''Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.''

This statement is worded as a fact and scientific law, implying that this phenomenon of Evolution does actually happen as it says 'developed' and not 'can develop'.


Again, this is your misunderstanding of the terminology, as has been pointed out to you a few times already now.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

I never stated otherwise.



You did state it though? You said Theory > Law.

What else did you mean by that notation??????





Not true. Nothing is certain in science. A law is descriptive, a theory is explanatory. It has nothing to do with the certainty of a given event occurring.




Yes they can.



Many times laws are expressed in a single expression. Laws cannot ever be shown to be wrong (that is why there are many theories and few laws). Laws are accepted as being universal and are the cornerstones of science. If a law were ever to be shown false, then any science built on that law would also be wrong; then the domino effect would have a new (and devastating) meaning. Laws generally rely on a concise mathematical equation

Some examples of scientific laws (also called the laws of nature) include the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle’s law of gasses, the laws of gravitation, and a several others.




And so back to question 7 where it says:

''Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.''

This statement is worded as a fact and scientific law, implying that this phenomenon of Evolution does actually happen as it says 'developed' and not 'can develop'.





Again, this is your misunderstanding of the terminology, as has been pointed out to you a few times already now.



My incorrect use of the the proof/proves thing has already been addressed and I conceded that I used the incorrect terminology, so what other misunderstanding are you talking about here?

What else than am I suppose to deduce from the following wording:

''Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.''

Does this statement imply that the phenomenon does happen or can happen? You tell me, as they are two different things...

Again, evolution is not a phenomenon that does happen, as it has not shown to be occurring, and thus you cannot unequivocally state that ''..Humans developed from earlier species of animals''

edit on 24-5-2015 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-5-2015 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: ketsuko

I find it odd that 72% got 11 right but only 48% answered 2 right?

52% think lasers work by focusing sound waves??



I'm actually surprised it was that good. A huge percentage of ATSers have difficulty distinguishing between EM and sound.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

By "theories > laws" I meant exactly what the expression says: theories are greater than laws.

As for the rest, we've been through this enough times already. Show me a single source that says laws cannot be falsified.

Regarding you hangup on evolution not being a law:


Evolution, and most of Biology, cannot be expressed in a concise mathematical equation, so it is referred to as a theory. A scientific law is not "better" or "more accurate" than a scientific theory. A law explains what will happen under certain circumstances, while a theory explains how it happens.


evolutionfaq.com...
edit on 24-5-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

By "theories > laws" I meant exactly what the expression says: theories are greater than laws.

As for the rest, we've been through this enough times already. Show me a single source that says laws cannot be falsified.

Regarding you hangup on evolution not being a law:


Evolution, and most of Biology, cannot be expressed in a concise mathematical equation, so it is referred to as a theory. A scientific law is not "better" or "more accurate" than a scientific theory. A law explains what will happen under certain circumstances, while a theory explains how it happens.


evolutionfaq.com...


You haven't explained why a theory is greater than a law, just because it explains things and tells you why but laws don't??

I don't want to go back forth over the same story, you can berate my scientific literacy as much as you want, it remains that the statement from question 7 in the quiz is invalid.

The wording is misguiding, and evolution is not a fact of life. It is not something that has been observed to occur on a regular basis, or has even been shown to occur at all as implied by question 7.


You shouldn't be claiming that ideas about history (humans evolving from earlier species of animals) are the same as repeatable and verifiable observations in the present; *I am being rhetorical here before you get upset*. The statement from question 7 would have me think that I should believe that they are the same thing, which is insulting.

NO.

My original issue with the format of the quiz is that I believe it was purposively trying to mislead. Evolution, because it's a theory, is a higher form of knowledge rather than a fact.

Question 7 was worded as a fact.


edit on 24-5-2015 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-5-2015 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-5-2015 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101




You haven't explained why a theory is greater than a law, just because it explains things and tells you why but laws don't??


Not "why" they explain how.


There is a law for gravity and there is a theory for gravity.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

So you dont see the obvious difference in depth between "this happens" and "this is why/how this happens"?

And yes, your scientific literacy is very much in question. You've confused terminology, misunderstood concept and made demonstrably wrong statements ("laws cannot be disproven, theories can") and every single assertion your argument has hinged on has shown to be false (as a direct result of your misunderstanding).

Furthermore, you're now misusing the term "fact" in science. A fact is a datapoint/emperical observation. Theories explain these facts. Evolutiin is both a fact and theory:

en.m.wikipedia.org...



There's not reallly much to discuss so now would be a good time for you to gracefully exit this subthread and educate yourself on the topics that have been discussed before continuing any further.
edit on 24-5-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
The only thing I got right was my login to Facebook.

I took the test, share the results, then posted a picture of a cheese and eel sandwich I was eating with the caption, "Yummers".
edit on 24-5-2015 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

My original point still stands, that you conveniently put aside.

Question 7 is worded incorrectly, that is all I came here to say.



So you dont see the obvious difference in depth between "this happens" and "this is why/how this happens"?


That is not what I am comparing, as the "this happens" part is something that actually happens repeatedly, and can be verified.

the "this is why/how this happens"? is not something verifiable, its how some scientist believe humans developed from lesser animal species.

And so yes there is an obvious difference to me here, the verifiable vs. unverifiable. or the observable vs. the unobservable.

I know what I am going with.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

"That is not what I am comparing, as the "this happens" part is something that actually happens repeatedly, and can be verified."

Exactly the same with theories.

Go back and read all of the information posted this far carefully.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

I see, well first let me address the reason I said what I said, and in what context:
I said - Evolution is not a law.
What is a law - it is a statement for a particular principle that is applicable to a phenomenon that always occurs. I.e. A law is a statement that has been consolidated by repeated successful testing.


A theory, likewise, is based on repeated testing and observations that can be independently reproduced.


I said - It is (Evolution) is a theory


Odd that you're claiming to be showing me your context yet you are chopping up the statement and not giving it all. Your original context was quite clear when you said the following-

I'm sorry but this is the second quiz ive taken where a question on evolution props up in a quiz when it is not a law only a theory. Im sick and tired of these tactics.

Your original context alludes to your opinion that a law supersedes a theory in that it is an unimpeachable fact. This simply is not the case.



You were correct in saying that a scientific theory is used to explain a phenomenon. I agree, and so does the dictionary and the rest of humanity.


Yet you're still using the terminology incorrectly... At least I can read a dictionary like the rest of humanity though!


And in this case, the theory of evolution is a reasonable explanation or assumption that lacks confirming proof. It is not however a phenomenon that is in anyway repeatable or observable, or backed by confirming proof.


Whether you want to accept the data or not isn't anything I can control, that's your deal. However, the bottom line is that evolution is indeed a fact. It IS an observable process and it can and HAS been reproduced. On top of the biological evidence, the genetic evidence in favor of modern evolutionary synthesis is incontrovertible. There is not a single question about the truth of this process.


So what was I trying to say is that there is no confirming proof that ''Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.'' as this process is not something that is observable, and CANNOT be proved unlike a law which can be proved as scientific law is a set of observed regularities that will ALWAYS occur when certain conditions are met, and CAN be observed.


But this entire line of thinking is absolutely incorrect. Laws CAN be shown to be incorrect or wrong. And again, evolution is absolutely an observable, repeatable natural process.




And with regards to reading comprehension, had the question asked me if the statement in question is a current theory, guess what? I would have answered TRUE. But as it stands, the statement put forward in question 7 makes it sound like it has already been confirmed. Sorry, it hasn't..


It puts it that way because evolution is an absolute fact no matter how much you argue to the contrary.


Now when you inspect the rest of the questions in this supposed quiz, the majority of them can be proved, and can be observed, repeatedly, and cannot be disputed either.


In science, there is no such thing as absolute proof as everything is subject to change and the subjective, anthropocentric lens we view the universe through is based on our limited knowledge of the workings of the universe.


But hey, thanks for calling me dumb. I'm glad we have such mature conversationalists here on ATS.


Whatever floats your boat, but I didn't call YOU dumb. I said that


attempting to utilize the disclaimer that "it's just a theory not a law" is just dumb.


In other words, making statements of fact when not being able to discern between two somewhat important terms, is indeed dumb. It probably would have been more appropriate though to call the play ignorant instead of dumb but the point still stands.





What I did say through my post was that the theory of evolution explains how the phenomenon could happen, but it does not mean that it WILL happen. A law means that a phenomenon WILL happen.


No, a law means that based on every observation thus far, the statistical predictability of a particular event is, within a margin of error, highly likely to happen. laws are not set in stone and are just as subject to falsification as a theory or hypothesis.


And seeing as Laws cannot ever be shown to be wrong (that is why there are many theories and few laws), the theory of evolution can be shown to be wrong, and hence the wording of question 7 is misguiding. A theory can be disproven, and has been in the past.


Except that laws can in fact be shown to be wrong and disproven. just like a theory. You'll get no argument from me that evolutionary theory CAN in fact be shown to be wrong. Yet it has not. The opposite is occurring. We are getting more and more evidence and data that SUPPORTS Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.


This statement is worded as a fact and scientific law, implying that this phenomenon of Evolution does actually happen as it says 'developed' and not 'can develop'.


Facts and Laws are 2 phenomena that need to be separated. Theories and laws, hell...even a hypothesis, can be based on facts. Facts however are not laws, theories or hypothesis. Evolution is a fact. It doesn't need to be made a law for that to be so. You don't need to believe it for it to be so.


And so regardless of my incorrect terminology that I have already conceded, my point still remains.


Certainly, your point remains. however, your point is incorrect in the assumptions and liberties you have taken.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Ahhh I see now, so you are suggesting that we can observe lesser animal beings evolving into humans? So overnight, evolution that is animals evolving into new species has now become observable?



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Thinking about it now I think that test is pretty good for determining who is scientifically illiterate.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

I never said that evolution does not contain facts, it is afterall a broad theory, natural selection for example I agree with, as it is observable and verifiable and with It being an underlying mechanism for evolution I accept it.

But question 7 is a far cry from natural selection. It equivocally states that humans developed from lesser animal species.

All of you can silence my main point, it still remains, and is all I came here to say.

That part is not a fact.

Many of you are now raising moot points, and sidestepping my point completely.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Thinking about it now I think that test is pretty good for determining who is scientifically illiterate.


I'm assuming this is indirectly aimed at me, well guess what I got 10/11 correct, I disagree with question 7 specifically the wording and that will not change. And I chose to answer False.

Berate me as much as you like, it doesn't bother me. I do not claim to know it all nor do I act arrogant in anyway.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

You got a question wrong and you are arguing about it while at the same time you have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of knowledge of those sciences.


I think the quiz is pretty good.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: paradoxious

originally posted by: ketsuko
chronicle.com...

I got them all.

Given the popularity of Big Bang Theory, I thought number 5 was surprising.
I got them all except #5.
It wasn't an explosion that created the Universe.
An explosion is what? ... and requires what to occur?



the explosion was the start of time, without explosion (movement) there is no time.




An explosive force can't create velocities in excess of the speed of light...
... nor can it warp time and space.


cough, cough.... black holes



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
a reply to: peter vlar

I never said that evolution does not contain facts, it is afterall a broad theory, natural selection for example I agree with, as it is observable and verifiable and with It being an underlying mechanism for evolution I accept it.


No, what you did say was that the way question 7 is invalid as the wording is misleading and that evolution is not a fact. Evolution is a fact though which invalidates your criticisms.


But question 7 is a far cry from natural selection. It equivocally states that humans developed from lesser animal species.


No, it doesn't state that humans developed from lesser animal species. It states


Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.


This statement is absolutely correct. Humans, as we know them to be today in the 21st century did indeed evolve from earlier animals. Our immediate precursors were, to an extent,H. Sapiens, H. neanderthalensis and H. Altaiensis (Denisovan) as well as an as yet unidentified hominid based on recent information from decoding the human, Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes. Today, we (homo sapiens sapiens) are effectively hybrids of H. Sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans. Half a million years back H. Heidelbergensis was the progenitor of our immediate precursors. Before them was H. Erectus and prior to that was H. Habilis and on and on. This isnt just conjecture based on the fossil record, this includes incontrovertible DNA evidence from multiple hominins that had been deceased from a few decades up to approximately 40KA. The data is there for anyone willing to read it.


All of you can silence my main point, it still remains, and is all I came here to say.

That part is not a fact.


The more accurate point would be that you disagree with question 7 because you personally do not believe in the findings presented by those biologists and earth scientists who support Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. According to a 2009 Pew poll, 97% of American scientists credentialed in the earth and life sciences support the findings that are in favor of MES and accept that evolution is indeed a fact. The Only people I seem to come across who disregard all current data are those who are proponents of YEC and those who are using textbooks from the 60's and 70's to obtain their information from.




Many of you are now raising moot points, and sidestepping my point completely.


Not at all. Simply pointing out both logical and factual errors that aided in reaching your conclusion. It was after all, you, who took the tack with attempting to differentiate between the importance of a Law vs Theory and what the definititons entailed in an attempt to your point home while engaged in a discussion about scientific literacy. You cant really be too shocked that people have mentioned the less than apt disambiguations because its completely on topic regarding the level of scientific literacy in Americans.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join