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.

 

Any theory is true until proven wrong?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Okay, here's where the discussion began:

Original post -- The conclusion corrosion causing sulfur came primarily ftom gypsum drywall material is not only a reasonable assumption, there is no in


and more blah blah blah. That is not where this discussion began. You are trying to suck us back to that other thread. All the words needed are quoted in context in my OP.

It was stated that you seem to think that science works like this - prove me wrong or I am right. Science does not work that way.

You responded that it did.

If you want to continue debating Bsbray about corrosion, go back there to do that.

This is about the premise that science works on the idea that any theory is essentially true until proven wrong. That is not even close to how science works and yet you say it is. Instead of trying to clear up what you said or defend it, you add all this unrelated nonsense from the other thread to add more context that does nothing but distract. If you did not mean the words the way you said them then please feel free to admit your mistake and clear it up.




posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
No - it is you who is confused.

Nowhere have I suggested that any unfalsified theory is "true" until disproven. Just that it remains potentially true.


So who said this then?

Actually it kind of is.
in response to the idea that science does not work based on the idea that any theory is right until you prove it wrong.


With regard to the discussion being held between bsbray and the poster that I mention above, bsbray is incorrect in his assumption (note - his assumption, not mine) that the poster is suggesting that any theory is "true" until proven false. The poster is in fact claiming that no good evidence exists to falsify his theory, and it is therefore likely to be correct.


No..... that is not at all what happened. Let me recap.


Originally posted by bsbray11

Sorry but that's nowhere near how real science works. Prove me wrong, or else I'm right.


To which you replied


Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Actually it kind of is.


It seems as though you are a bit confused because your entire little rant there seems to say that the only response to give bsbray would have been 'Huh? That was your premise, not mine.'

Which is it? Did he say that was NOT how science worked and you argued it is, as we see here. Or is it that he tried to say science does work that way and you tried to argue it did not as your paragraph above would suggest?

I am confused now but that happens whenever people trip all over themselves to try and pretend they did not say something they did and did not try to defend for a while either. Practice might help, I see it is in full swing.


That's how the scientific method works, and I do have some understanding of it. Until half an hour ago you hadn't actually heard of Karl Popper, so it's unlikely to be me that has less grasp of it than you.


Really? When did I claim to have never heard of Popper? I tossed away your little paper for two reasons. It was just a link on the internet that did not address your point all that much and when it did, it proved you wrong. Would you really rather bring that back into this?

You can repeat all the jargon you want but when your posts show you do not understand it, it is pretty worthless.

One last recap.

Bsbray said that claiming any theory is true until proven wrong is NOT how science works.

You said it is.

Which part of the scientific method is that? You may need to highlight or use bold to point it out to me. Everything you have offered up so far has refuted your statement more and more. This last little post is your best attempt because you at least try to change the argument and claim someone else is offering the obviously incorrect premise you spent post after post defending. Copy and paste is not your friend.

Still feeling ignored? My apologies you and anyone else that was hoping I would be here 24/7 to entertain you. It is the Holiday season after all. I have to get up from this chair once or twice a week you know.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale


According to TotS, science works like this. "Any theory I have is right until you prove it wrong."

It is right there in black and white. I thought maybe he would come and explain to us all how that is even remotely true but I guess on ATS, some people just say things that are not true and just hope they will be believed.



Seriously you must try to grasp what I'm saying. We've discussed this over and over, and you persist with writing something that is untrue.

I have never suggested that a theory is "true" until proved wrong. That's a mistake that you made a very long time ago when you misunderstood something I wrote. You continue to pretend that I said something that I did not.

If it is "right there in black and white" please just cut and paste it.

Here we are back on December 11:


Originally posted by LillydaleI did not reply to the bulk of your post because it is a pointless exercise. You told me that I need to have a competing theory and not just questions or else magically the theory you have is true.


My response:


AAAAAAAAAAAARGH! Are you really this dense? I've just spent several posts correcting this misapprehension. And you KEEP REPEATING IT.


I can't keep engaging with someone who just completely ignores what I write, so please: provide the "black and white" sentence where I wrote what you say I did.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   
By definition a theory is a theory is a theory is.....
There may be good evidence in its favour, but if it is not proven, then that is why it is called a theory.
What am I missing here?



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale



Originally posted by bsbray11

Sorry but that's nowhere near how real science works. Prove me wrong, or else I'm right.


To which you replied


Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Actually it kind of is.


Okay. Slowly. The reason I contextualised the post is because Bsbray's original quote says


that's nowhere near how real science works


Anyone asked to comment on this would need to know what "that" was.

So what was it? The original poster wrote


With nothing conflicting and there being no alternative explanation - by default it is considered to be correct


I pointed out that this is broadly true. How could it be otherwise?

In support I offered a paper by Karl Popper, probably the most important philosopher of science in the twentieth century, showing how - logically - theories can only be falsified, never proved.

(Hilariously you rejected this because it discussed astrology, when you yourself had used an analogy about flat earthers in a previous discussion in a very similar way to Popper. Priceless.)





Really? When did I claim to have never heard of Popper? I tossed away your little paper for two reasons. It was just a link on the internet that did not address your point all that much and when it did, it proved you wrong. Would you really rather bring that back into this?


It was pretty obvious from what you wrote. And just because you are once again struggling with comprehension doesn't mean it disproves what I wrote. In fact it very much endorses it.

And how amusing that someone who would link to a conspiracy website won't allow a link to work by an eminent philosopher of science when discussing, er, philosophy of science.




Still feeling ignored? My apologies you and anyone else that was hoping I would be here 24/7 to entertain you. It is the Holiday season after all. I have to get up from this chair once or twice a week you know.


You come across as so curmudgeonly. Hope you get some nice presents.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Lillydale



Originally posted by bsbray11

Sorry but that's nowhere near how real science works. Prove me wrong, or else I'm right.


To which you replied


Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Actually it kind of is.


Okay. Slowly. The reason I contextualised the post is because Bsbray's original quote says


that's nowhere near how real science works


Anyone asked to comment on this would need to know what "that" was.

So what was it? The original poster wrote


With nothing conflicting and there being no alternative explanation - by default it is considered to be correct


I pointed out that this is broadly true. How could it be otherwise?


Let me just stop you here. You seem to think there is some difference between what you just quoted and "Prove me wrong, or else I'm right." which is also part of that same statement. They are two versions of the same statement and neither one is true. How could it be otherwise? Logic for one thing.


In support I offered a paper by Karl Popper, probably the most important philosopher of science in the twentieth century, showing how - logically - theories can only be falsified, never proved.

(Hilariously you rejected this because it discussed astrology, when you yourself had used an analogy about flat earthers in a previous discussion in a very similar way to Popper. Priceless.)


Not because it discussed astrology it was the context in which it discussed astrology and was completely different from the context of the flat earth. You would know that if you read that paper. For the third time now, I dismissed it because IT DID NOT PROVE WHAT YOU THOUGHT IT DID. Thank you for confirming you either did not read it yourself, or did not understand it. Maybe you just do not understand context? It is one of those.





Really? When did I claim to have never heard of Popper? I tossed away your little paper for two reasons. It was just a link on the internet that did not address your point all that much and when it did, it proved you wrong. Would you really rather bring that back into this?


It was pretty obvious from what you wrote. And just because you are once again struggling with comprehension doesn't mean it disproves what I wrote. In fact it very much endorses it.


Was it obvious? What seemed obvious to me was that you copied an internet link that discussed a different topic in a different way. It not only did NOT prove your point, it did not even really seem to fit your defense of it. If you wanted to be more embarrassed by who's paper you were failing to comprehend, then that is up to you. I am not going to get excited over who wrote what when it does not say what you claim it does.


And how amusing that someone who would link to a conspiracy website won't allow a link to work by an eminent philosopher of science when discussing, er, philosophy of science.


Was my link conspiracy related? Your link in no way proved that the basis of science is that anything I want to think up is true until you prove it wrong. See the difference there?

Let me try again. I REJECTED YOUR PAPER BASED ON CONTENT.





Still feeling ignored? My apologies you and anyone else that was hoping I would be here 24/7 to entertain you. It is the Holiday season after all. I have to get up from this chair once or twice a week you know.


You come across as so curmudgeonly. Hope you get some nice presents.


I can not help it. I get so grouchy when people say things that are blatantly ignorant or untrue and then spend days defending it, even as their defense changes and twists to try and slowly morph into something else.

Bsbray said what again...."With nothing conflicting and there being no alternative explanation - by default it is considered to be correct"

Uh huh. So for a long time, the earth really was flat and elves really did live inside your brain. Aids was really a demonic possession. Cancer was a parasite. There must really be bases all over Mars and the moon. Speaking of the moon, I am fairly sure it still triggers werewolves to change since there is nothing conflicting and there being no alternative explanation and all. Oh, I know, not serious theories so they do not count right? Flat Earth, oh that really was a theory but it is just such an old one so that does not count. Cancer being a parasite well.........So was it really a parasite while there was nothing conflicting and there being no alternative explanation? What happened? Did Cancer change just as our ability to explore it did?

You are still wrong. That is not how science works. Show me where in your precious paper it backs that up? Highlight the good parts. Maybe you can offer examples of how this is a scientific absolute?

You could always just finish this off by explaining to me how it is that cancer was indeed a parasite while it qualified under your given standards and it turns out, that is not the case. Either science works this way and cancer changed on us...or?

[edit on 12/24/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Seriously you must try to grasp what I'm saying. We've discussed this over and over, and you persist with writing something that is untrue.


What did I write that was untrue?


I have never suggested that a theory is "true" until proved wrong. That's a mistake that you made a very long time ago when you misunderstood something I wrote. You continue to pretend that I said something that I did not.
I am pretty sure we just cleared that up.

Bsbray said "With nothing conflicting and there being no alternative explanation - by default it is considered to be correct"

TotS said "Actually it is."

Am I following along so far?

With NOTHING CONFLICTING and there being NO ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION - something is by default true.

Do you understand what that means?


If it is "right there in black and white" please just cut and paste it.


Now I have done it several times for you. Enjoy.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale


With NOTHING CONFLICTING and there being NO ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION - something is by default true.




You've substituted the word "true" for "correct", but otherwise, yes, that's what I think.

(If you read the Popper essay you will see why I don't consider real "truth" to be attainable, so it's not a term I'd use.)

Perhaps you could give me an example of a theory that

has NOTHING CONFLICTING with it, and for which there is NO ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION

that is not generally accepted to be correct?



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You've substituted the word "true" for "correct", but otherwise, yes, that's what I think.

(If you read the Popper essay you will see why I don't consider real "truth" to be attainable, so it's not a term I'd use.)


At least you know how to parse words. Correct or true, pick whichever you like. The premise is still wrong.


Perhaps you could give me an example of a theory that

has NOTHING CONFLICTING with it, and for which there is NO ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION

that is not generally accepted to be correct?



Nope. Off the top of my head I sure can not. That is why they are theories but not necessarily TRUE or CORRECT. I can play your game though. Can you name just one theory that is correct only because of the lack of opposing evidence?

You admit there is a dragon in my garage then? That is my theory. I offered to let you come prove that wrong and you failed to do so, so it is true then according to you. Whatever you want.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Nope. Off the top of my head I sure can not. That is why they are theories but not necessarily TRUE or CORRECT.


Except that a theory, by definition, is considered correct.


I can play your game though. Can you name just one theory that is correct only because of the lack of opposing evidence?


I don't know about him, but I can't. Again, you're muddled on the nature of what a theory is. You can't just come up with any old idea, and say it's correct because of a lack of opposing evidence. Rather, theories are correct because of all the evidence that supports them.


You admit there is a dragon in my garage then? That is my theory. I offered to let you come prove that wrong and you failed to do so, so it is true then according to you. Whatever you want.


Actually, "there is a dragon in my garage" would be your hypothesis. After making that hypothesis, you would need to gather evidence. Open the door to your garage. is there a dragon in there? At first glance, it looks like no. Look under the car, is he there? No. In the cabinets? For good measure, let's close the garage door and come in the side. Still no dragon? So far, the evidence that we have gathered says that there is, in fact, no dragon in your garage. Now we could stop there and call your hypothesis wrong, but just because we're completists, we can set up some equipment to see if the dragon mysteriously appears in your garage when you're not looking. So we leave a collection of video cameras, Geiger counters, seismometers, whatever the heck you would use to record the presence of a dragon in a garage, and we leave them there for a few days. We come back to collect the equipment for analysis. The data recorded by these reinforces our observational data of no dragon.

Your hypothesis that there is a dragon in your garage is incorrect, and never makes it close to the "theory" stage. You will need to come up with another explanation of who keeps eating your dog's food. Looking at the video tape, maybe you'll see the raccoon come in through the dryer vent you never got around to closing off.

[edit on 24-12-2009 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

I don't know about him, but I can't. Again, you're muddled on the nature of what a theory is. You can't just come up with any old idea, and say it's correct because of a lack of opposing evidence. Rather, theories are correct because of all the evidence that supports them.


I really have no clue who you are addressing here. You said theories are correct by nature - um ok. So any theory is correct? no, 'rather, theories are correct because of all the evidence that supports them.'

Uh....I am not sure how you reconcile your first statement with the second. Either they are correct by nature or they are correct because of the evidence supporting them. You contradicted yourself there.

Anyway, you are just backing me up. I am the one saying that they are correct because of the evidence supporting them. Please do not argue with me to say that what I said is correct.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
I really have no clue who you are addressing here. You said theories are correct by nature - um ok. So any theory is correct? no, 'rather, theories are correct because of all the evidence that supports them.'

Uh....I am not sure how you reconcile your first statement with the second. Either they are correct by nature or they are correct because of the evidence supporting them. You contradicted yourself there.

Anyway, you are just backing me up. I am the one saying that they are correct because of the evidence supporting them. Please do not argue with me to say that what I said is correct.


I explained this on the previous page of the thread, actually. I don't know if you saw it, but it's there.

You may believe that theories are correct because of the evidence that backs them. But it's evident from the rest of the thread that you do not understand the definition of "theory" being used. This is evidenced by your "my theory is there is a dragon in my garage," and "the world floats in jello"

If you know what a theory is, and are just being facetious, then you're apparently pretty bad at being facetious, and this thread would seem to just be you trolling, if so.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Actually, "there is a dragon in my garage" would be your hypothesis. After making that hypothesis, you would need to gather evidence.


Here is where you are going to get lost. I have gathered evidence. Prove I have not.


Open the door to your garage. is there a dragon in there? At first glance, it looks like no. Look under the car, is he there? No. In the cabinets? For good measure, let's close the garage door and come in the side. Still no dragon? So far, the evidence that we have gathered says that there is, in fact, no dragon in your garage.


I know this might take a bit because it might not even be in this thread but I did mention before that the dragon was invisible. It seemed silly to repeat since invisible or not, no one is coming to prove it is not there. My evidence shows he is.


Now we could stop there and call your hypothesis wrong, but just because we're completists, we can set up some equipment to see if the dragon mysteriously appears in your garage when you're not looking.


I see you are not even going to try. Are you suggesting he gets tired keeping himself invisible and that maybe when no one is looking, he lets his camo down?


So we leave a collection of video cameras, Geiger counters, seismometers, whatever the heck you would use to record the presence of a dragon in a garage, and we leave them there for a few days.


I guess you are looking for the standard radioactive visible dragon who happens to be rather heavy as well? Not my dragon. None of that will help but that will not disprove my dragon.


We come back to collect the equipment for analysis. The data recorded by these reinforces our observational data of no dragon.


Hmmmm. No radioactivity from a dragon that emits none? No visible signs of an invisible dragon? No seismic recording of a dragon who is either weightless or always floating?(not sure which but I have a theory. So how does using any of this prove anything? It neither disproves my dragon nor does it prove TotS's assertion that me simply theorizing about said dragons makes them exist. The must exist so far because opposing evidence is coming up rather short, wouldn't you say?


Your hypothesis that there is a dragon in your garage is incorrect, and never makes it close to the "theory" stage. You will need to come up with another explanation of who keeps eating your dog's food. Looking at the video tape, maybe you'll see the raccoon come in through the dryer vent you never got around to closing off.


Tell you what. Go take a brisk walk and try again but thanks for playing.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Unobservable evidence is an oxymoron. If you have nothing tangible to back up the presence of your dragon, then it must be taken that said dragon does not exist, and your hypothesis is wrong.




posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
If you know what a theory is, and are just being facetious, then you're apparently pretty bad at being facetious, and this thread would seem to just be you trolling, if so.


That is why I offered up that tasty little cancer/parasite theory but for some reason both you and TotS seem to just miss that completely. I guess because it was a legitimate theory in the modern age considered by real medical science? He hated flat earth because of the time frame. Surely you have to admit that was a theory at the time? Neither one of you can deny the many many many medical theories that have turned out to be wrong. Do you know what causes ulcers? The THEORY on that has changed many times.

Ulcer's were also theorized to be caused by parasites. There were a great many medical studies and proposed treatments because after a small amount of supporting evidence surfaced, it was an accepted theory until greater evidence suggested otherwise.

Did you catch the key part there? It was originally accepted that it was a parasite. Did this make it true? No. Was it an actual theory? YOU BET!

It was then proven wrong with more evidence. So according to you and TotS, like cancer, it really was caused by a parasite until they discovered it was not? Please feel free to explain how that was not a 'theory' by definition.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Unobservable evidence is an oxymoron.


How was that walk? Too short if you ask me.
I never said it was unobservable. I said it had no weight, radioactivity, or visible light. Surely you know there are other methods of observing things. Human's were born with five senses and you did not even begin with the basics of smell, touch, taste. Tsk tsk.


If you have nothing tangible to back up the presence of your dragon, then it must be taken that said dragon does not exist, and your hypothesis is wrong.



You would think but then I come here and see that the only thing I need in order for my dragon to be real, is your inability to prove it fake. Please reread the premise you are supporting here. TotS said it is true as long as you cannot prove it is untrue. That is what started this thread. If you want to defend that, defend it then.

I would tend to agree that no evidence for something would render it invalid but according to the premise given by TotS is that I am right and it is true until you prove otherwise and you have not done that yet.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hack28
Thats why its still
"the theory of eveolution"
"the theory of gravity"
"the theory of relativity"
"the big bang theory"

There are so many generally accepted theories that are just that. Theories, and theories exist until they are either proven or idsproven and replaced with another theory.
To illustrate the point i found this fascinating when it came out, it is the list fo the top 100 questions still unanswered by science. It was released by Science Magazine in celebration of the 125th anniversary of science.
Some of them that are still un proven are passed along all the time as facts. Which they are not. Some included which may seem like they have been answered but are not are as follows:

How did flowers evolve?
How do general anesthetics work?
Why do we sleep?
Why doesn't a pregnant woman reject her fetus?
How do proteins find their partners?
What causes reversals in Earth's magnetic field?
How do planets form?
What is the nature of the glassy state?
What is the structure of water?
What is the nature of gravity?

These are just a few visit the link for more. I find it fascinating to research all these "facts" that are passed around as common knowledge. When in fact most of them are still theories or unproven hypothesis. There is sooo much of this world we do not know.

www.sciencemag.org...



Sorry but theory in science is no the same as theory in every day vernacular - these are not theories, the theory of gravity is not an hypothesis it is a LAW - thats how the word is used.

IN every day laymens vernacular theory is used as an idea, an hypothesis - "the butler may have done it in teh library with the candle stick" - where as in science we are talking about LAWS - theorem - there ar eall kinds of theories in mathematics, physics even theory of MUSIC - which is not a hypothesis - it is as stated a fact.

Conflating this ONLY points out that you ahve no idea on this subject at all.

cheers.



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
You know the theory is true when it becomes a law.
Maxwell's theory in now a law in electrical engineering and in
science and in physics.
The God has ten commandments but churches and religion
might make them laws of their religion.
Also governments make laws under certain procedures.
Some theories are quashed but still remain in a few rudimentary
texts that might be of up most importance to science but the movers
and shakers do not want the masses to be aware of laws that might
be in the making.
So saying its so is a big nothing.


[edit on 12/25/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

[edit on 12/25/2009 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Perhaps you could give me an example of a theory that

has NOTHING CONFLICTING with it, and for which there is NO ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION

that is not generally accepted to be correct?



Nope. Off the top of my head I sure can not.



So in the entire history of human thought, the vast canon of theories and experiences stretching back into history, you cannot give me a single example that supports your opinion and contradicts mine?

Well, that would kind of suggest that I'm right.



That is why they are theories but not necessarily TRUE or CORRECT. I can play your game though. Can you name just one theory that is correct only because of the lack of opposing evidence?



Why would I do that? I don't consider it to be the case. Once again, for perhaps the fortieth time, I DO NOT CONSIDER A STATEMENT TO BE TRUE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN REFUTED.

I have repeated this again and again and again. You have simply ignored me. Then you've claimed "it's there in black and white" which it is demonstrably not, as you have been unable to reproduce it.

You must come to terms with this: the whole discussion has come about because of a misunderstanding of yours that you have expanded into a colossal straw man. Indeed you started a new thread just to attempt to solidify that straw man - and you complained when I contextualised what I had actually written. Understandably, because it made you look foolish.

So. Once more. I concur with the statement -

With NOTHING CONFLICTING and there being NO ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION - a theory is by default considered correct

- a statement which you apparently find ridiculous.

(Sidenote - can you explain to me why you disagree with this?)


Your silly example of your dragon in your garage doesn't qualify because

- it isn't a theory
- there is no way of measuring the phenomenon
- using standard systems of measurement and observation it is easily falsifed anyway.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
So in the entire history of human thought, the vast canon of theories and experiences stretching back into history, you cannot give me a single example that supports your opinion and contradicts mine?

Well, that would kind of suggest that I'm right.


Not if you are actually reading these posts but more on that later. I have actually given you a few examples of why your premise is wrong, you just keep finding reasons to nitpick at why you like some and not others.





With NOTHING CONFLICTING and there being NO ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION - a theory is by default considered correct

- a statement which you apparently find ridiculous.

(Sidenote - can you explain to me why you disagree with this?)


Probably not since you do not seem to understand the statement. If you are going to waste a post explaining how that is NOT what you think and then present it again as true.

I can explain it again to you but I think more than once is already too many times for someone so much smarter than myself. Try rereading why I already explained I do not agree. I am going to guess you are missing something.


Your silly example of your dragon in your garage doesn't qualify because

- it isn't a theory
- there is no way of measuring the phenomenon
- using standard systems of measurement and observation it is easily falsifed anyway.


So that is why you keep ignoring the medical theories I have offered? Obviously an invisible dragon is a little silly. How about you tell me how your statement is at all true in the realm of the cause of ulcers.

Here is what you are saying -

'What causes ulcers?'

- I think it is a parasite based on my interpretation of the results from testing so far.

With NOTHING CONFLICTING

- Have any conflicting evidence to my parasite theory?
'no.'

NO ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION

- How about an alternative explanation?
'Well yes but according to TotS, they are just ideas and not theories so I will keep them to myself.'

a theory is by default considered correct

- So by default, ulcers must be caused by a parasite. Science is amazing.
'Hey it turns out they found out that parasites have nothing to do with it? It was fun while your theory was correct by default though.'




So, now that you see just what a silly concept that is, let me get back to my silly dragon.


- it isn't a theory


No? Well you must know what you are talking about here so I assume everything you say will be educating me. What is next?


- there is no way of measuring the phenomenon


Says who? I said you could not weigh it, see it, or detect radio activity.
That is a very short list of three types of measurements.


- using standard systems of measurement and observation it is easily falsifed anyway.


If that were true, someone would have been able to falsify it by now. I still have $5000 sitting here waiting for the last set of armchair scientists to disprove it. Want a shot at it?

So, mister scientist. What standard systems of measurement would you use to prove something does NOT exist? I would truly like as detailed and informative and answer as you can muster. This is important. Since it is impossible to prove something is NOT, you will be educating the world.

So, tell me how it was true for a while about ulcers, until conflicting evidence was found.

Tell me what systems you would use to measure the lack of something.


[edit on 12/26/09 by Lillydale]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join