Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
Are you really trying to have this debate here?
Tell you what if you want to debate the merits of the theory of evolution as not being scientific fact here is the thread to do it in.
The title should be right up your ally.
ATS evolution its only a theory
The right thread for the right topic I say.
Edit to add do you really need to post twice to respond to my other reply you know you can edit your posts and add stuff. Just wow.edit on 7-6-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)
There may be some truth to that, though it's understandable. People who don't have PhD's often don't seem to understand exactly what it is that they are dismissing with their unorthodox views. Or as some people like to phrase it, "you have to know what is IN the box, in order to think outside the box".
Originally posted by swanne
And many more in my OP.
The system of examinations and degrees is a sorting process; the physics PhD screens out most of those who question orthodoxy
They are theories not evidence, your so called evidence is other peoples word you can not prove yourself and neither can I because we do not have the means to do so.
Originally posted by Kaone
reply to post by Phage
Right and the people that get access to perform the necessary test on those theories usually work for the... oh right the government or some other agency that we as a public have no access to. You yourself cannot go test most of the theories put out by mainstream science. I wonder why? Phage I respect you and members like you very much, so don't get me wrong but the education system does not exactly let us use our own mind does it now?
Some work for the government but I don't think most do.
Right and the people that get access to perform the necessary test on those theories usually work for the... oh right the government or some other agency that we as a public have no access to.
Originally posted by halfoldman
I'm not sure, but as far as I gather religion is about an invisible, totally unproved, and actually unimaginable being called "God" (or "the gods").
Why the beliefs and prayers to this being?
Some ancient book with terribly barbaric customs (most of which is conveniently ignored) tells people so.
Mostly it is ingrained with hypnotic and mind control techniques that ultimately prove lucrative for the preacher, based on absolutely nothing.
Now science may have its pitfalls, problems and strange theories (as well as people who practice pseudo-science or advance out long debunked beliefs), but science is never built on just talking to the air.
Science has laws of cause and effect, whereas religion claims to move mountains, but it never has moved a single grain of dirt.
The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why we have qualia or phenomenal experiences — how sensations acquire characteristics, such as colors and tastes. David Chalmers, who introduced the term "hard problem" of consciousness, contrasts this with the "easy problems" of explaining the ability to discriminate, integrate information, report mental states, focus attention, etc. Easy problems are easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify a mechanism that can perform the function. That is, their proposed solutions, regardless of how complex or poorly understood they may be, can be entirely consistent with the modern materialistic conception of natural phenomena. Chalmers claims that the problem of experience is distinct from this set, and he argues that the problem of experience will "persist even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained".
The existence of a "hard problem" is controversial and has been disputed by some philosophers. Providing an answer to this question could lie in understanding the roles that physical processes play in creating consciousness and the extent to which these processes create our subjective qualities of experience.
Several questions about consciousness must be resolved in order to acquire a full understanding of it. These questions include, but are not limited to, whether being conscious could be wholly described in physical terms, such as the aggregation of neural processes in the brain. It follows that if consciousness cannot be explained exclusively by physical events in the brain, it must transcend the capabilities of physical systems and require an explanation of nonphysical means. For philosophers who assert that consciousness is nonphysical in nature, there remains a question about what outside of physical theory is required to explain consciousness.