On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 1:11 PM, William Bowen <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm arguing that dismissing scientific Theory as "just a theory, since > it's not 100% proved" is wrong on its face, because to do so is to > ignore the context of the use of the word. > > In science, Theory *is* an explanation of a wide range of facts. A > Theory can include many forms of evidence (including scientific Laws). > > When a Theory is "disproved" those facts don't simply cease to exist as fact. > > Oxidation occurs. Combustion occurs. Did then, does now. Phlogiston > Theory attempted to explain why. It could not do so, based on > experimentation, and was "disproved." Another, better explanation, > another Theory, was posited to explain the evidence, the facts. So, > while Phlogiston Theory was disproved, the facts that were gathered > together under its "umbrella" were not. >
Don't waste your breath...its like trying to explain alternate side of the street parking to an avocado. -- Scott Stroz --------------- You can make things happen, you can watch things happen or you can wonder what the f*&k happened. - Cpt. Phil Harris http://xkcd.com/386/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:342599 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
