> 
> 

> A requirement of a theory is that it's predictive, meaning empirically 
> proven, thus it's a fact.
> 
> Thus, the Theory of Evolution is predictive and it's outcomes are verified by 
> repeatable experiments.  Therefore, it's a scientific fact.
> 
> Here ya go from wiki:
> 
> A fact (derived from the Latin Factum, see below) is something that has 
> really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of 
> fact is whether or not it can be verified, that is whether it can be shown to 
> correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check 
> facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.
> 
> 
> A common distinction sometimes made in science is between theories and 
> hypotheses, with the former being considered as satisfactorily tested or 
> proven and the latter used to denote conjectures or proposed descriptions or 
> models which have not yet been tested or proven to the same standard.
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 14, 2011, at 8:54 PM, Gruss Gott <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> If it's a scientific theory it's fact.
>> 
>> I think what you're missing is that a theory might not predict ALL facts, 
>> but that doesn't make it less of a fact.
>> 
>> Again, newtons law of gravity is not invalidated in total, just below a 
>> certain accuracy where the theory of relativity is now required.
>> 
>> But newtons law, above that level, is still a fact!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 14, 2011, at 7:44 PM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Gruss Gott <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I don't agree with that.  E.g. Quantum mechanics is a theory which 
>>>> predicts how electrons behave, which is basis of how your computer works.
>>>> 
>>>> Thus if we agree that your computer as a working system is a fact then 
>>>> then framework used to get that fact must also be a fact.
>>> 
>>> We agree the sun appears almost every day yet it is not the center of
>>> the universe.
>>> 
>>>> You can get more fuzzy and say that newtons theory of gravity predicts 
>>>> facts above a certain granularity.  Thus above that level it's a fact.
>>> 
>>> And what's wrong with condition based rules?
>>> 
>>>> Take the fuzzy fact concept one step farther: the theory of relativity.
>>>> 
>>>> Is gravity a fact?  Then how would you explain superfluidity?  It defies 
>>>> gravity.
>>> 
>>> I don't know what it is.
>>> 
>>>> If scientific theories aren't facts then there are no facts.
>>> 
>>> I'm not saying they can't be facts, just that the label doesn't guarantee 
>>> it so.
>>> 
>>> 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
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:342642
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm

Reply via email to