Phlogiston was was not a tested theory, only a postulate or inference based on observation, and that postulate failed under testing. It really doesn't matter what was "thought to exist" to use your wording. What matters is that something is tested and KNOWN to exist.
A proven scientific theory, or fact, must be testable, repeatable, predictive, and quantifiable. Phlogiston was not. A modern equivalent would be dark matter theory. This substance is not tested, but inferred or postulated, based on other testable phenomena. Dark matter itself has never been been quantified as other than a place holder thus dark matter is not yet a fact just like phlogiston wasnt. So tested theories are, in fact, fact. PS If you want another example take black holes. General relativity postulated them, but they were never experimentally detected. Now they are, and their behavior is as predicted and is quantifiable and repeatable thus general relativity is fact. On Sep 21, 2011, at 10:22 AM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > > Phlogiston is still not an element and never was. > Yet shit still burns. So the underlying principle, that things burn, > is still there. But the theory that it was caused by a bogus element > is bunk. > > So there we have it, a theory that was tested and believed, eventually > proven not to be fact. > > . > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Gruss Gott <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> But the whole point is that the theory of evolution CAN'T describe the >> underlying mechanism or it would be a different theory. >> >> As an example, newtons law of gravity. It was superseded by a broader >> theory of general relativity which not only describes gravity but other >> interactions. >> >> What it doesn't describe is quantum mechanics. But even if we discover a >> grand unification theory for all physical phenomena, we STILL wouldn't know >> the underlying mechanism behind that. >> >> So what's to disagree on? The theory of evolution is a fact forever and >> ever, end of story period. >> >> Our physical world will never understand the underlying mechanisms. >> >> >> >> On Sep 21, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Larry Lyons <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> There are two things happening here. the theory, which is a scientific >>> construct attempting to model the natural phenomenon of evolution. Then >>> there is evolution or the action of variation in allels over time. I'm >>> trying to be as careful as I can here with my wording, but it is difficult >>> to condense. >>> >>> Except for a few extreme YEC adherents, even the majority of creationists >>> acknowledge that evolution itself happens (read what the ICR or Discovery >>> Institute says about micro- vs macro-evolution). What they typically >>> disagree with is the mechanism behind evolution. >>> >>>> But that's like saying an iPhone is a fact but the description isn't. >>>> >>>> Maybe the miss here is that a theory describes interaction and makes >>>> predictions about other facts. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 20, 2011, at 1:58 PM, Larry Lyons <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are two things goin on here, the THEORY of evolution and the >>>> FACT of evolution. The theory tries to explain the mechanism involved. >>>> That's the scientific theory. The fact is that evolution happens, it >>>> is the change of allels over time. That is reality. >>>>> >>>>>> Very true. but evolution is one of the most studied, and verified, >>>> theories >>>>>> in science. As theories go, it's pretty rock solid. >>>>>> >>>>>> But Sam is right, anyone who calls evolution a "fact" should >>>> probably be >>>>>> corrected....after all, if we are going to hold people accountable >>>> for >>>>>> discounting evolution as a "theory" because they don't understand >>>> the true >>>>>> scientific meaning of the word, then WE must be sure to hold our >>>> words to >>>>>> their scientific meanings as well. Evolution is not a scientific >>>> fact, it is >>>>>> a scientific theory. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sam knows full well the weight that scientific theory holds, and >>>> he's never >>>>>> doubted or debated against it....he just questions the validity of >>>> calling >>>>>> it a "fact", and semantically and scientifically speaking, he's >>>> right. >>>>>> >>>>>> So if we can just clear up these silly semantics, i don't think >>>> there is any >>>>>> disagreement here. >>>>> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:342896 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
