On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Charles Curley < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:47:22 -0700 > Nathan England <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Science is in large part unproven theories, > > Um, yeah. And this is perfectly reasonable. The job of science is not > to prove theories, but to disprove them. > > I'm not sure it's either. In my mind the goal of science it to figure out how things work. That will often lead to some theories being proven and others refuted. On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Nathan Gilbert <[email protected]> wrote: > I think you are conflating the definition of theory in the general > vernacular vs. the definition used in "Science (tm)". > > A scientific theory has a lot of evidence supporting it, years or decades > of research with repeatable experiments. It's a false dichotomy to equate > faith with the "Theory of Relativity". > Theories still fit what most people think of as a theory. It's a guess as to how something works. It is a much more educated and proven guess, but it's still a guess. We've sent things into space on these educated guesses, but they are still guesses. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
