VOTE NOW for Chess.com Troll of the Month - Oct. 2013

well for all intents and purposes a scientific "theory" is a fact...

The taxonomy in science from low to high, from tentative to authoritative runs from fact to theory, not the reverse. Facts don't explain theories. Moreover, facts may change. Theories, too, change, but these changes are revolutionary.

It is not a fact that an apple fell on Newton's head. But, Newton did observe that apples fall. He measured their rate of fall, and he hypothesized the cause. His hypothesis accurately predicted future observations, and it thus grew from hypothesis to established theory.

@Ziryab: In the sentence 'Evolution is not a theory, but a fact' was I trying to express that it is beyond any discussion for me. A chain of thought can change (we do not believe anymore that the sun is orbiting the earth), but a fact is beyond dispute. I should have used the word 'believe'.

But your statement about high and low is not that simple:

Facts can refute a theory. A theory can not refute a fact.

A theory can change the perception of a fact, but not the fact itself.

A fact does not need a theory. Its existence is independent of theory. Its interpretation is confined within a theory. A theory needs facts to explain. That is called the explanatory power of a theory. A theory can not exist without facts that it tries to explain.

The reason that a theory change is revolutionairy comes from the fact (no pun intended) that it changes our perception of the world, where a change of fact does not change our perception of the world. If we can understand a fact differently - and improve our understanding - then are we relieved. If we have to change our theory - that is our perception - then are we in transition. That has much more impact on who we think we are.

It is called pseudo science when wishful thinking is more important then letting you guide by reality (i.e. facts). The authority of a theory equals the explanatory power of the facts it relates to.

Does anyone else who has not yet voted want to vote for Troll of the Month?

SebLeb

Fair enough. Voting closes on the 15th, in the morning as soon I get up.

I always like to think of the apple hitting him on the head because he was an unpleasant person.

You already voted I am pretty sure...

Only 13 pages to look through...

It seems that we agree. The rest is details. I offer my explanation because of the constant ignorant refrain that "evolution is only a theory" by folks who cannot distinguish a testable hypothesis from an untestable one, nor a hypothesis from a theory.

That evolution is true and not a matter of belief seems to be shared by both you and I even as we express some of the nuances a little differently. 

Indeed, when a theory fails to account for the facts, the theory can and does change. OTOH, facts often change without changing the theory. The facts change not because reality shifts, but rather because human perception is always partial and incomplete.

I vote for sebleb.

@Ziryab: Yeah, we agree indeed, but nah, I am not at that level of thought. I am totally convinced about evolution since I was seven years old. When I was ten I wanted to become a paleontologist. I had that idea for several years until I realized that I would focus on the life of a world that I would never enter and experience.

It is part of definition if you can say that a fact can change. In my definition is a fact unchangeable. The interpretation of the fact can change however. The reason for me to make this distinction is that I want to have a word that pinpoints that what is happening.

Well this was off topic in an off topic thread. But I don't think it is considered trolling, is it?

This thread is about trolls. If you are not trolling, you are off topic. 

I looked through all 13 pages. Netzach only cast 1 vote.

so now it's probably gonna be xieff or seblab

My definition of "fact" which avoids many philosophical discussions is similar to David McKay's distinction of scientific and ethic questions.

"Does climate change have a anthropic origin ?", "Would country X have a higher GDP if candidate Y had been elected instead of Z ?" and "Do species evolve over time ?" are scientific questions. Finding out the answer might be hard, but if we had enough experimental possibilities we could find it out : create a new planet/country without humans/where Y is elected, watch the Earth for one million years.

"Should we preserve Earth for future generations ?", "Is candidate Y's policy towards immigrants unfair ?" or "Should creationists be allowed to vote ?" are ethical questions. There is no way to reformulate them into scientific questions, as their formulation calls to moral judgement.

A "fact" is an answer to a scientific question (with the accompanying evidence of course).

Science is of no use to answer ethical questions (I would put an example, but that would be a Godwin), and ethics/morals/religion/etc. are of no use to answer scientific questions - for instance, evolution, climate change, historical events, etc. . "Facts" are purely scientific in nature by this definition. "Facts" can be unknown, for instance one of the three propositions "Chess with perfect play is a win / a draw / a loss for White" is a "fact" even if we do not know which one.

If you have a scientific test to answer the "does god exist ?" question, no matter how impractical, you are better than 1500+ years of theological debate. Allow me to harbour some doubts.

letsgohome gets my vote for the most boring posts ever. Try reading one without falling asleep.

Enjoyable examples and provocative link. Thanks Irontiger.

Hmmm, maybe Newton's laws would have been formulated centuries earlier, if some poor dude in Tahiti didn't get killed by a falling coconut....