Standard Definitions for Science Threads

Vanity ^ | 31 January 2006 | PatrickHenry and Coyoteman

[PatrickHenry]

I may regret this. Anyway, if those I've pinged aren't interested, feel free to ignore the thread.

[PatrickHenry]

Vanity ping.

[The_Victor]

Can you get the people who need to see this to actually read it?

Bump for education.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You probably will. ;)

I propose that the definition for faith be modified along the following lines:

the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation.

As a non-religious example, my marriage vows to my wife. We don't know we're going to stay together but we have faith that we can work out our problems and stay together.

[balrog666]

Needs work.

[atomicpossum]

Fanatic - Anyone who disagrees with me.

[Old_Mil]

It is interesting that it is only in the scientific endeavors that individuals seem to be predisposed to paint the term theory with the veneer of fact. I suspect this has to do with the increasing politicization of science by liberals and a desire to present Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian ideas as carrying more evidentiary weight than they actually do in real life.

Interestingly, Webster has no problem also explaining the word with the terms:

"speculation, an unproven assumption, a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action," and "conjecture."

I would think that such description of the word would be more appropriate for all fields of endeavor.

[balrog666]

That was a joke.

But I think we need more discussion of the term "speculation" for the edification of a certain few of the Anti-science crowd.

Off the top of my head, I would say that all scientists speculate to some degree and many discuss, and some even publish, such thoughts (particularly to get some quick and easy feedback). However, such speculations are not indicative of beliefs held, not intended to indicate a direction for future research, but to simply to explore an idea, no matter how off-the-wall it may be, and see if any fruitful insights are realized. OTOH, some of it is intended to be read with tongue firmly in cheek. And most of the thumpers can't seem to tell the difference.

[Quark2005]

Interestingly, Webster has no problem also explaining the word with the terms:

"speculation, an unproven assumption, a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action," and "conjecture."

What Webster's (online) dictionary has to say about the word theory:

--SNIP--

1. A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory".
2. A tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices".
3. A belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales".

--SNIP--

Webster's then goes on to explain that Definition #1 is the definition used in scientific literature.

[RadioAstronomer]

I have a link I will post when I get home that fits in this nicely. :-)

[longshadow]

Webster's then goes on to explain that Definition #1 is the definition used in scientific literature.

And so long as the willfully ignorant cling to the fanciful notion that dictionary definitions are like some sort of egalitarian etymological smorgasbord, where they get to pick and choose which definition they want to interchangeably apply, and when, there is no hope of counteracting their ignorance and mendacity.

[MRMEAN]

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

Albert Einstein

[furball4paws]

I don't have any problem with C-man's definitions nor do I with your additions. I suggest that at the start of any Crevo thread this be posted along with the ping list. Then we can conviently refer back to that post when necessary.

But as The_Victor has pointed out, how do you get the anti-evo's to agree to it?

Good Luck

[Dimensio]

I'm afraid that this won't be of much use. Those of us who aren't anti-science Luddites already know these definitions, and many of the creationists here on FR have made it clear that they want to make up their own definitions of words and insist that their made-up definitions are the ones that scientists really mean, no matter what the scientists claim to mean.

[furball4paws]

A scientific speculation is much different than any old speculation. When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhate unrelated things that are known or appear to be unlikely. This becomes a very informed guess. The better the scientist and the greater his experience, the better chance his speculations will prove to be true.

[andysandmikesmom]

Say, PH, why wasnt I pinged to this thread?....found it by chance...and I need it more so than many others...

For instance, I read with interest, about 'believing' in TOE..Thats what I say, I believe in TOE...(so it would seem, I am using 'believe' in the sense of common usage), but it would actually be more correct to state that I accept TOE or that I have confidence in TOE...well, I have learned something today....I am still mulling it over in my mind, but will try to be more accurate in the future...

[ovrtaxt]

Your definitions of belief, faith and knowledge are inapplicable to the experience of many people.

What if I make a decision based on pure 'faith', then evidence or personal experience arises later which confirms my 'belief'? Is it still faith? Not by your definition. Then it becomes knowledge.

For example- what if I am addicted to certain substances, activities and practices. (Which I was.) Then I have a salvation experience where I put my faith in Jesus Christ. (Which I did.) Then, I instantly have no more of these addictions, and remain addiction free for fifteen years. (Which I have.)

Now I have knowledge. Or is it still faith?

[PatrickHenry]

... how do you get the anti-evo's to agree to it?

They will never agree. This isn't for them. It's for us, so we're all on the same page, and so we don't have to come up with the same stuff over and over.

[PatrickHenry]

Say, PH, why wasnt I pinged to this thread?

Nothing personal. I have a small ping list of long-time, hard-core evo types, and I thought they'd be the ones who'd be most interested.

I read with interest, about 'believing' in TOE..Thats what I say, I believe in TOE.

Do You Believe in Evolution?

[andysandmikesmom]

Thanks PH for that article, which went into lots of detail, and explained much about 'believing' in things, and the different distinctions....this article has helped me greatly, to further understand that which I did not fully understand before...my poor little unscientific brain, needs lots of help, and you have provided as much...thanks...