Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 21 KB, 560x365, 1224706742883.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10315506 No.10315506 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

Okay, since we had our daily "lolchristfag" thread, its time for us to review some important terminology. Since most of you clearly have the education equivalent of primordial ooze, i will keep it simple.

Scientific Theory: scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

For those with brains smaller then a grape: An educated assumption or guess on how something works based on repeated observation.

>> No.10315530

Scientific Law: A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning. As well, factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered to be too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing scientific laws from principles that arise merely accidentally because of the constant conjunction of one thing and another.[1]

A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to constant currents, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc.

The term "scientific law" is traditionally associated with the natural sciences, though the social sciences also contain scientific laws.[2] Laws can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new data, as with Bode's law or the biogenetic law.


For the Derp-tastic: A Theory that has been observed and measured so many times that all the data suggests that it works a certain way, but can still be replaced if new data says otherwise.

>> No.10315575

both of these were taken from Wikipedia.

So, when someone says Evolution is a Theory, they are correct. This means that it has been postulated on the basis of REAL observations, all of which have been documented.
Darwin's theory of evolution is actually outdated and has been discarded, and currently Punctuated Equilibrium is the standing theory. The man responsible for that is Steven J. Gould.

>> No.10315595

>>>/sci/

fuck off

>> No.10315599

Gravity is not a theory, it's a law. It has been studied and observed and measured to the point where it can be predicted with extreme accuracy. It does not mean the law cannot change, but until a better idea and data appears, it won't.

>> No.10315654

Religion and Science do not mutually exclude each other, though Religious leaders view science as a threat to their control over their followers, and Scientific leaders view religion as an institution that promotes ignorance.

One way or another, both sides of the argument have questions they cannot answer, so trying to make either one superior is futile.

Also, we are descended from APES you braindead morons, stop throwing dice at people and read your fucking biology books.

>> No.10315657
File: 10 KB, 546x462, oh great.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10315657

stool bory co

>> No.10315816

>>10315506
Reported just like the other side's thread

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action