Starry-Eyed Hubble Celebrates 20 Years of Awe and Discovery

[Peikko 1,575]

No Bill, models are not = to theories and am surprised at you really. Are you doing this just to be a cantankerous old boot or are you seriously suggesting that because scientists can't yet build an accurate model of the entire complexities of the real world that somehow means that everything thus far is simply educated guesswork? Bless those poor sods who go up into space if that's your contention as to how nebulously science is applicable to the real world.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Bill must have lost his notes on scientific theory...

a theory is a conceptual structure

Conceptual, as used in this case, does not mean, formed in the womb, free from sin.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Conceptual, as used in this case, does not mean, formed in the womb, free from sin.

Logical Criteria of Scientific Theories

A scientific theory must be:

• a simple unifying idea that postulates nothing unnecessary (Occam's Razor)
• logically consistent
• logically falsifiable (cases must exist in which the theory can be imagined to be invalid)
• clearly limited by explicit boundary conditions so that it is clear whether or not particular data are or are not relevant to verification or falsification

The logical criteria are cited in discussions about the nature of scientific theories and how science differs from nonscience or pseudoscience. If a theory includes unnecessary ideas or is inconsistent, it can't really explain anything. Without falsifiable, it is impossible to tell if it is true or not, so we correct it via experimentation.

Empirical Criteria of Scientific Theories

A scientific theory must:

• be empirically testable or lead to testable predictions or retrodictions (use present information or ideas to infer or explain a past event or state of affairs)
• make verified predictions and/or retrodictions
• have reproducible results
• have criteria for interpreting data as factual, artifactual, anomalous or irrelevant

A scientific theory must help us understand the nature of our data. Some data may be factual (verify the theory's predictions or retrodictions); some may be artifactual (result of secondary or accidental influences); some are anomalous (valid, but at odds with predictions or retrodictions); some are irreproducable and thus invalid; and some are irrelevant.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

No Bill, models are not = to theories and am surprised at you really. Are you doing this just to be a cantankerous old boot or are you seriously suggesting that because scientists can't yet build an accurate model of the entire complexities of the real world that somehow means that everything thus far is simply educated guesswork? Bless those poor sods who go up into space if that's your contention as to how nebulously science is applicable to the real world.

I am offering you some of the recollections from my education in the Math and Science departments at California public institutions and elsewhere. What is it that you are offering?

[Peikko 1,575]

I am offering you some of the recollections from my education in the Math and Science departments at California public institutions and elsewhere. What is it that you are offering?

Rationality. You should try it some time.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So, you offer nothing! Good day, Madame!

[Peikko 1,575]

I'll get my computer science degree out of the closet as 'proof' that my opinion is more valid than yours shall I? :rofl: I really don't care if you want to discuss this further or not, but the 'my education is better than your so I'm right' argument is pathetic.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I'll get my computer science degree out of the closet as 'proof' that my opinion is more valid than yours shall I? :rofl: I really don't care if you want to discuss this further or not, but the 'my education is better than your so I'm right' argument is pathetic.

Got one of those laying around somewhere as well, as well as one in Applied Mathematics.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Theory and Philosophies are two different things.

Now...If you take Cell Theory for instance, we are able to manipulate the gene based on Cell Theory.

Theory is something can be tested and verified. It's not complete because a theory belongs in an ideal environment. If you remove the ideal environment, you get probability.

Explain to me why mathematics can determine the exact force of gravity, electromagnetic, weak and strong forces. Also explain why Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. If God exist, that means energy can be created. But, it cannot.

Religious idiots who try to enforce religion in a science classroom are retarded.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Theory and Philosophies are two different things.

Now...If you take Cell Theory for instance, we are able to manipulate the gene based on Cell Theory.

Theory is something can be tested and verified. It's not complete because a theory belongs in an ideal environment. If you remove the ideal environment, you get probability.

I'll accept that. Theoretical testing on theoretical objects yields theoretical results. Beyond that you are dealing strictly with probablilities.

Explain to me why mathematics can determine the exact force of gravity, electromagnetic, weak and strong forces.

Don't confuse Physics and Arithmetic with Mathematics. The Math is just there to remind Scientists that they are fallible.

Also explain why Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

Quantum mechanics allows for spontaneous particles. High speed particle experiments have verified this to some extent. The Bohr model of the atom is long dead, and there are lots of holes in Einstein's universe.

If God exist, that means energy can be created. But, it cannot.

Religious idiots who try to enforce religion in a science classroom are retarded.

Now you are getting to the philosophical. It depends how you define God, and Creation, doesn't it?

[Niels Bohr 72]

Alright Dr. ##########.

I'll send OJ to you as a patient. While everyone goes to a well cared physician.