But I digress…
Ok this just pisses me off. Heres something to think about, the data which we base our "global warming THEORY" comes from what?
Good thing to ponder: when a scientist says “scientific theory” (such as molecular theory of matter, theory of relativity, theory of evolution or, as in the above quote, global warming theory), what does she mean? She can’t possibly mean an educated guess or something similar to it since the word for that is hypothesis… It can’t mean scientists are uncertain of its predictions or its predictions are not fully tested since, again, that is what the word hypothesis mean.
Since we are about to start learning about theory of gravitation (or is it a law? I forget...):
So what is a scientific theory? How is it different from a law? Hint: read the first chapter of your textbook.
By the way, String Theory is actually not a theory, but a hypothesis (since it is completely and totally untested).
13 comments:
ok you are just helping me prove my point that to throw money at this theory is a waste because it is a theory and the "scientists are uncertain of {their} predictions or {the} predictions are not fully tested". Other theories like matter and relativity we use in science but the global warming theory is used by politicians to gain power and wealth. Im not saying that it isnt a theory, im saying that you shouldnt throw money and time at it, especially my money and my time. THE CAPTAIN HAS SPOKEN!
I repeat my question: what does the word theory, when used by a scientist, meant? This is a bit like mass and weight -- scientific definition does not match one you would use in everyday language.
Also, since it doesn't seem to be here, theory when used by a scientist means: a synthesis of a large body of information that encompasses well-tested and verified hypotheses about certain aspects of the natural world.
Hypotheses is the word you're looking for.
ok so used "theory" wrong i meant it to mean hypothesis, you got me (i think you were a little to literal in that my point wasnt to classify global warming but to say that it isnt creditable). But we treat global warming as a theory, in that some of us want to waste money on fixing it. Politicians want us to treat it as a theory so it has more creditability and is treated as fact, so we will agree to waste tax money on "solutions." Which is a waste and stupid.
Glaz, since you are correctin my use of theory in describing global warming, are you saying yourself that it isnt creditable? Could you be saying that since it is a hypothesis we shouldnt waste our money trying to fix it?
When most people use the word "theory" they usually are referring to an untested idea. But in response to what Glaz said, i agree that "theory" means something different to scientists--much like the mass and weight example.
Also, if scientists do not put in any money or EFFORT into testing theories, how can they ever make new discoveries?
Glaz, since you are correctin my use of theory in describing global warming, are you saying yourself that it isnt creditable? Could you be saying that since it is a hypothesis we shouldnt waste our money trying to fix it?
No, I am saying
1. It is more than credible –it is a theory, not a hypothesis
2. Read chapter 1 in the textbook
Also, if scientists do not put in any money or EFFORT into testing theories, how can they ever make new discoveries?
Yet again, the thing that is being tested is called hypothesis…
Let’s look at it from this point of view: molecular structure of matter theory (which you learned in Chemistry) states that all matter is made up of particles called molecules. Does this mean scientists are still testing it? Does it mean they are unsure that matter is made of molecules? Not at all…
Hypotheses is the word you're looking for.
Somehow this does not seem (or sound) right..
It may not sound right but it is the correct term.
http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypotheses
That definition seems correst and I guess hte plural is right too :-) I just learned something!
global warming is a liberal lie.
i never liked winter anyway.
but seriously:
how far do we have to go before everyone can admit that global warming is credible?
for you, captainsxyboat, what do you need as evidence? is reading the science times not proof enough? once there is no ice left on the planet, will you believe it?
Nobody can ever be sure about anything until it happens, but why wait around till the last minute when we are drowning in our mistakes, literally.
Since we know there are risks involved in not taking action why not account for them, even at a small degree. we don't have to spend years developing theories on the correlation between sea level and waste disposal while it is too easy take the simpler route and give our environment a hand, pick up some trash and recycle.
One must think about what is worse, even in uncertain terms, a loss of __ million dollars a year or a loss of society to a degree of not caring about economic issues, worrying only about waking up to see tomorrow.
Its more logic than science here, prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
dear kingsley- your last line. so true.
and i agree- that’s what a theory is. A theory is the best answer for the time, the most conclusive idea available, the greatest collection of data on the topic to date. Is it always correct? no. Is it better than nothing? I think so. without any theories, wrong or right, there would be no theories to disprove, or ideas to experiment further so that we can gather more conclusive evidence to back the theory up. A theory is being the most prepared we can be in a situation- we will never be certain. A theory is also the hope for the best- maybe we know a little more than we think- and even if we're wrong, at least we set ourselves up to find out...
Post a Comment