Scientific Laws, Theories & Hypothesis

Ok, all of you English speakers out there, educate me. If singular (i.e. one) is hypothesis, what do you call it if I have many of those…
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).

Moon Landing Hoax

For the budding skeptics out there, here is a great site where you will find answers to one of life’s burning questions: Did we really land on the Moon?

For all of you Sci-Fi fans out there: why is the site called “Clavius Moon Base”?

On Pseudo-science. Troisième et dernière partie.

Moving on...

Assessing science is like assessing an Isaac Asimov novel. The fundementals are based in factors prevalent in society or in the natural world, but take into account human ingenuity and natural phenomena. Overall, it makes you think.

All I got here is: Huh? I am having trouble parsing this one. Heeeelp!

In a society overwhelmed with religious fanaticism and blind acceptance as a key element of the status quo, we need skeptics.

Is this statement truly accurate? Is our society truly “overwhelmed with religious fanaticism”? Is “blind acceptance” a correct description of Americans’ participation in the world? I am not saying there are no problems, but is the situation truly this dire? Yes, the world is in desperate need of skeptical thinkers, but is this the way to argue this point?

People are generally weak and insecure.

Just an opinion here, but I find this Hobbesian view of the world and human nature terribly depressing and rather inaccurate. Again a strongly worded statement does not the truth make… One would hope that our vision of humanity’s political and social interactions have evolved since 17th century. In my opinion such a vision of the human condition is not only outdated, but dangerous. It is this fundamental believe that produces at best nanny-states and at worst oppressive totalitarian regimes. “People are generally weak and insecure,” starts the argument, therefore they need strong government to protect them. In order to protect the weak populace government needs to be able to identify aberrant (i.e. abhorrent) thought. The easiest way to do this … well, bugging phones would be a start. Do you see where I am headed with this? Take it from someone who grew up under such a regime – it is not pretty.

Humanity has always needed something to explain the basics and explore the unknowns involved in the lives we live every day.

No argument here.

Without god or science we would all be walking around in an existentialist haze.

What is your objection to existentialism? The movement gave us plenty of brilliant writers (from Dostoyevsky to Kafka) and great philosophers. In my view, in its spirit existentialism is not that far removed from scientific skepticism. Existentialist thought began with examining and questioning the assertions and assumptions of proceeding philosophical movements. Skeptical thought questions the assumptions and the methodologies underlying scientific conclusions. In spirit the two are not so dissimilar. Thus, of all the hazes in which one can find herself, existential haze does not seem so bad… Hazy reasoning and hazily (or hastily?) assembled arguments seem to be a lot more dangerous.

Where was I going with this convoluted line of reasoning? Yes, the world needs skeptics and, one hopes, good science education would be able to produce a few more of them, but what the world needs even more is people of great ideas to be willing to voice those ideas eloquently and articulately and more importantly sign their names to them.

And finally (unrelated to science, but the question is eating at me) why post a comment on skepticism and pseudoscience under the name “Balzac…” I have read plenty of Balzac in my younger years and (unless I have missed something) there are plenty of other s-words I would associate with his writing (like satirical, sarcastic, sardonic) but skeptical certainly would not be one of them. Did the great French writer change his spots in the jaws of death? Or if the author refers to a (somewhat differently spelled) band, then again, I ask, why? What is the analogy/relevance?

And having responded to the last paragraph she rested…

Responding to anonymous Balzac. Deuxième partie

Proceeding to the second paragraph…

Thesis: a sprinkling of disjointed statements mirroring the opinions of Skeptic & of the James Randi Foundations does not a coherent argument make.

Again, I happen to agree with the spirit of the comment, but the skeptic in me demands clarifications…

I enjoy learning the stuff, and it's important to mentally stimulate the populace.

Is the importance "to mentally stimulate the populace” axiomatic? Why would this be important? I require clarification…

Science teaches people extremely important lessons that could potentially be learned elsewhere, but fit very nicely into the curriculum. The most important example being skepticism towards the world in which you live, and learning to reason properly using observeable evidence.

I would disagree… If skepticism and critical thinking lessons could be learned elsewhere, quite a few people (like self-proclaimed psychics, mentalists and astrologers to name a few) would have been long out of their respective jobs. Yet, people like Uri Geller and John Edward (of the “Crossing Over” fame) prosper.


Some skepticism lessons, it would seem, are not easily learned…

Pseudo-arguments of pseudo-dead-French-literary-figures. Première Partie.

...or in responce to Balzac the Jaws of Death

Let me begin by applauding the strength of conviction and seeming courage. I am especially impressed with willingness to take on Regents Physics curriculum (considering the profession of the person grading you…) This would have qualified as a rather bold and courageous act if not for one small hiccup – as of now I do not know the identity of mysterious Balzac… Thus, my interest was piqued. So, let’s grab a microscope and a dissecting kit and closely examine the above-mentioned argument.

Thesis: what superficially appears to be a reasonable argument upon closer examinations is nothing more than an exercise in sophistry. “Why?” – You ask. Read on…

I don't see much functional use to teaching kids pseudo-science that doesn't fully take into account any factors that would be prevalent outside of the classroom.

Bravo, egregio Signore (or is it "cher monsieur"?)! Well said -- big words and all... But is this statement true? Let’s start with the term pseudo-science. Oxford English Dictionary defines prefix “pseudo-” as (this is a direct quote)

Pseudo -- false, counterfeit, pretended, spurious
(1) Prefix to any noun as adjective forming combinations, …, with the sense ‘false, pretended, counterfeit, spurious, sham, falsely so called or represented; falsely, spuriously, apparently but not in reality’
(2) Special combinations: nearly all terms of modern science, (a) indicating close or deceptive resemblance to the thing denoted by the second element, without real identity or affinity with it; or sometimes simply denoting an abnormal or erratic from or kind of thing; (b) denoting something which does not correspond with the reality, or to which no reality corresponds, as false perceptions, errors of judgment or statement.


So, let’s assume the author used the term “pseudo-science” in the (2) sense of the word… I would further postulate that the intended definition was not described by the (2a) statement. Thus, let’s infer (and the remainder of the sentence appears to support this assumption) that the term was used in (2b) context.


I wonder where our writer goes upon leaving the Physics classroom since it is clearly different from the outside of the classroom I experience daily. When I step outside of my classroom things continue to fall due to gravity as predicted by the laws I teach. Granted: Paper, feathers and other light and small items fall considerably slower than our classroom calculations would predict, but these inconsistencies are addressed by conceptual explanations and examples. Does the author claim that all knowledge learned in the absence of mathematical equation supporting it is pseudo-science?

When I step outside of my classroom unbalanced forces still produce accelerated motion and balanced forces produce motion at constant velocity. No exceptions here… When I step outside of my classroom gravity still acts, planets still rotate, charges still attract and repel according to the physical laws.

Thus, I require an explanation: which part of what I teach can be classified as “pseudo”? Perhaps the author refers to the teaching style..?

More to follow as soon as I catch my breath…