Theory of Evolution.

[Kyriakos]

That gravity is a force between massive bodies was verified using a torsion balance quite a long time ago. We don't just 'observe that things fall'.

Neither does evolution lack experiment evidence. Bacteria evolve in the lab and in the real world (I assume you have heard of anti-biotic resistance?). The effects of recent speciation events are commonplace, such as the existence of 'ring species' and recently diverged species such as lions and tigers which can only partially interbreed.

Just quoting to note that i am not aware of the 'torsion balance' (not that i am surprised, given i don't generally like Physics as a field ).

I would ask you to elaborate for my benefit, but given i was too lazy to google it i should not ask more of you than i ask of myself!

 

[Agent327]

Unforgivable lazy. One would think that at least someone like Sir Isaac Newton should peak your interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

 

[Kyriakos]

^Newton was lazy too, which is why he never completed his lifework of developing an invisiblity-potion.

 

[Agent327]

Not really. That would be part of his peculiar interest in alchemy - as you could have read in that link just posted. It's a bit odd, by the way, to call a man so prolific in scientific interests and activities 'lazy.'

 

[brennan]

The experiment was first performed by Henry Cavendish.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

 

[Agent327]

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[Agent327]

Scientific theories don't require belief. That's the scientific thing about them.

 

[Plotinus]

Only if you define "belief" in a narrow way as referring only to non-evidence-based beliefs or something like that. If you take "belief" to mean simply thinking that something's true, scientific theories are open to belief or non-belief just like anything else. What makes them scientific is that there are good reasons to believe them.

 

[sophie]

I do believe the Darwin's theory which had a great influence on biology.

kay..

 

[uppi]

Scientific theories don't require belief. That's the scientific thing about them.

You have not done much science, have you?

Only if you define "belief" in a narrow way as referring only to non-evidence-based beliefs or something like that. If you take "belief" to mean simply thinking that something's true, scientific theories are open to belief or non-belief just like anything else. What makes them scientific is that there are good reasons to believe them.

I would go even further and say that most belief in scientific theories is actually not based on evidence. There usually is good evidence fro them, but for most theories, the access to that evidence is limited to very few people. And most of the time those people only have access to a small part of the evidence and have to believe the rest.

The main difference is that you could in theory collect the necessary evidence that supports scientific theories. In practice, however, you are unlikely to get the opportunity to collect more than a small subset of that.

 

[Flying Pig]

Yes, but you know that it's possible to collect that evidence, and that some people devote their lives to doing so. The fact that those people haven't found any evidence against an established theory is reasonable grounds to proceed as if it works. When there's no such possible evidence, and/or people make it as difficult as possible to obtain it, that becomes a less solid argument.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes, but you know that it's possible to collect that evidence, and that some people devote their lives to doing so. The fact that those people haven't found any evidence against an established theory is reasonable grounds to proceed as if it works. When there's no such possible evidence, and/or people make it as difficult as possible to obtain it, that becomes a less solid argument.

Why does it have to be "people" who make the evidence difficult to obtain? Maybe it just is.

If I tell you that "outlandish belief alpha" has been universally agreed to by every monk who has devoted years of their life to a specific meditation regimen involving extensive fasting and dwelling in a remote cave, does the difficulty of testing this evidence for yourself make it reasonable to ignore the result?

 

[Agent327]

You have not done much science, have you?

One does not do science. And you seem to confuse a hypothesis with a scientific theory.

But let's check:

I would go even further and say that most belief in scientific theories is actually not based on evidence. There usually is good evidence fro them, but for most theories, the access to that evidence is limited to very few people. And most of the time those people only have access to a small part of the evidence and have to believe the rest.

You don't understand much about what a scientific theory actually is, do you.

The main difference is that you could in theory collect the necessary evidence that supports scientific theories. In practice, however, you are unlikely to get the opportunity to collect more than a small subset of that.

QED. Scientific theory is what you get after the evidence confirms your hypothesis. Which in your case is unlikely. And collecting evidence would include evidence to the contrary (something which, say, creationists tend to ignore). If all the evidence confirms your theory and none negates it, then you have a scientific theory.

That still doesn't imply it can't be improved upon, but until that happens you may consider it fact.

 

[Flying Pig]

Why does it have to be "people" who make the evidence difficult to obtain? Maybe it just is.

If I tell you that "outlandish belief alpha" has been universally agreed to by every monk who has devoted years of their life to a specific meditation regimen involving extensive fasting and dwelling in a remote cave, does the difficulty of testing this evidence for yourself make it reasonable to ignore the result?

It doesn't have to be, but usually it is. For example, we have plenty of examples of drug companies commissioning studies and refusing to publish them when they reflect badly on their products - even saying that their products are useless or perhaps dangerous - and then suing researchers when they try to get that information out there. Or you can have people who don't write their precise methods in the paper - as a simple example, so many news stories that will say 'a study found...' without telling you how they chose their sample of people or how big it was, which makes it difficult for you to work out how far to trust that information. Even if you told me that story about monks, I would be perfectly happy not testing it myself, on the condition that your experimental design was secure and well-published enough so that somebody would be able to spot a problem if there were one. To borrow an old phrase, the scientific method means giving us the tools to avoid fooling ourselves that we know more than we do.

 

[uppi]

One does not do science. And you seem to confuse a hypothesis with a scientific theory.

Of course one does science. Or whatever you want to call what scientists do.

QED. Scientific theory is what you get after the evidence confirms your hypothesis. Which in your case is unlikely. And collecting evidence would include evidence to the contrary (something which, say, creationists tend to ignore). If all the evidence confirms your theory and none negates it, then you have a scientific theory.

You did not get the point.

"My" theory is confirmed by all the evidence I have. It is also confirmed by the evidence that a few other people have. There are maybe a few hundred people who have the necessary tools and skills to generate their own evidence. All other people do not have the evidence and likley never will. All they can do is believe (or not believe) that my measurement and analysis was done correctly (for which they have little evidence) and that therefore the results are correct and support the theory. Belief in the theory might also be based on the belief that someone else would cry foul if there is any misconduct, but that it only partially reasonable.

It also works the other way around: I believe that the theory of General Relativity to be correct within some bounds, but actually, I have no evidence for that. The best I can offer is that I know people who claim to have evidence for that, but I still have to believe them. I could familiarize myself with the theory and collect evidence on my own, but most likely I never will.

That still doesn't imply it can't be improved upon, but until that happens you may consider it fact.

Never, ever confuse a scientific theory with fact. Measurement results are facts, but a scientific theory is an explanation of facts, but not a fact itself.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Even if you told me that story about monks, I would be perfectly happy not testing it myself, on the condition that your experimental design was secure and well-published enough so that somebody would be able to spot a problem if there were one. To borrow an old phrase, the scientific method means giving us the tools to avoid fooling ourselves that we know more than we do.

There are things that cannot be explored with the scientific method. Even whole sciences.

 

[Flying Pig]

I agree, but the story you told me - that all monks agree on a certain belief - was not one of them.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I agree, but the story you told me - that all monks agree on a certain belief - was not one of them.

Oh? How do you experiment in such a circumstance? The monks have an experience that they cannot describe adequately to people who have not had the same experience, after subjecting themselves to conditions that few people are willing to endure. So the documentation of the "experimental design" is problematic.

 

[Flying Pig]

Ah, I misunderstood you. One test you could do is to see if there are monks who have undergone the ritual and not experienced anything, or experienced something different. Subjective data isn't beyond the reach of scientific tests: we regularly run them to assess the effect of different drugs on perceived pain, for example, or of (say) exercise on mood.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ah, I misunderstood you. One test you could do is to see if there are monks who have undergone the ritual and not experienced anything, or experienced something different. Subjective data isn't beyond the reach of scientific tests: we regularly run them to assess the effect of different drugs on perceived pain, for example, or of (say) exercise on mood.

If you look back at my initial statement I think it leaves out "ritual." Scientific method is easy when someone says "if you take the blue pill you will experience this." As you say, examine for people who took the blue pill and didn't. Hand out some blue pills and some blue pill placebos and see what happens.

When the simple popping of an "enlightenment pill" is replaced by a far more rigorous course that may be better described as a lifestyle than a ritual the performance of science becomes geometrically more difficult to apply.