Definitions-Theory

This is a first for me.

I am writing this episode of “Definitions” on request from a follower who recognized the very common misuse, misunderstanding, and sometimes intentional twisting of the meaning of the word “Theory”.

We are not talking about the colloquial “theory” as in “I have a few different theories about that” (educated guesses) or in the humanities as in “philosophical theories” (ideas) or political “theories” as in social “theory” or Marxist “theory” (ideologies), but empirical theory.

This is a major point to note. Scientific theories are decided by a completely different standard of evidence than the others and they are not to be conflated at the risk of, well, being completely wrong.

If you say, “It’s only a theory” about scientific theories, you would only reveal how little you understand what scientific theories really are.

Scientific theories are models for explaining the facts of reality. An important thing to remember is that for every theory there is a corresponding fact.

For example; The Theory of Gravity.

It is a fact that things fall when they are dropped under certain conditions. The theory of gravity explains that phenomenon.

OR

The Theory of Evolution.
Evolution happened. Speciation occurs.

We know this.

The theory of evolution explains this natural fact.

They all begin as hypotheses but after being put through the rigors of the scientific method, they emerge as the highest form of science.

Theorem

They are defined by the very standard of evidence that spawned them.

They are testable. As in you can verify the theory by experiment.

The test results are repeatable. As in they conform to the details of the theory every time.

These test results are predictable. As in you can predict the outcome of the experiments unfailingly

They are observable. As in they are back up by observable evidence and not hypothetical ideas.

The last and most critical thing to remember is that they NEVER FAIL.

They can not fail even once without failing to be a “theory”. Reality is constant, so too must the explanations for reality.

The moment that new evidence comes to light that does not conform to the tested theory, it ceases to be a theory and it must be tweaked to accommodate the explanation of the new evidence. If it cannot accommodate the new information, then the theory is happily thrown out the window and the scientists return to the drawing board.

This falsification is no less joyous than the verification of a theory. Each time something is proven false, scientists can cross off one more possibility and can say that they have learned one more thing about the universe.

A great example is Darwin’s original theory of evolution.

It was wrong.

Or, at the very least, not completely right.

He had no idea about how the allele was passed on from generation to generation. Natural selection was all well and good but Darwin could not explain the source of the heritable variations which would be acted on by it.

He felt that parents passed on those traits during their lifetimes.

Clearly advances in cellular biology and the discovery of DNA have brought us to a more accurate vision of evolutionary processes. But the fact remains that Darwin was wrong about how the traits were passed on. But the model itself was solid.

It still produced everything that was predicted, but now with a much more solid explanation as to why.

No one railed against the change; it was celebrated as a major breakthrough in science.

That is intellectual honesty, and the scientific method forces every scientific theory through that same grinder.

Scientists discovered new evidence. So they went back and tweaked the theory so that it was a more accurate reflection of the fact of evolution and so that it was backed by even more evidence.

Now it stands inviolate and verified in the face of all current scientific evidence and knowledge.

As does every theory.

If new evidence arises, then maybe that will change (although it is more likely a slight tweak of the theory that will be in order, rather than a wholesale change) but for now all known science backs up all accepted theories.

A theory is the highest form of science.

If you can remember that, then a lot of the “debate”, misuse, and misunderstanding will be stricken from the mouths of those who would spread them.

Testable

Repeatable

Predictable

Observable

And never fails.

When people say "it is only a theory" what they are usually trying to do is discredit the theory in question by making it sound like fly by night guesswork, or an hypothesis to which we would be silly to attach any real informational authority.

So now that you know what a "Theory" really is, I hope that you all will know how to answer when next you hear "only a theory".

So is anything in science “Only a theory”?

Sorry Creationists (the usual culprits), but the answer is....

no.

Definitions-Atheism

This is an important definition because the term brings forward a lot of misconceptions about the discussion between atheists and theists.

Atheism-1 a.Disbelief in the existence of a god.

Disbelief-1.
the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

So the inability to believe in a god.

Lack of ability to partake in belief.

Lack of belief.

All of these would be true.



And before we go on, here is the etymology of the word.

Atheism- from the greek A=without and theos=god and ism= "doctrine of", or philosophical system.

So the literal etymology of the word atheism would be "Without the doctrine of god" Or without belief in god.

This is important to recognize because when atheists talk about religion, they often put the burden of proof on the people making the claim (theists). IF the word atheism is misunderstood to mean a positive belief that there is no god, then the burden for that proof then shifts to us as well, for making that claim.

Claims must be put forward with evidence, or they are in danger of being dismissed as baseless, and rightly so.

So, in order to avoid this misunderstanding, and the diversion of good conversation to meaningless arguments, we need to firmly establish definitions.

The first of which is our initial position.

Atheism.

This is where we get to say who WE are, and what WE think.

Atheism is merely the rejection of the theist claim.

There is no doctrine, no belief, no dogma, and there are no preconceived notions.

There is only a lack of belief. We have yet to be convinced by the theist claim.

That is not to say that SOME of us DO have a positive belief (or at least approaching 100%) that there is no god, but that is in addition to our atheism. There are many atheists who do not make that claim to knowledge, and that is important to note. (Buddhists, and Jainists for example)
Those atheists who go further and promote positive belief in the non-existence of a god are merely extrapolating belief from lack of evidence. This too is reasonable, but again, it is not necessary as an atheist.

All that is required to be an atheist is to lack positive belief.

The importance of this definition is to establish in whose court the burden of proof lies.

Is it in the theists corner? The people making the claim?

Or in the atheists corner, the people who are responding to that claim?

Clearly the people making a claim are the ones who are beholden to provide reason and evidence for their claim otherwise we can just make up anything that sounds nice to us and expect it to be taken seriously.

So in order to avoid this problem, I send a message out to everyone who is involved in the discussion.

We atheists are not making a claim. We, by definition, are only lacking in belief and conviction for YOUR claim.

If you espouse a positive belief in a god, then you are a theist.

I can hear the comments now, "What is an agnostic then?" or "I am neither theist nor atheist, I am agnostic".

This is not true. You belong to either one group or the other.
Non stamp collectors or stamp collectors.
You can't create a third group called "not sure whether or not I am a stamp collector" as that would still mean that you are still a "non stamp collector" (for now)

Agnosticism refers to the ability to know (from gnōstikós, meaning pertaining to knowledge). You can be an agnostic theist (a theist who believes, but doesn't think that you can ever prove it), just as you can be a gnostic atheist (a person who doesn't believe, and thinks that someday we can know for sure that there is no god).

Lets not get too complex and confusing though.

Here is a simple way to put it:

If you say anything other than "I am sure that there is a god", if you self identify as part of any group which doesn't posit positive belief, and if your answer to the question "do you believe in God" is anything but "yes", then you lack positive belief.

And guess what that means?

You are an atheist.

Peace

Definitions-Science

This is the beginning of a new series called "Definitions". This series will look at various words and concepts that are misused and misrepresented in order to create dishonest discourse and garner support for unsupported positions.
At first glance such a series might, intuitively, seem unnecessary as most people do their research, right?
Well after a recent discussion with a BioAccoustic "medical practitioner" who was taking peoples money with empty promises based on bogus claims , misinformation, hijacking scientific terms and false impressions I realized that not only was it necessary, but it was very important. Certain terms carry too much weight to be misused.

There is a common meme in our culture today; to hijack respected terminology and twist its meaning in order to gain informational authority with those who are under-informed on the subject and then to prey on that misinformation to create support for false claims.

Case in point, the current natural health practitioners use scientific terminology, and then deride "western science" as arrogant and unable to examine some health concerns accurately because it eschews the spiritual.

Or when religious folk speak of how god exists outside science.

Or when people say "It's only a theory" to harm our school systems by making it seem like crackpot ideas have equal footing with fact.

Or when people like Deepak Chopra speak of "quantum" healing. He seeks to create and image of being knowledgeable by throwing out words like "Quantum", and "fields of information" so that he can garner a following. (The problem is that his followers ONLY consist of people who have no idea what "quantum mechanics" is.)
Then he will go on to make many unscientific claims using that terminology.

Those people are preying on the tendency to assume that the world we see is not the only world there is and that science can't really be the answer to everything.

I am not here to argue that in any sense. (this time)

I am here to change your perception of a word. Today's word?

"Science"

Science;The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of observable phenomena.
-dictionary.com

In otherwords science is the study of ANYthing that manifests in reality.

If it can be observed, it can be studied.

It is not a confirmation biased realm of understanding that IGNORES spirituality, or other possibilities "outside" of science (see string theory) it is a method of seeking answers for the working mechanics of observable reality by examining the evidence. If there is no evidence, then science moves on or refutes the claim.

This is the heavy responsibility of scientists.

Falsification.

It is the ONLY way to arrive at the truth, but it is misunderstood.

If you only try to verify a given claim, then you will look for evidence that supports it and ignore the rest. That is called confirmation bias. The first step to truth is to attempt to falsify the hypothesis and then failing that, to further develop the hypothesis through testing and the scientific method.

It is not a cynical approach, it is the only approach.

Every attempt to test is an attempt to falsify, and when a hypothesis is falsified scientists rejoice. This is not because they are glad to have taken the wind out of someones sails, but because taking one possibility out of the equation is one step closer to the truth.

Science can examine ANY claim that has a manifestation in reality. If a homeopath claims that a 30C dilution of a substance in water (the dilution that eliminates ANY active ingredient is 12C) heals a condition, then we know that proper science can study it. This is because the condition is real, (we can observe it, see/feel the effects of it, and we can test the effects of it on the body) and the cure would also be a manifestation in reality. So any claim that the cure doesn't follow scientific principles is merely an attempt to lead hopeful people away from the facts.

So when we say "manifests in reality" is there another realm that IS outside science and therefor outside the realm of its study?

Maybe.

But considering the fact that we are part of reality and have no means to observe or discover things outside of it, we would have no way of knowing about it in the first place. If we WERE able to discover it, then that would mean that it had to manifest in order for us to be able to observe it, and therefor would fall into the purview of science.

So the next time someone says that something doesn't fall into the realm of the scientific, you will know that they are saying that it is not part of observable reality and can dismiss it as imaginary or misconceived.

Because with no other way to discover such knowledge, knowledge that lies outside reality and our every ability to reveal it, can only come from one place.......


the imagination.