Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Interesting article on homeopathy - from a medical perspective

<< < (7/13) > >>

nontroppo:
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. ...both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
--- End quote ---
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

tomos:
The first couple of paragraphs and the last probably contain what you feel is offensive.
-nontroppo (November 27, 2007, 12:38 PM)
--- End quote ---
true, designed to put off any one with any homeopathic sympathies
WHY put an article in an offensive sandwich???

Someone said in an earlier post it would be nice if there was more debate
I say simply:
this article will not encourage any debate.
He says it is not an attack.
The Lancet article, if you have read it, is not an attack - it is a model article - brief, succinct, referenced, to the point.
The Guardian article unfortunately is an attack.

First sentence:
"There are some aspects of quackery that are harmless - childish even - and there are some that are very serious indeed."
nontroppo -
imagine if someone said something like that about your career for example or something you believe in?
Maybe you are the type to smile nonchonantly but most people arent - they get their backup

I am not defending homeopathy or attacking this facts quoted in this article.
(so there's no need to argue them with me at any rate)
I am simply saying he is damaging his own case if he really wants to get talking to the homeopathic community

Deozaan:
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. ...both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
--- End quote ---
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
-nontroppo (November 27, 2007, 04:51 PM)
--- End quote ---

Thanks. That's helpful. But I'm a little confused about this part:

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

    * Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
    * Hypothesis: All swans must be white.
    * Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.
    * Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed."
    * Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.
    * Theory: All swans are white.

Prediction: The next swan I see will be white.

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever saw a black swan, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out. Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.
--- End quote ---

So if there's a chance it could be proved wrong (it's falsifiable), it's a theory. But if there's no chance it could be proved wrong (creationism/intelligent design), it's not able to be a theory?

CWuestefeld:
Yes, most people seem to associate "theory" with the idea that "hypothesis" is meant to convey. Any theory (speaking currently, not of history) is much more than a guess. It started life that way, but has been subjected to testing to verify its ability to explain the observed phenomena. Sometimes experimentation reveals that a theory is flawed, and it's discarded (e.g., the idea that everything revolves around the Earth, and the invention of "epicycles" to explain the motion of the heavenly bodies). Other times it just needs tweaking, like with Newton's laws of motion: Einstein showed that in some circumstances Newton's laws break down, but they're still good for explaining day-to-day phenomena.

It's simply incorrect to dismiss something because it's only a theory. In the world of science, there is nothing more certain than a theory. Nothing is ironclad, precisely because scientists, at least in principle, are always open to the possibility that something will force them to change their world view.

But the fact is that is that there is very little in this universe that is known with any more certainty than Einstein's or Darwin's theories. Anyone dismissing Darwin in favor of another explanation is, from a scientific point of view, ignorant or attempt to mislead.

CWuestefeld:
The Guardian article unfortunately is an attack... imagine if someone said something like that about your career for example or something you believe in? Maybe you are the type to smile nonchonantly but most people arent - they get their backup
-tomos (November 27, 2007, 04:54 PM)
--- End quote ---
At some point even the most reasonable person can't be expected to be patient with people who are sticking their heads in the sand. At some point you have to stop treating them with kid gloves and be blunt.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page