Quote:
Originally Posted by BratWurst
You do realize this is just a more confusing way to say "hunch" right?
|
Well, if you really believe that, you for sure can easily publish a peer reviewed scientific "hunch".
You must not forget one thing, unlike in politics, in science those big words mean something. They mean work, they mean having supporting scientific facts.
Groundbreaking hunches during a too long party will have a hard time getting anywhere near to being published in a peer reviewed magazine, unless there is really something behind and serious hard scientific work is added to back it up.
Quote:
|
I mean, in every day life, I can gather information about my wife, and objectively study her actions. I can formulate reasons for her absence and over time predict her following course of actions. I can through all this study and observation of facts, explain how my wife is having an affair. Do I know this to be true? Not by proof, but merely by the overwhelming abundance of evidence. I can then formulate the Theory Of My Wife Cheating On Me.
|
Thats if its something at all, considering that you apply good scientific practice, a question of sociology I guess. In this field one works heavily with probabilities and statistics (even more than in other fields). If you limit your scope to a single person I dare to predict without knowing the details of the study that you won't work according to the basic scientific rules.
I also fail to see what this has to do with evolutionary questions.
Quote:
|
OR, I can NOT be confusing, and just say "I think my wife is cheating on me", just like scientists could say "I think evolution is true".
|
As pointed out already above, you have not conducted a scientific theory by looking at anecdotal stories. So I would say, "I think my wife is cheating on me" can be under circumstances a justified assumption, but not the product of your "scientific" work, as there has been none.
Quote:
|
What this boils down to, is scientists don't want to be caught in their own religious beliefs. I'm sure in Galileo's time you guys would all be arguing that the world was flat too.
|
Its funny that you come up with that. So you do agree with us that the earth is a globe?
If you do read up on the basic rules of scientific work you know that its not about what he or her believes. Its about scientific studies and their outcomes. The theory of evolution has been the subject of an extremely large number of studies for already a long time. It has been confirmed in more studies than many other scientific theories that are far less controversial in religious circles. Even the more after the unforeseeable development of molecular biology and the new means of genetics studies that the inventors of the theory of evolution never could foresee were conducted and once again came to supportive results.
But of course, if extremely high certainties are not enough for you and you need unfailing "truths" instead, science is not the right thing for you. Religion is competent for unfailing "truths".