When is a theory 'just a theory'? (page 4)

Fisherman

When it it ain't a fact -like evolution for example.

sparrowdown

Theory means unproven to JWs until they are describing the overlapping generations theory then it is fact.

It reminds me of how JWs use the term "critical thinking" like it really means bitchy thinking.

For those who have a hard time accepting that analytical methods have a vocabulary that differs from the vernacular, let's compare the use of words from critical document analysis (as used in Biblical study) and note the differences between vernacular usage (marked with a "v") and the critical document usage (marked "d"). We already compared...

1. MYTH: v. False story. d. Origin narrative.

2. FABLE: v. Fictitious tale. d. An apalogue or short story with a moral.

3. LEGEND: v. A popularly believed story that cannot be verified. d. A moral derived from the character of a historical person, usually set in a novela or fictional setting.

4. NOVELA: v. Short fictional story or a serial "soap opera," popular in Latin television. d. A legend based on a historical person or event, set in a particular genre that works as a device to tell the story

5. APOCALYPTIC: v. Having to do with the end of the world or a destructive end in general. d. A narrative genre in which political critique or intrigue are disguised as symbolic oracles (prophecies) from a divine source.

This is the way methodologies work. They have a language all their own. Often methodologies are using terms in their original sense whereas vernacular speech takes them and gives them a secondary meaning, "apocalyptic" being a popular example.

Some may not like the fact that analytical methods use terminology in ways that differ from the vernacular, but this has been the way of speech for generations. Languages generally have a "formal" means of address and a more relaxed "common" speech.

Landy

When it it ain't a fact -like evolution for example.

See, you can't just say that.

To be taken seriously and not be viewed as just another nutter you need to offer evidence and reasoning to backup your assertions that the accepted status quo is wrong.

Fisherman

to backup your assertions that the accepted status quo is wrong.

The accepted status quo, if only a theory, remains such even without my assertions. facts do not need advocates or supporters, they cannot be challenged. The burden of proof is not upon the ones that do not believe in evolution. Evolution continues to be only a theory until it is proven to be fact.

See, you can't just say that.

I can.

Evolution ain't a fact.

cofty

Evolution continues to be only a theory until it is proven to be fact.

But a theory in a scientific sense of the word is the very best thing that can be said about the certainty of anything.

Gravity is a theory.

Germs can cause disease - this is also a theory

The earth revolves around the sun - this is a theory

Living things are composed of cells - this is a theory.

Why are you finding it so hard to grasp a very simple thing?

The word theory has one meaning in everyday language and a very different meaning in science. Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense. It is therefore accurate to speak of it as a fact in an everyday sense.

Landy

I can.
Evolution ain't a fact.

Well, then the next sentence of my post proves itself to be true. :(

David_Jay

Fisherman,

Evolution is not a "theory" in the vernacular.

You also don't "prove" things in science, You "validate."

There is also no "burden of proof" in the scientific method. That is chiefly a legal term.

The theory of evolution is that organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable characteristics or even behavioral traits. It's that simple.

You, yourself, evolved. You went from being a sperm and an ovum to a fetus, from a fetus to an infant. That infant didn't just get large and grow into a giant baby. You went from a baby to a child to an adolescent to an adult. This pattern is called "evolution."

This pattern of evolution is not merely experienced individually. All living organisms seem to come from a common source. The pattern life leaves behind that has been discerned is an evolving pattern, connecting what are now varied species together.

Thus ends the basic model. It doesn't explain how the process started, claim that it required direction or that direction wasn't needed, support atheism or theism. Life has left a pattern behind, and the data shows what is explained in the model.

But I will tell you what. I am sure you deserve to explain this pattern that biology claims supports evolution. Explain to us your scientific theory, have it independently validated by disinterested parties like all scientific theories are and explain it to us. Since models neither validate religion or atheism, no one here on this board will complain if you explain things according to the scientific method. If the evolution model is wrong, then what is the correct way to explain what life's historical pattern demonstrates?

cofty

It doesn't ... claim that ... direction wasn't needed

Actually it does.

All of science rests on the foundation of methodological naturalism.

You, yourself, evolved. You went from being a sperm and an ovum to a fetus, from a fetus to an infant. That infant didn't just get large and grow into a giant baby. You went from a baby to a child to an adolescent to an adult. This pattern is called "evolution."

Not really. Evolution is about changes in the frequency of alleles in a gene pool not change in an individual.

Finkelstein

If biological evolution is just a theory what then is ancient mythology ?

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

Share this