Tyrannical said:
Quickdraw McGraw said:
Tyrannical said:
Yeah, you do.
A scientific fact is something that is objective and verifiable through observation.
A hypothesis, theory, or law trys to explain why that observation occurs.
|
I suppose if you said (Like the Newton tale) that it is a fact that an apple has to fall from a tree due to the theory of gravity, that would make perfect sense, and you'd be right. But that isn't a classification, just an observation/evidence that, as you pointed out, is used in creating a theory/law/etc.
So in essence I can see you what you're getting at, but my original post was debating against "fact" as "ultimate truth", as it is routinely defined by those who oppose evolution. And either way, it isn't a classification. Evolution and gravity can never be "facts", and that was my original point (Along with Darwin's early inconsistencies).
EDIT: And forgive me if I am unclear or particularly long-winded; it's 3AM here and procrastination is a bitch.
|
No, the fact in that case would be the apple fell from the tree and landed on the ground. Not the why or how.
You still don't seem to know the difference between a scientifc fact and a scientific theory.
|
That is exactly what I said, granted I worded it differently (And maybe erroneously so, my clarification in that same paragraph remains the same).
It seems you are more interested in trivial definitions, as I already pointed out that "scientific fact" is not a broad classification but used in postulating theories/laws, rather than discussing the original subject at hand. Oh well, I've wasted enough time.
