The fight over Darwin - Teaching evolution in schools

[appolose]

Khuutra said:

appolose said:

Khuutra said:

Uh, this kind of already happened with classical physics, quantum physics, and relativity. The thingi s that none o them contradict the other except on certain scales and from certain frames of reference.

What you don't undnerstand, here, is that things that are assumed to be true are cast aside if they are found to be false. That's the most basic tenant of the scientific community's skepticism: there is no such thing as absolute adherence to "truth" because anything we "know" may be wrong. If evidence is found that can't be correlated, then we have to scrap a lot of field theories, but after that we're on our way just as before.

"Supernatural" is never a logical answer.

They are only found to be false when enough observations otherwise defeats the notion that it is well-observed.  The basic tenant of science is not skepticism; it's that judgements on sense data will relfect reality.  If it really was skepticism, then it would reject judgements on sense data.

If evidence cannot be correlated, which well-established observation is scrapped, and why?  Either one you pick, you'll be going against your many observations of it.  And if you do that, then you will have to discard any other well-established observations anywhere else you may have them (as, apparently, well-established observations do not match reality). 

This is false. It only takes one contradictory observation, assuming it cannot be accounted for under a given theory, in order to make a theory defunct. That is what I meant byb skepticism: we do not know anything, and we can cast aside our theories in favor of something closer to the truth at any time.

I don't think you understand how scientists work.

No, it's true.  Part of the reason many observations are needed to make a claim is just to test one's own understanding of said observations.  One observation contrary to an established idea is not going to disprove it because you don't necessarily trust what you think you've observed.

But that's not even the point:  back to my example with Rath.  We observe that matter cannot be created physically, and we also observe that it was created.  Notice that the latter is not a contrary observation of the former.  A contrary one would be that we observed matter being created physically.  In this example, that is not the case.

I would also respectfully request that people stop saying I don't understand science.  I already know you think that, since we're arguing over what constitutes science and its methods.  It's the argumentative equivalent of putting "QED" at the end of what you say.