By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom on 15 June 2015
Edit Thread
ohmylanta1003 said:
JWeinCom said:


And indeed it was.  A scientific theory is a type of theory?  Sure.  But that doesn't mean you could ignore the word scientific.  A scientific theory is a special case of a theory, and therefore should be treated differently.  To imply that all theories are on equal ground (which you implied even if you did not say) is foolish.  To imply that we shouldn't teach scientific theories in science class even more so.

Similarly a domesticated dog and a dog are two very different things.  Just like with different types of theories, you'd probably be ok with one being in your child's classroom, but not the other.

You're under no obligation to respond.  If you feel you have better places to embarrass yourself, then go ahead and don't allow me to stop you.  But if you're going to bring something up in a public forum, don't get upset when people challenge it.


Clearly there is no point in talking to you. I was simply defending Spurge, because someone said he was embarrassing himself for using the word theory instead of scientific theory. What Spurge said was certainly correct and he most definitely did not "embarrass himself". A scientific theory is a subclass of theory, which means Spurge did nothing wrong. "I drove my vehicle to work today". "I drove my car to work today". Car is a subclass of vehicle, therefore, neither statement is incorrect, one is just more specific. Whoopdeefuckingdoo.

Well, no there probably isn't a point in talking to me when what you have to say is so ridiculous.

Spurge did not simply use the word theory instead of scientific theory.  He called evolution a theory, which is wrong.  He also implied that scientific theories were on equal level with any generic theory, which is also wrong.  The implication of his post was clearly that, because it is a theory, it is not ok to teach Darwin's Theory of Evolution (or evolution at all).  That was quite an embarrassing suggestion indeed, although it was quite nice of you to jump in so he didn't have to be embarrassed alone. Do not pretend this was about semantics.    It was about whether or not scientific theories were appropriate for the class.  Don't try to backtrack.  And if you admit that they are, then your embarrassment can be over.

You said you were a mechanical engineer, right?  Why did you say mechanical?  An mechanical engineer is just an engineer right?

Would you rather have sex with just any female, or a biological female?  They're both just females, right?

Would you rather be operated on a doctor, or a medical doctor?  For that matter, would you prefer a licensed doctor, or just any doctor? They're all just doctor's right?

Would you rather eat just any flesh or cow flesh?  Flesh is flesh, right?

If you were getting a divorce, would you want just any lawyer or a divorce lawyer? A lawyer is a lawyer right?

Would you prefer to eat rotten cheese or just any cheese?  Rotten cheese is just cheese right?

Adjectives are an important part of the english language.  So, whether you say car or vehicle probably isn't important.  But, in other cases that distinction can be very important.  A doctor of medicine is very different than a doctor of the arts.  They are both doctors, but I'm sure you wouldn't want someone with a PHD in Art History to operate on you.  If somone told you they were an athlete, you might not be impressed.  If they said they were an olympic athlete, you'd probably feel differently.

A dancer is very different from an exotic dancer.  You may not mind if your daughter grew up to be a dancer, but the word exotic changes things, doesn't it?

And in this case, a scientific theory is very different than just any old theory.   Spurge implied they were the same, and you backed him up.  And that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of science, and is an incredibly foolish thing to say.