Article View: alt.folklore.science
Article #1267Re: Scientism? - Creationism v. Evolution
From: JaBrIoL
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:58
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:58
29 lines
2919 bytes
2919 bytes
John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message news:<mjl09012h24auntooaa2dbsrr4g7d0nkrp@4ax.com>... > On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 19:16:06 -0500, David Jensen > <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote: > > >>Science has a formal structure of precedence in its range of - hypothesis, > >>theory, law - and for any "hypothesis" to acquire the status of "theory" it > >>must have much supporting evidence. > > > >Close. > > > >>To become a "law" (in the scientific > >>sense) it must have even more, and be capable of proof in a laboratory or > >>field test. > > > >Nope. Laws in science are descriptions of relationships. Some turned out > >to be in error. > > You are correct. A scientific law is not a theory that has been > beatified. It is not related to theory at all. A scientific law is > simply a formalized observation. > > My favorite example of this is the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, > which were first stated at a time when virtually nothing was known > about heat. Scientists at the time were still arguing whether heat was > a energy or a substance. > > ## Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage. do scientific laws pass the scientific method?
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<d222de3e.0404290958.316152c7@posting.google.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mailReferences:
<d222de3e.0403291135.69736571@posting.google.com> <Ez%9c.2271$oD.668@fe25.usenetserver.com> <406e0bc5$0$67420$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com> <k7-dnUIKNN5b2e7dRVn-gg@adelphia.com> <40734785_1@news.athenanews.com> <kDUjc.2869$TT.1677@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <47i090p6r8vnjdv3bmhs1lmcq478mkav3m@4ax.com> <mjl09012h24auntooaa2dbsrr4g7d0nkrp@4ax.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 102cdf,975a546dc07fb449 X-Google-Thread: f69b1,237737f085aeb181 X-Google-Thread: f64bc,86435d04433c39e7 X-Google-Thread: 111000,86435d04433c39e7 X-Google-Thread: 100202,86435d04433c39e7 X-Google-Thread: 119db8,9fe0352bcbfe13a9 X-Google-Thread: 100922,86435d04433c39e7 X-Google-Thread: 10e378,86435d04433c39e7 X-Google-Thread: fd648,318d849b6b1dad7f X-Google-Attributes: gid102cdf,gidf69b1,gidf64bc,gid111000,gid100202,gid119db8,gid100922,gid10e378,gidfd648,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-29 10:58:33 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,alt.paranet.science,sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio.paleontology,talk.atheism,alt.history.science,alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.talk.creationism,aus.science Subject: Re: Scientism? - Creationism v. Evolution Date: 29 Apr 2004 10:58:32 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 29 Message-ID: <d222de3e.0404290958.316152c7@posting.google.com> References: <d222de3e.0403291135.69736571@posting.google.com> <Ez%9c.2271$oD.668@fe25.usenetserver.com> <406e0bc5$0$67420$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com> <k7-dnUIKNN5b2e7dRVn-gg@adelphia.com> <40734785_1@news.athenanews.com> <kDUjc.2869$TT.1677@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <47i090p6r8vnjdv3bmhs1lmcq478mkav3m@4ax.com> <mjl09012h24auntooaa2dbsrr4g7d0nkrp@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.204.42.234 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1083261513 5401 127.0.0.1 (29 Apr 2004 17:58:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:58:33 +0000 (UTC)