how about...

Any comments about the site and the forum go here.

Moderators: Leonid, amiradm, BioTeam

User avatar
JAP1st
Garter
Garter
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 10:24 pm
Location: Xalapa, Mexico

Re: how about...

Post by JAP1st » Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:09 pm

I may have explained myself not quite correctly. I do not support support the intelligent design doctrine, I agree with you in that the evidence and logic on which it is based are rather unfounded and 'fishy'. However I don't believe this topic or any similar topic should be deleted, as Canalon said; this would lead to the scientific dogmatism I was talking about.

As for the theory side-discussion, we should probably get to a consensus about what we think a speculation, hypothesis, theory, model, law and paradigm are, because I sense there are different interpretations of the terms, which would naturally lead to misunderstandings in any discussion (and I think this is nothing new either).

For example, should we call Newton's _________ of gravity a theory, a model, a law or a paradigm? What about Einstein's ___________ of relativity? Would classical darwinism conception of evolution would be called the same as the neodarwinist viewpoint? Perhaps this questions could guide us a little on the issue.

Finding rather fuzzy the definition of theory in Wikipedia, I found this web page that makes reference to the "definition of scientific theory" (the title of the web page, and whose author I cannot find); curiously, it is also involved in the creationism-evolutionism discussion:

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html

It called my attention the next phrase in particular:
Unknown author wrote:Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review."


If you agree with this text, then you would agree in that there may be different theories for the same phenomenon or body of phenomena, one of those theories becoming the most currently accepted only when the others are proved to be mostly false (I omitted the part about scientific journals because Newton's theory/law/etc. was agreed before it passed a peer view in scientific journal, yet we could talk about a scientific discipline society). Furthermore, we could not talk about the same theory in a moment and a few years later because, just as nature itself, science (and its foundations and products) is quite dynamic and changing.

Moving forward, scientific dogmatism is definitely not new, it probably has its roots in the time of Descartes or even before, but that should not distract us from the fact that it exists nowadays, and if we decide to be in the scientific labour community, we should be able to recognize it in others (and more importantly, in ourselves) in order to overcome it.

clubsandwedge
Garter
Garter
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 4:52 am

Post by clubsandwedge » Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:30 am

As a visitor of a few successful forums (as to which I will not disclose) I propose a small topics thread in each sub-forum.

User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)
Contact:

Post by MrMistery » Sun Jan 04, 2009 12:52 pm

what exactly is a small topics thread?
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter

clubsandwedge
Garter
Garter
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 4:52 am

Post by clubsandwedge » Sun Jan 04, 2009 6:09 pm

A thread for little questions that 'don't deserve' their own thread.

Like, "What enzyme is this" ; "What does this word mean".

A thread for this means that there won't be unnecessary threads sinking to the bottom.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests