I was considering this last night as I fell into sleep, let's pretend someone is able to conclusively show that genetic memory is real, it occurs within all living organisms. So this person is able to show how genes carry memory (even if minimal) and pass it along to offspring of certain species. I was thinking, is this scientific? What if he has actually found a source of energy that links all genes from the same family, and that it carries memory as well?

So he is able to prove this using experiments or examples, however it violates alot of scientific notions already proven.... does that mean his concepts are unscientific but non-the-less proven facts?

Can something be unscientific yet still true????

What if he could show there's a meta-genetic membrane around all living species, and he's also able to demonstrate it's existence? Humm..... no scientific model exists to really say it's scientific fact, but he can non-the-less show it's true!

How about someone being able to demonstrate why gyroscopes are defying gravity even when science shows they cannot... what if his data, even though unscientific, is non-the-less provable in some way?

Does anyone have an specific examples of a proven fact or idea that scientifically speaking is not yet understood or supported?

A good example is Black Holes... we have theories on them, they are somewhat provable, they don't however have a truly PROVEN scientific foundation yet. So if science cannot fully explain a phenomena but we can prove / demonstrate / show / example that it's real, is it?

Don't get to convinced you know what I'm talking about yet... let's pretend someone is able to show telepathy exists, and has the ability to use it. The problem is the ability is not reproducable anywhere but from this person.... so is it a real phenomena or not? If it cannot be reproduced then it lays outside the boundries of science right? But yet it would exist?

So what is your opinion?

I was considering this last night as I fell into sleep, let's pretend someone is able to conclusively show that genetic memory is real, it occurs within all living organisms. So this person is able to show how genes carry memory (even if minimal) and pass it along to offspring of certain species. I was thinking, is this scientific? What if he has actually found a source of energy that links all genes from the same family, and that it carries memory as well?

So he is able to prove this using experiments or examples, however it violates alot of scientific notions already proven.... does that mean his concepts are unscientific but non-the-less proven facts?

Can something be unscientific yet still true????

No. If someone could show how it's done then it's science. If it shows something that goes against current science but is demonstrably real and valid then science alters its theories to accommodate and cater for the new data. That's what science does.

Science is the systematic process of producing and explaining everything that is and occurs on nature.

Science can sometimes explain how they see things, but they cannot conceive them. Like a tree that grows from a seed, science can tell you, o yeah, the seed dies, and a tree comes out of it. But they have not the slight remote idea of what is the energy that makes this happen.

So yes, someone can be unscientific yet still true...

Oli, what if in proving his demonstration scientifically it curtails or seriously brings into question another already proven field? Let's say the whole of Physics would be called into question, that if his idea were FACT and the current scientific methods adapted to it there would be a serious loss of technology?

Oli, what if in proving his demonstration scientifically it curtails or seriously brings into question another already proven field?
How could it "call into question" an already proven field? All it would do is add to that field and fill gaps and/ or show new avenues of research.
Let's say the whole of Physics would be called into question, that if his idea were FACT and the current scientific methods adapted to it there would be a serious loss of technology?
Call into question the whole of physics and cause a loss of technology? By invalidating what we KNOW to work? If someone came up with a "better" definition and theory of electricity would your light bulbs fail to work? Would your PC?
Or are you postualting some magical transformation of the way things work due to a new discovery that kills everything we already know?

A good example is Black Holes... we have theories on them, they are somewhat provable, they don't however have a truly PROVEN scientific foundation yet. So if science cannot fully explain a phenomena but we can prove / demonstrate / show / example that it's real, is it?

Shitty example. The science of the black hole came before the observation. And there are of course no direct observations.

And there are of course no direct observations.
But close to...
http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=black+hole+discovery&meta=&btnG=Google+Search

But close to...
http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=black+hole+discovery&meta=&btnG=Google+Search

close to direct is still indirect.

close to direct is still indirect.

That's my point, someone proves something but it's close to following scientific methods, yet not quite... is it still proven?

How could it "call into question" an already proven field? All it would do is add to that field and fill gaps and/ or show new avenues of research.

Call into question the whole of physics and cause a loss of technology? By invalidating what we KNOW to work? If someone came up with a "better" definition and theory of electricity would your light bulbs fail to work? Would your PC?

Or are you postualting some magical transformation of the way things work due to a new discovery that kills everything we already know?

Yes....

In which case you're writing a fantasy story and you can make up whatever you like.

Perhaps :p

Science can sometimes explain how they see things, but they cannot conceive them. Like a tree that grows from a seed, science can tell you, o yeah, the seed dies, and a tree comes out of it. But they have not the slight remote idea of what is the energy that makes this happen.


I suspect that a botanical biochemist could give you a very thorough explanation of how a seed grows into a tree, including all relevant forms of energy that are involved in the process.

I suspect that a botanical biochemist could give you a very thorough explanation of how a seed grows into a tree, including all relevant forms of energy that are involved in the process.

No, he wouldn't. You can't see how a tree is formed by looking at biochemistry.

No, he wouldn't. You can't see how a tree is formed by looking at biochemistry. A biochemist would be able to explain how the seed gathers raw materials from its environment and turns them into a towering pile of cellulose. Although yes, I'm sure there would be many details that were lost to the chemist.

A biochemist would be able to explain how the seed gathers raw materials from its environment and turns them into a towering pile of cellulose. Although yes, I'm sure there would be many details that were lost to the chemist.

I'm sure he gets all the details. It's the process of creating form that he will not see.

Can something be unscientific yet still true????Of course. There was not much real "science" to speak of until about five hundred years ago, yet lots and lots of stuff was true. Just because something is true doesn't mean we understand it.

It can and does also happen that something is scientific but untrue. Of course we don't know it's untrue. Once we find that out science changes.How about someone being able to demonstrate why gyroscopes are defying gravity even when science shows they cannot... what if his data, even though unscientific, is non-the-less provable in some way?I think you posted this same dumb question on another thread. Gyroscopes do not defy gravity. The energy in the spinning wheel exerts upward pressure on the unsupported end of the axis, just like the energy in your muscles holds your hand up when you stick your arm out. There is no defiance of gravity in either case. As soon as friction saps the energy in the wheel and halts its spin, the unsupported end of the axis will drop. As soon as the muscles in your arm run out of energy, because you are unable to eat that way, your hand will drop.Does anyone have an specific examples of a proven fact or idea that scientifically speaking is not yet understood or supported?If it's not understood it can hardly be a proven fact.Let's pretend someone is able to show telepathy exists, and has the ability to use it. The problem is the ability is not reproducable anywhere but from this person.... so is it a real phenomena or not? If it cannot be reproduced then it lies outside the boundaries of science right? But yet it would exist?Everyone agrees that they observed the phenomenon, so it's presumed to be real. But without an explanation it cannot be called "telepathy." If we can't reproduce it then we can't study it very well. We will concentrate our efforts on finding a way to reproduce it, and worry about understanding it once we succeed. Science proceeds in steps.Oli, what if in proving his demonstration scientifically it curtails or seriously brings into question another already proven field? Let's say the whole of Physics would be called into question, that if his idea were FACT and the current scientific methods adapted to it there would be a serious loss of technology?As someone else pointed out, there will be no loss of technology because everything still works. Just because the underlying principle of cars turned out to be internal combustion rather than gods and magic, the cars in New Guinea did not stop running.

You've demonstrated that you're a pretty bright guy, when you let your guard down and drop that veneer of eccentricity. You know better than to say stuff like this.

If we prove that everything we think we know about physics is wrong, then we'll just rewrite our physics books. That, my friend, is the difference between science and religion. We try to find out what's true and we're happy as clams when we learn something new. They try to prove that what they already believe is true, and they start crashing airliners when something upsets that.That's my point, someone proves something but it's close to following scientific methods, yet not quite... is it still proven?If the "proof" didn't follow the scientific method, then it hasn't been proven scientifically. That's rather obvious, isn't it?

Evolution Denialists "prove" crap every day, using the language and trappings of science, but without actually using the scientific method. So it's not really proven and it's still crap.

for something to become scientific fact it has to pass extensive testing and trials that are controlled with absolute results,

otherwise it is classed as scientific theory, wich is backed up with unfactual evidence, . it is observational only backed up with pillars of thought,


peace.

For something to become scientific fact it has to pass extensive testing and trials that are controlled with absolute results. Otherwise it is classed as scientific theory, which is backed up with unfactual evidence. It is observational only, backed up with pillars of thought.You're confusing "theory" with "hypothesis." A theory is not the same thing in science as it is in police work. This is how the Evolution Denialists justify their garbage. They hear us talking about "the theory of evolution" and they say, "See folks, even the scientists admit it is only a theory."

Notice that they never say that about "the theory of relativity." Even they aren't stupid enough to try to convince us that nuclear weapons, power plants, and submarine engines are not real.

In popular speech, a "theory" is a conjecture. In science it is a testable model of how nature works. Scientific theories are absolutely backed up with observed factual evidence.

"Theory" has several meanings depending on the field of study. In mathematics it has yet another meaning, different from its meaning in science, for example "set theory" or "number theory."

You're confusing "theory" with "hypothesis." A theory is not the same thing in science as it is in police work. This is how the Evolution Denialists justify their garbage. They hear us talking about "the theory of evolution" and they say, "See folks, even the scientists admit it is only a theory."

Notice that they never say that about "the theory of relativity." Even they aren't stupid enough to try to convince us that nuclear weapons, power plants, and submarine engines are not real.

In popular speech, a "theory" is a conjecture. In science it is a testable model of how nature works. Scientific theories are absolutely backed up with observed factual evidence.

"Theory" has several meanings depending on the field of study. In mathematics it has yet another meaning, different from its meaning in science, for example "set theory" or "number theory."

i said "scientific theory" wich is based on observation, i did not confuse anything atall.

my point remains valid, that something is considered scientific theory untill it can be a controlled experiment wich gives out results to be studied, then it is a scientific fact.

so what is a fact then?


peace.

"In popular speech, a "theory" is a conjecture. In science it is a testable model of how nature works. Scientific theories are absolutely backed up with observed factual evidence."


the above statement backs up what i said, its all about what is observed, not what is tested in a controlled experiment. yes observational evidence is the factor here, but then why seperate scientific theory with scientific fact if its proven?

simply because it is not 100% proven it is only the mainstream observasional premise.


peace.

peace.

the above statement backs up what i said, its all about what is observed, not what is tested in a controlled experiment. yes observational evidence is the factor here, but then why seperate scientific theory with scientific fact if its proven?
The facts support the theory, they don't "prove" it. Any scientific theory is subject to change if new evidence or facts come along. No theory in science is "proven" or accepted as 100% incontrovertible.

The facts support the theory, they don't "prove" it. Any scientific theory is subject to change if new evidence or facts come along. No theory in science is "proven" or accepted as 100% incontrovertible.

thats what i am saying..........

but its not always facts that support theory, it is observations that support theory, and other theory that support theory.




peace.

Yeah, but none of them become "scientific fact". That's just how science is. Contrary :)

If someone finds something that completely defies all previously known facts beyond an absolute doubt, then scientists will scrap whatever doesn't agree and they will start with scratch and work until they find a solution that satisfies both conditions.

Something can possibly be true without it being proved scientifically, but it is only coincidence then, because, unless tested and proved scientifically, then no one can be absolutely sure whether it's true or not.

Yeah, but none of them become "scientific fact". That's just how science is. Contrary :)

it borders having double standards though. because one would ask for absolute proof before even considering something to be true, but in return relying on scientific theory as if it were written in stone.


i have had this debate millions of times. fact is fact, and scientific theory is theory based on observational premise, and its true,

i think it is not needed to make up words that differ from the general use, why do it? to me it seems pointless to make up a new word for science when we have plenty in existence to describe them already, it only makes for confusion,

calling something evidence and theory in general term should apply to scientific terms also, we already have a word for a proven premise with results, its called a fact,


peace.

i think it is not needed to make up words that differ from the general use, why do it? to me it seems pointless to make up a new word for science when we have plenty in existence to describe them already, it only makes for confusion
The thing is the word "theory" was used in science first, and worked its way into general usage where the meaning was corrupted.
A fact is indisputable, forever. Nothing in science is.

If someone finds something that completely defies all previously known facts beyond an absolute doubt, then scientists will scrap whatever doesn't agree and they will start with scratch and work until they find a solution that satisfies both conditions.

Something can possibly be true without it being proved scientifically, but it is only coincidence then, because, unless tested and proved scientifically, then no one can be absolutely sure whether it's true or not.

yes but it is simple to do so, if you can prove a fact wrong then how could it ever be a fact to begin with, we as humans have a problem with ultimate truths and meainstream premise,

it was considered ultimate fact that the world was flat, and the earth was center of the universe, now if i were alive back then i would have said what i say today, "prove it is fact without a doubt" and im sure i would have got a reply simular to this one, "well it is scientific theory with facts to back it up"


peace.

The thing is the word "theory" was used in science first, and worked its way into general usage where the meaning was corrupted.
A fact is indisputable, forever. Nothing in science is.

so there is no facts in science?

edit- so how can you say that scientific theory is backed up with facts ?



peace

Because there are things like the fact that the Earth exists. Which leads to theories of why it does, why it orbits the fact of the sun. But the "facts" are the stuff you can see. The theory explains "why" and "how".

Because there are things like the fact that the Earth exists. Which leads to theories of why it does, why it orbits the fact of the sun. But the "facts" are the stuff you can see. The theory explains "why" and "how".

exactly, so facts do exist in science that we can study and test. and it leads to a theory/premise of why other things happen, and those other things are not proven untill they reside in the previous catagory of facts where the earth is.


like i can observe the effects of a black hole, but i cannot say that a black hole is 100% fact and then go on to tell you what the black hole does, then add to it even more and tell you what happens to matter once it enters a black hole,


peace.

exactly, so facts do exist in science that we can study and test. and it leads to a theory/premise of why other things happen, and those other things are not proven untill they reside in the previous catagory of facts where the earth is.
You're bloody hard work tonight. Go to bed, git :)
No, previous theories do not turn into fact, no matter how old they are. They are always subject to alteration if new observations contradict them.
like i can observe the effects of a black hole, but i cannot say that a black hole is 100% fact and then go on to tell you what the black hole does, then add to it even more and tell you what happens to matter once it enters a black hole,
If you could observe a black hole then it would be a fact. But just the fact that it exists wouldn't do anything to the theory (other than give validation). In fact (ouch) observing a black hole may show that the theory is wrong because the real thing (i.e. the tangible fact) may not operate or perform as the theory predicted. Which would mean changing the theory.

You're bloody hard work tonight. Go to bed, git :)
No, previous theories do not turn into fact, no matter how old they are. They are always subject to alteration if new observations contradict them.

If you could observe a black hole then it would be a fact. But just the fact that it exists wouldn't do anything to the theory (other than give validation). In fact (ouch) observing a black hole may show that the theory is wrong because the real thing (i.e. the tangible fact) may not operate or perform as the theory predicted. Which would mean changing the theory.

yeah i am actualy going to bed right now, its like 5.30 why the hell are you still awake too,

thats an interesting thing in its own right, theory cant turn into fact, so facts have to be facts from day 1? what about the moon? it is fact now that it is a satalite orbiting the earth and made of moon rock or whatever the bastard is made of. and before it was theory, but now is fact right?


or can anything that is theory never become fact? i have a theory based on observation that i will win this debate due to this sentence. and my scientific data indicates that if i prove i am right then a theory will have become a fact,

so if i win this debate then my theory has become a fact,


peace :) and goodnight.

yeah i am actualy going to bed right now, its like 5.30 why the hell are you still awake too,
Too busy arguing with some thicky on the net. :)
thats an interesting thing in its own right, theory cant turn into fact, so facts have to be facts from day 1? what about the moon? it is fact now that it is a satalite orbiting the earth and made of moon rock or whatever the bastard is made of. and before it was theory, but now is fact right?
But it was a fact before - we just didn't know that the moon was made of rock.
or can anything that is theory never become fact? i have a theory based on observation that i will win this debate due to this sentence. and my scientific data indicates that if i prove i am right then a theory will have become a fact,
Yes, and no. It wasn't a scientific theory, just a speculation. There's a difference.

GO TO BLOODY BED. :D
I'm knackered and I'm supposed to be going to meet friends at 10 this morning.
Catch you later man.
Peace.


peace :) and goodnight.[/QUOTE]

I said "scientific theory" which is based on observation, I did not confuse anything at all. My point remains valid, that something is considered scientific theory until it can be a controlled experiment which gives out results to be studied, then it is a scientific fact. So what is a fact then?I don't think you hear scientists tossing around the word "fact" very much unless they're talking to laymen.The facts support the theory, they don't "prove" it. Any scientific theory is subject to change if new evidence or facts come along. No theory in science is "proven" or accepted as 100% incontrovertible.A scientific theory can only be disproven, not proven. That is the key difference between a "theory" in science and in mathematics. Mathematical theories are derived from pure reasoning; their only relationship to "facts" in the physical universe is that the reasoning that creates them is often inspired by observations of how the universe works. Arithmetic is a theory, yet we can say with absolute certainty that one plus one equals two and that we will never stumble across a counterexample that disproves the theory. Riemannian geometry is a theory that can't even be "tested" in the usual scientific sense. Yet we know with absolute certainty that if we ever find (or construct) a body with that bizarre type of curvature, the rules of Riemannian geometry will apply to it without exception.

This is significantly different from scientific theories and vastly different from the theories of criminal detectives. Economic and psychological theories fall somewhere on that spectrum as well. What we're basically saying about a scientific theory that has become "mainstream" is that even though it is possible that it may some day be proven wrong, we have enough confidence in it to build upon it and include it as a basis of scientific teaching.

In essence, we're doing a risk analysis. We conclude that occasionally a theory will actually be proven wrong, but it will happen so infrequently that it will not shatter the foundations of science. After all, look at the examples we're familiar with. Relativity theory "disproves" Newtonian physics. Yet the first-year physics books, even in places like M.I.T., still teach the basic linear kinematics of a point mass in a Newtonian context. You have to have a mighty large context before the errors in Newton's Laws can be detected. So much to the relief of college freshmen, they don't have to master the theory of relativity until later.I think it is not needed to make up words that differ from the general use, why do it? It seems pointless to make up a new word for science when we have plenty in existence to describe them already, it only makes for confusion.Because there is no standard of "general use" that we can adopt. The confusion is already there. "Theory" has significantly different meanings in mathematics, psychology, economics, and detective work. And as someone else pointed out, it was our word first so it's the laymen who should accommodate us, not vice versa. :)So there is no facts in science? So how can you say that scientific theory is backed up with facts?There is only data. Theories are backed up by data. You could say that a theory is an interpretation of the data that is available to work with.Yeah I am actualy going to bed right now, its like 5:30. Why the hell are you still awake too?The time stamp on my computer in the U.S. Eastern Time Zone says 12:30. Where are you guys, Poland? Or do you have that wacky European "double" Daylight Saving Time in the summer, where the sun doesn't come up until eight o'clock and they think it's "safer" to make everybody roll out of bed and drive to work in the dark? :)

The time stamp on my computer in the U.S. Eastern Time Zone says 12:30. Where are you guys, Poland? Or do you have that wacky European "double" Daylight Saving Time in the summer, where the sun doesn't come up until eight o'clock and they think it's "safer" to make everybody roll out of bed and drive to work in the dark?
UK. But we have only one hour of "wacky" daylight saving, currently. GMT+1. :D

i think i understand fully now after reading through. i thinik the root of my confusion came from the words "fact" and "prove" being used alot. because many people say something is "fact" and thats when i start to wonder how a scientific theory can be a fsct, when its not fully establshed with solid proof.


thanks. peace.