Timeline for Is evolution a fact?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Mar 19, 2019 at 2:07 | history | suggested | cell0 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
gramar fix
|
| Mar 19, 2019 at 0:24 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 19, 2019 at 2:07 | |||||
| Nov 17, 2015 at 19:11 | comment | added | corsiKa | @EugeneRyabtsev I disagree. The entire discussion hinges on the definition of a fact. The word is used differently in different contexts. That said, I believe we're all saying the same basic things, but we simply have a different threshold for accepting common-usage versus precise scientific usage. | |
| Nov 17, 2015 at 9:22 | comment | added | Eugene Ryabtsev | @corsiKa We can get even deeper than that and cay that 1% figure is a statement (about an observation, made by an observer supposedly using a methodology, ...) - this rabbit hole lead rather deep into philosophy with a sidetrack into psychology and sociology (e.g. if a figure is published there is no way to know if it's about a fact; you can only get your own figure or form a belief). So while you are certainly correct, you are considerably deeper in this hole than vervet seems to be. Probably the OP did not want it that deep or he'd ask on philosophy.se or something. | |
| Nov 16, 2015 at 18:55 | comment | added | Harry Vervet | @corsiKa No, the 1% figure was and is true based on my methodology. Your methodology may produce a different number. Both observations are true; however, you may give one more precedence during interpretation, and in refining your theory. You may decide that my fact is inappropriate or irrelevant evidence for the theory, which is perfectly fine. | |
| Nov 16, 2015 at 18:31 | comment | added | corsiKa | james, that is exactly my point - facts should not be possible to accept or reject. Thus, my statement "There is no such thing as a scientific fact." If we want to use the word fact as the common person does, that's fine. But we should not call it a scientific fact. Being precise with our language is important. | |
| Nov 16, 2015 at 17:25 | comment | added | corsiKa | That is not a fact. That is an observation. By your own definition, a fact cannot be proven false. That observation could indeed be proven false if better methods of detection and analysis are used on the data later. "Wow, before we observed 1% bacterial survival, but upon reexamination of the data collected, it looks like 3% survived!" I would go so far to say "There is no such thing as a scientific fact." | |
| Nov 16, 2015 at 1:24 | history | edited | Harry Vervet | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 148 characters in body
|
| Nov 16, 2015 at 1:03 | comment | added | Harry Vervet | @corsiKa An example would be: Say bacteria were experimentally treated with antibiotics. A fact is that 1% of those bacteria survived. Our theory is that those surviving bacteria are resistant to the antibiotics due to genetic mutations which confer a selective advantage. We can then validate and refine this theory by conducting another experiment to generate more facts. Certainly theories help us target further experiments, but the the facts that arise from those experiments are independent of the veracity of the theory. | |
| Nov 16, 2015 at 0:05 | comment | added | corsiKa | Can you give an example of a scientific fact? | |
| Nov 15, 2015 at 23:35 | comment | added | terdon | @jameslarge precisely. Facts lead to theories which lead to predictions which can be confirmed as fact after experimentation and/or observation. Theories can lead to facts but do not produce them. | |
| Nov 15, 2015 at 19:13 | comment | added | Solomon Slow | Re, We do not draw facts from theories. Actually, the best theories predict new phenomena which, if tested, and found to be true, lead to new discoveries and advance our total body of knowledge. I don't really keep up with evolutionary theories, so I'm sorry to say I can't cite any examples from that field. | |
| Nov 15, 2015 at 0:16 | comment | added | CDB | +1 for your answer, specifically the last sentence. Very well put and is one of the key principles we scientists hold sacrosanct (or should at least). | |
| Nov 14, 2015 at 23:54 | history | answered | Harry Vervet | CC BY-SA 3.0 |