Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pjalne
In science, nothing can really be proven, it can just be presented as so likely that it would be counterproductive (and sometimes downright stupid) not to assume it is correct. Like the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. Which IS a theory. It's just so well documented only nuts would dispute it.
|
I'm pretty sure there's a reason why scientists make distinction between scientific laws and theories. I'm equally sure science is not based on assumptions. Scientific research, maybe.
Maybe you're more up to date on science than am I. Either way, my comment is unaffected by your addition.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pjalne
And all alternatives aren't equal. In a crime case, you might be innocent until proven guilty, but in science, your notions are worthless until you are able to present an alternative model that can explain a phenomenon more coherently than the currently leading theory.
|
It's bad science to fail to question any theory because of a popular assumption. That's always been the case. In the absence of irrefutable proof, all alternative theories should be considered. All I'm doing is describing one alternative and considering the possible bias behind the popularity of the "currently leading theory."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pjalne
But see, it's not random. If we take evolution as an example, the actual changes of traits might be random, at least as random as they can be when based on preexisting DNA structure. But the survival of these new traits is anything BUT random. This new trait has to answer to a preexisting environment, and if it doesn't make the cut, it goes away.
|
I was addressing the idea that all events are random. I don't like that concept any more than you do, but for different reasons.
I don't like
Darwinian evolution, either, but that's an entirely different discussion...
Threaded Mode
