Theory of Homosexuality

[kristoff]

Disagree. Gallileo's postulate was that his balls would land together regardless of unequal size. His theory was that gravitational force was a constant for bodies of all sizes. His data, which followed his formulation of his theory was gathered from his experiment of dropping his balls. You can have a theory X that postulates results Y, proven (or strongly supported) by data Z gathered from experiment A.

While it's true that data already observed often leads to a theory that attempts to 'explain' or 'unify' the observed data, it is equally and perhaps more often true, that a theory is first formulated according to mere observations, not data points, that lead to experiments that produce data that support or refute the theory.

So I still say, first the theory than the data, and in any case, do not 'have it backwards'. So there!

Again, you confuse postulate with theory.

[sensenbender (imported)]

Again, you confuse postulate with theory.

Actually, I think you mean 'conflate', but whatever. Here's the definition of 'Theory':

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: ex, Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

So it's your turn to define 'postulate' in support of your position in this petty dispute.

[gareth19 (imported)]

No.K. Why then did Gallileo drop his balls from the Tower of Pizza? I get 'Postulate' followed by 'Theory' in that case, but the data gathering came third. Don't know who duplicated his results later or whether anybody postulated that it only works from the leaning tower, but don't matter because the point is that the sequence of steps in the scientific method is not fixed.

Galileo didn't drop any balls off the Tower of Pisa; that is a myth; Simon Stevinus performed the experiment (not in Italy but in the Low countries and wrote it up for Galileo to read about; then Galileo formulated a theory of motion and tested it by rolling balls down an inclined plane and timing the results.

[sensenbender (imported)]

Galileo didn't drop any balls off the Tower of Pisa; that is a myth; Simon Stevinus performed the experiment (not in Italy but in the Low countries and wrote it up for Galileo to read about and he formulated a theory of motion and tested it by rolling balls down an inclined plane and timing the results.

I stand corrected. The myth still nicely illustrates the role of theories in science.

[kristoff]

theories result only from tested postulates. One derives data from testing a postulate. A theory is derived only from replicable data that are the result of replicated tests of postulates that sustain the conclusion.

[bobover3 (imported)]

Is Sensenbender still trying to persuade us there's no difference between religious dogmas based on faith and scientific theories based on empirical evidence?

OK. If this is so, then it is my faith that Sensenbender does not exist, and that the posts attributed to him are the work of Satan. Now try to dispute this. If you say that you have faith Sensenbender exists, then I reply that my faith is as good as yours, so how can you show me my faith is wrong? If you say you are Sensenbender or have seen him or spoken with him, then I reply that you are Satan or a tool of Satan, working to perpetuate a pernicious lie, and you have no way to show me I'm wrong. If you say you can provide physical evidence of Sensenbender's existence, then you acknowledge the difference between science and faith, and the greater use and meaning of science.

[curious69 (imported)]

I very much agree.. How useful a result is desired ? The foundation of science is observation, hypothesis and continuous extension of what is accepted as "fact". ** fact is what is accepted as the expanation or theory that most fits an agreed upon set of data including: observations, observed measurements or assumed data derived by a repeatable process.

[Uncle Flo (imported)]

Galileo didn't drop any balls off the Tower of Pisa; that is a myth; Simon Stevinus performed the experiment (not in Italy but in the Low countries and wrote it up for Galileo to read about; then Galileo formulated a theory of motion and tested it by rolling balls down an inclined plane and timing the results.

Oh, crap! I had this image in my mind of Galileo watching his newly separated balls falling from the tower. --FLO--

[transward (imported)]

Oh, crap! I had this image in my mind of Galileo watching his newly separated balls falling from the tower. --FLO--

I guess you will just have to change your image to

Galileo watching his newly separated balls

rolling slowly down an inclined plank. If it improves the fantasy you can put a hungry pit bull, or angry Inquisition judges at the bottom.

Transward

[sensenbender (imported)]

Is Sensenbender still trying to persuade us there's no difference between religious dogmas based on faith and scientific theories based on empirical evidence?

OK. If this is so, then it is my faith that Sensenbender does not exist, and that the posts attributed to him are the work of Satan. Now try to dispute this. If you say that you have faith Sensenbender exists, then I reply that my faith is as good as yours, so how can you show me my faith is wrong? If you say you are Sensenbender or have seen him or spoken with him, then I reply that you are Satan or a tool of Satan, working to perpetuate a pernicious lie, and you have no way to show me I'm wrong. If you say you can provide physical evidence of Sensenbender's existence, then you acknowledge the difference between science and faith, and the greater use and meaning of science.

I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything except that both science and religion depend on faith, that's all. I have used this example before but I will use it again. The SETI projects have been looking for signs of life elsewhere in the universe than here on earth, unsuccessfully, for about 30 years by my reconning (somebody will probably correct me on that). How long did 'science' look for phlogiston before it gave up? How long will we pursue string theory before we lose interest?

Religious faith was the essence of 'science' two thousand years or more ago. There was only religion and 'religious theories' to account for everything unknown, as well as a lot that was known. Granting that this gap has narrowed over the centuries as our technologies and our various instruments of research and discovery have improved, I would submit that we still have at least 99% of the 'unknown' to explain in scientific terms. So pardon me if I prefer to relish my devine sense of wonder in the meantime. You can scrabble around in your little sandpit of science all you want, but you'll miss out on the etherial majesty of creation if you do.