DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**artkolkovk** · 11-12-2010, 04:33 AM

Yeah, those questions are addressed by philosophy. Philosophical ideas aren't true or false. They are good or bad.

Scientific theories themselves aren't subject to proof. A successful theory explains the full set of relevant facts and "proven" hypotheses in the simplest way. Facts don't need proof. They just are. Technically a scientific hypothesis can not be proven. Hypotheses are tested by the scientific community in an attempt to disprove them. If a hypothesis survives long enough without being disproved then it is accepted by the scientific community as correct.

Btw, "God created the world" can not be a scientific theory because it is not an explanation. An explanation is a model of how something works. Not the name of who made it.

Yeah that is right...hypotheses don't prove anything, they are just meant to be testable. A good scientist finds first how to disprove the theory, then seeks confirming evidence.

Explanations often go beyond what is observable. And I would also agree that naming is not explaining, and that is a common fallacy that people often fall into.

11-12-2010, 04:33 AM	#4
artkolkovk Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 443 Senior Member	Yeah, those questions are addressed by philosophy. Philosophical ideas aren't true or false. They are good or bad. Scientific theories themselves aren't subject to proof. A successful theory explains the full set of relevant facts and "proven" hypotheses in the simplest way. Facts don't need proof. They just are. Technically a scientific hypothesis can not be proven. Hypotheses are tested by the scientific community in an attempt to disprove them. If a hypothesis survives long enough without being disproved then it is accepted by the scientific community as correct. Btw, "God created the world" can not be a scientific theory because it is not an explanation. An explanation is a model of how something works. Not the name of who made it. Yeah that is right...hypotheses don't prove anything, they are just meant to be testable. A good scientist finds first how to disprove the theory, then seeks confirming evidence. Explanations often go beyond what is observable. And I would also agree that naming is not explaining, and that is a common fallacy that people often fall into.
	Quote