Coby Beck wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
oups.com...
From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition.
Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying
principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to
some degree.
OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the
right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't
doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but
that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that
professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as
vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was
intended. While one truth does not drive out another, one may
certainly have more relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I
see more factual (empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to
bark up the wrong tree. Best Wishes............Dave

Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence?

Obviously nothing, since no 'fact' is ever supported by anything more than
collective opinion. The 'fact' of gravity is just a concession to empirical
observation and common opinion. Nobody really knows what it is or what
causes it ( see recent quantum theory speculations ). However, we call
gravity a 'fact' even though we cannot directly observe that it is constant
or universal.

The same problem(s) comes up when you claim the 'fact' that that house is
blue. The reality is that you just saw one side of the house and *inferred*
that the other sides were also blue based on the assumption that houses are
all one color. You cannot even be sure that what YOU see as 'blue' is the
same color as what everyone else sees as 'blue'. Nor do you even specify the
color precisely. What blue do you mean? Sky blue? Light blue? Kinda a
purplish blue?

To really specify the color you need to measure the wavelength of the light
reflected from the paint and that is science. The whole theory of color and
color perception is just a 'theory' so can you really call the house blue?
If you consider collective agreement by the facts and perceptions to be what
establishes 'facts' then scientific theories are 'facts'.

You can be wrong! You may have seen the house under sodium street lighting
and it is really not blue. But the standard of 'proof' for ordinary facts
are even lower than that for scientific facts. Ergo, A 'theory' is science
is a 'fact' as we understand reality. Those people who say otherwise ( like
Dave ) just show that they do not understand or respect scientific inquiry.
I suspect that it has something to do with jealousy of those who see clearer
and farther than they do.