quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Yes, “true beyond a reasonable doubt” it more of a legal standard than scientific one. It also is ultimately a personal standard. What I consider to be reasonable doubt may not be someone else’s. When I say that something has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, I am expressing an opinion, just as a jury expresses its opinion by deciding that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

So you admit scientific theories "have been demonstrated to be true beyond any reasonable doubt" is simply your opinion. But, ironically, when it comes to science, what is true or not true such as whether scientific theories have been demonstrated to be true beyond any reasonable doubt" isn't a matter of opinion. People expressing their opinion on what scientific theories are has probably been a contributing factor in how the term has been corrupted.

quote:

That doesn’t change my basic point, however, that science’s ultimate goal is to determine to the degree possible the truth of various hypotheses and the theories they lead to.

To reiterate, if determining the truth of a theory or hypothesis isn’t the purpose of science, what is?

I have no objection to the point that science and scientific inquiry is to determine the truth of various hypothesis and theories. I never expressed any objection with regards to that. I did object to your statement that there are countless scientific "theories" that have been demonstrated to be true beyond any reasonable doubt. You even put "theories" in quotes. That's what I objected to. It's a corrupted understanding of what scientific theories are. They ARE scientific theories; if they were more than theories then they would be scientific laws.

quote:

The following statement is not true, however, and is dishonest. Please do not put words in my mouth.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
You even use the language of one side "Climate change has been proven as fact and climate deniers are simply ignorant and not scientific."

As someone here says, “I can explain it for you but I cannot understand it for you.” If you do not understand my position, that’s one thing; I often cannot understand others’ beliefs, and ultimately give up making the attempt. But falsely distorting someone’s position by ascribing others’ statements to him is the very antihesis of scientific inquiry and civil discourse.

I did not put words in your mouth as in saying you believe such a thing. The sentence you quoted is missing the word "may." The paragraph cites a current debate between competing theories - whether there is a climate trend and what is driving that trend versus whether what is being termed a climate trend is only part of the normal long term climate cycle. The second sentence in that paragraph states "You may believe one side or the other." The sentence after that starts with "You may think your side is true.... The sentence that you quoted doesn't even make sense as is in the context of the paragraph unless you restate it as "You may even use the language of one side..."

I simply and unintentionally missed typing the word "May." The point of the paragraph being which of the opposing theories have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Neither. And even in the absence of or minuscule competing theories, a theory still remains a theory - something that may explain a lot of things accurately and reliably - but it's still a scientific theory and not a scientific fact or law. That the sun and other heavenly bodies revolved around the sun was a theory assumed by the great thinkers of the day as something proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And it was only one guy, galileo who had a competing theory.

Up until my explanation and maybe even after my explanation, you had a theory of what you thought my statement "You even use the language of one side" meant. You were sure of it beyond any reasonable doubt that I was putting words in your mouth and distorting your position. Hopefully, you will accept my explanation as more accurate as it does make sense. But, however, whatever you come to believe about what I intended to say will still remain a theory. There is no objective proof to determine either way. You simply have to make your choice as to which theory is a better and more likely explanation as to what I meant with the sentence "You even use the language of one side..."

WHich gets back to what scientific theories are. Yes, science is about finding the truth. There are some things that can be objectively proven and shown to be scientific fact or law. But there are also other things which cannot be proven one way or the other at this time. We can only come up with theories that explain to a lesser or greater degree of accuracy than other theories. We may never determine how factualy accurate of an explanation a theory may be but we can determine how well it explains whatever it purportedly explains.