Hello all,

As many of you know, I’ve been struggling to understand the differences between fact and theory, and a scientific theory and a non-scientific theory.

Well, to my delight and thanks to Bernard (specifically but not exclusively – sorry, Bernard, but I can’t let you have all the credit ), I have finally caught on to the difference between a scientific theory and a non-scientific theory.

In Sue's Scientists refuse to debate evolution vs. ID thread, I wrote:
----------
Hello Bernard,
You write: "But of course, he (and I) are trying to tell you what the scientific definition of theory is."
This is for me yet another twist to deal with.
I am not trying to be difficult, Bernard - I am genuinely struggling to understand your pov.
So, would it be correct for me to interpret your statement as saying: A theory in Science is not the same as, say for example, a theory that identifies Montague John Druitt as Jack the Ripper?

p.s. I picked on MJD as JtR because it is a theory that does not involve Science.
----------

Bernard has replied simply: Correct.

Bingo! Now I can see the difference .

I’m something of an expert on the Jack the Ripper case (for example, I can tell you beyond all doubt that the killer was not Winnie the Pooh or Doctor Watson ) so I am well familiar with the type of theorising it involves.
Place this type of theorising next to that used in Science (typically, and topically, as in the subject of Evolution) and the differences become clear – well, to me they now do (but please, please don’t ask me to verbalise it ).

All I have to do now is get to understand the difference between a fact and a theory.
Now, I thought I was making progress on this - then I read Stephen’s comment: A scientific theory does not become a fact. Ever.
At which point I very nearly gave up…
Then I remembered somewhen reading that a Roman poet (or some such) had mooted (I think that’s the word I want) the idea of Evolution centuries ago. And I think I’m right in saying Darwin’s father (Erasmus?) believed in Evolution.
Then, surely, Evolution (which is now a fact) must have at some time in the past been a scientific theory.
So, isn’t this an example or case of a theory becoming a fact?

Regards to all,

Alex

p.s. regarding the other ‘matter’ – suffice to say the storm has passed. A.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2005 06:54AM by Alex S.