Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
And isn't accepted scientific theory still just a theory? As I said before nobody has definitive proof just theories and I don't trust politicians or suits.
|
You seem to mis-understand what a scientific theory is. It's not just an idea, that's a hypothesis.
A theory is a robust idea or framework of ideas/concepts/etc that not only has explanatory power regarding observed phenomenon but is supported by a body of facts that have been repeatedly observed through observation or experimentation.
Human caused global warming could never be a "fact", the cause of an observed fact (the planet is warming) will always be a theory, be it human caused or caused by an overproduction of pocket warmers. Because that's what such a thing is called in science.
Evolution is a theory, but it is so well founded that its truth is virtually unassailable. Gravity is a theory, that doesn't mean there's a reason to doubt that tomorrow the earth will fly off into interplanetary space.
In the case of Evolution or Gravity it would be false to say we 100% understand them, but don't equate a lack of complete understanding with not knowing anything. EDIT: Or being at a point where the existing knowledge can easily be swept away.
In both cases, enough is known that any new theory that would supplant them would have to include them as part of the new theory. Gravity is a good example of this.. We know Newton's theory of gravity isn't correct. But it wasn't completely wrong either, Newtonian gravity is good enough to send probes all over the solar system. Newton's theory of gravity is excellent and near enough perfect in a specific range of conditions. But in some cases Newton isn't enough, if we go too fast the Newton's rules don't apply. Einstein's theories are better, but Einstein didn't invalidate Newton, Einstein just accounts for more possibilities and observations than does Newton.
The same is true of any other scientific theory. Because a theory is built upon facts (through observation and/or experimentation) and the theory has explanatory power for those facts, and the facts
don't change, a new theory by necessity will have to not only explain the same facts that the current theory does, but do it better (by either explaining more facts, or explaining them with fewer variables, or something like that).
So any theory of global warming that would supplant the current scientific consensus would have to account for all the known facts and observations as well as explain more/better/etc.
Asimov wrote a nice essay on this called the Relativity of Wrong:
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscien...ityofwrong.htm