The problem with this video is a FUCKING MORON named Russell C. Crawford who runs a facebook page called "natural abortion laws" is calling MOTHER FUCKING BULL CRAP LAWS.
The vast majority of the type of people uneducated enough to use the "just a theory" line likely have never even encountered the word "hypothesis" before.
I doubt it is as complicated as as you think. In the typical creationists mind, a theory means about what a hypothesis means to an educated person - simply because the in the colloquial usage of the word this is how it is used.
""can you name a Scientific Law established in the 19 century or after? according Neil deGrasse Tyson (at least in physics) the naming system changed after they realized that what they were calling "Laws" were not necessarily universal. and so since the beginning of the 19th century they've stuck to Scientific Theories and Facts""
That is accurate. Theories supersede laws. It's amazing to me how many people are scientific illiterate and don't know what a Theory is.
this is a pretty good video, although toward the end you lost me. "electrons" cannot explain anything b/c their existence is inconceivable as long as they are defined as "zero dimensional particles." on the theoretical level, you cannot have an explanation if your causal agents are inconceivable. it's a conceptual problem.
i made a video on the SM, feel free to dispute:
v=zjiXqscxmIo
other than that congrats on understanding the SM far better than most people.
There are truths and there are untruths. There are probably truths and probably not truths. There are educated, speculated, and bogus theories. There are laws. There are manipulations and lies. 1 Truth: The government has lied to us in the past. 2nd truth: the government controls the education system. Educated theory: the school system has taught lies. Speculated theory: some science is being taught incorrectly. Bogus theory: Science has disproved God. Lie: Science has all the answers
I agree with the jist of whats being said, however there are two points I would like to make. 1st point, the fact is, scientist who want to prove a point will sometimes refer to gravity as a theory as well as a Law, which creates ambiguity for the general public. 2nd point, in my opinion, in order for a theory to fulfill its predictable requirements it has to be consistent, and we cant just cherry pick the hits & ignore the misses. Macro evolution seems to be the only theory that eats for free.
can you name a Scientific Law established in the 19 century or after? according Neil deGrasse Tyson (at least in physics) the naming system changed after they realized that what they were calling "Laws" were not necessarily universal. and so since the beginning of the 19th century they've stuck to Scientific Theories and Facts
Note that the radical empiricist define a scientific hypothesis as one which entail only testable consequences. However, this definition is obviously flawed, since the fundamental equation of motion in classical mechanics entails some untestable consequences. This is because it is impossible to account for the starting position and velocity of an infinite number of point particles.
A scientific law is a hypothesis of a certain kind, namely one which is confirmed and purports to represent objective patterns of facts in the world. Theories are hypothetico-deductive systems which unite laws and other hypotheses. Moreover, not all laws are on equal footing, i.e., there are different kinds of laws, including lower level and higher level laws.
Well thanks, I guess.... I think you have odd taste, but I won't argue with you. Does this mean the point is well made or just kind of irrelevant? (Love your church - wish I could join, but I guess that's the joke. Maybe I'll start a splinter group...)
The point was well made & I think what you say in your video can't be said often enough. There's nothing worse than people not knowing the proper terminology and therefore believing all the manipulative BS they get to hear from people that ought to (and do, IMHO)know better. So, thanks for the vid, always good to see someone actually sitting down and doing something constructive instead of just getting into pointless flame wars.
As a closing remark, have you thought about dubbing porno movies?
To a degree, yes. It's why philosophers of science where asked to step outside for a minute... the middle ground is very slippery. However the value of this sits in the distinction between a law and a theory (which of course both have predictive power) as applied to issues such as evolution, global warming, etc. It's more to counter the 'it's only a theory' mentality.
In your example, of course the law doesn't explain why the law happens. Rather, it explains what is going on in some observation. In the same way, any theory you cite does not explain beyond its scope.
They are both just examples of explanations.
Of course Newton thought his laws were just descriptions. We now know that this is false. His description of events was an explanation of what he was seeing. (an explanation which we know to be false)
The problem with this video is a FUCKING MORON named Russell C. Crawford who runs a facebook page called "natural abortion laws" is calling MOTHER FUCKING BULL CRAP LAWS.
Theory =/= Law.
kevinjjfr 2 weeks ago
The vast majority of the type of people uneducated enough to use the "just a theory" line likely have never even encountered the word "hypothesis" before.
I doubt it is as complicated as as you think. In the typical creationists mind, a theory means about what a hypothesis means to an educated person - simply because the in the colloquial usage of the word this is how it is used.
TheStigma 4 months ago
I like that the video is 3:14. Pi!
matthewwilloughby83 4 months ago
""can you name a Scientific Law established in the 19 century or after? according Neil deGrasse Tyson (at least in physics) the naming system changed after they realized that what they were calling "Laws" were not necessarily universal. and so since the beginning of the 19th century they've stuck to Scientific Theories and Facts""
That is accurate. Theories supersede laws. It's amazing to me how many people are scientific illiterate and don't know what a Theory is.
bsdwiz 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this is a pretty good video, although toward the end you lost me. "electrons" cannot explain anything b/c their existence is inconceivable as long as they are defined as "zero dimensional particles." on the theoretical level, you cannot have an explanation if your causal agents are inconceivable. it's a conceptual problem.
i made a video on the SM, feel free to dispute:
v=zjiXqscxmIo
other than that congrats on understanding the SM far better than most people.
junior00bacon00chee 11 months ago
Omg that's Mr Ellerton from School! hahaha nice :D
TheLemonWarrior 1 year ago
Oh so I'm not the only one who thinks your voice is really sexy. Cool
OhSoPeachyx 1 year ago
There are truths and there are untruths. There are probably truths and probably not truths. There are educated, speculated, and bogus theories. There are laws. There are manipulations and lies. 1 Truth: The government has lied to us in the past. 2nd truth: the government controls the education system. Educated theory: the school system has taught lies. Speculated theory: some science is being taught incorrectly. Bogus theory: Science has disproved God. Lie: Science has all the answers
jrhd00d84 1 year ago
Comment removed
jrhd00d84 1 year ago
thanks for sharring
strong8action 1 year ago
I agree with the jist of whats being said, however there are two points I would like to make. 1st point, the fact is, scientist who want to prove a point will sometimes refer to gravity as a theory as well as a Law, which creates ambiguity for the general public. 2nd point, in my opinion, in order for a theory to fulfill its predictable requirements it has to be consistent, and we cant just cherry pick the hits & ignore the misses. Macro evolution seems to be the only theory that eats for free.
benthemiester 1 year ago
You hit the nail on the head, pactiss... so many people need to see this video...
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
thanks alot!
now i can pass my science test!
maybe!
seattleforlife 2 years ago
can you name a Scientific Law established in the 19 century or after? according Neil deGrasse Tyson (at least in physics) the naming system changed after they realized that what they were calling "Laws" were not necessarily universal. and so since the beginning of the 19th century they've stuck to Scientific Theories and Facts
WickedJargon 2 years ago
thank you, you helped with my ap chemistry homework :)
jakeisbl4ck 2 years ago
thanks so much , explained ALOT =]
cos1357924680 2 years ago
Dude...with that voice you need to narrate a PBS or BBC documentary.
influenza99 2 years ago 12
Dahngg Boring! Buht i need it for my Homeworkk so Thxx'[x
aliciasierra01 2 years ago
Thanks for making this video.
Maybe you can summarise the important points and put as a slideshow or whatever in the video too?
It helps me to understand better.
firecookies 3 years ago
Yes, but relevant when facing the claims of a psychic that they can move objects with their minds...
Appreciate the comments - mind expanding.
pactiss 3 years ago
Note that the radical empiricist define a scientific hypothesis as one which entail only testable consequences. However, this definition is obviously flawed, since the fundamental equation of motion in classical mechanics entails some untestable consequences. This is because it is impossible to account for the starting position and velocity of an infinite number of point particles.
DarwinsGarden 3 years ago
A scientific law is a hypothesis of a certain kind, namely one which is confirmed and purports to represent objective patterns of facts in the world. Theories are hypothetico-deductive systems which unite laws and other hypotheses. Moreover, not all laws are on equal footing, i.e., there are different kinds of laws, including lower level and higher level laws.
DarwinsGarden 3 years ago
Yup - particularly about levels of laws. I see philosophers of science did NOT go out for a coffee. Thanks for the post.
pactiss 3 years ago
Wow you have an incredibly sexy voice
ChurchOfSolipsism 3 years ago 6
Well thanks, I guess.... I think you have odd taste, but I won't argue with you. Does this mean the point is well made or just kind of irrelevant? (Love your church - wish I could join, but I guess that's the joke. Maybe I'll start a splinter group...)
pactiss 3 years ago
The point was well made & I think what you say in your video can't be said often enough. There's nothing worse than people not knowing the proper terminology and therefore believing all the manipulative BS they get to hear from people that ought to (and do, IMHO)know better. So, thanks for the vid, always good to see someone actually sitting down and doing something constructive instead of just getting into pointless flame wars.
As a closing remark, have you thought about dubbing porno movies?
ChurchOfSolipsism 3 years ago
To a degree, yes. It's why philosophers of science where asked to step outside for a minute... the middle ground is very slippery. However the value of this sits in the distinction between a law and a theory (which of course both have predictive power) as applied to issues such as evolution, global warming, etc. It's more to counter the 'it's only a theory' mentality.
Thanks for the comment.
pactiss 3 years ago
This seems wrongheaded.
In your example, of course the law doesn't explain why the law happens. Rather, it explains what is going on in some observation. In the same way, any theory you cite does not explain beyond its scope.
They are both just examples of explanations.
Of course Newton thought his laws were just descriptions. We now know that this is false. His description of events was an explanation of what he was seeing. (an explanation which we know to be false)
NathanZimmerman 3 years ago