This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.
Close Privacy Overview This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent.
You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience. Necessary Necessary. Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website.
I'm sorry, but, no: physics is not a religion. There is a real danger here. Suppose, for example, that your doctor believes that all men should have estrogen pumped into them to help reduce violent, aggressive tendencies?
Where are the fact-based studies to support this "theory"? Amusing in opinion but certainly not in theory! What's my point? Simply this: There is nothing rational. No one is asking you to believe reality. Posted by Carol L. The balance of evidence seems to favour the feeling theory, and this theory is adopted. Belief , Dispositional theory , Eliminativist theory , Feeling theory , Intellectualistic theory. The intellectualistic, Four Theories of Belief Pp.
Keywords: Belief , Dispositional theory , Eliminativist theory , Feeling theory , Intellectualistic theory. Prediction of hypothesis is that the cake will rise just as high as before and will both taste better and be healthier because of the extra egg and whole wheat flour.
This is the testable hypothesis. Put it all together and bake it in the oven. Cut a piece and taste it testing the hypothesis. If it works, we have a theory that the new recipe will work. We retest several times and modify slightly to continue to improve the result until we are satisfied. Now we have a predictive model the revised recipe.
So, no science is not mysterious in principle. Adding more and more detail as well as technology can make it look mysterious, but at the root, science is just like cooking. The process of making a new recipe does not entail any beliefs, faith, or moral values.
It is just chemistry. How you interpret the results and what you do with the new cake recipe is not a part of the science you used to create it. If you decide to share it with your pals or you decide to keep the recipe a secret is your choice and depends on your own personal set of values. If you try to feed it to your kids and handily forget to mention it is healthy, that is another decision you make based on your values, not the science of making the cake.
Maybe the idea for the modification came from a magazine. Do you acknowledge the source in the recipe or not — again that is your choice.
In the rule book of science, you need to acknowledge the source, but in home cooking, there is no rule book. Many belief systems consider the world to be only a few thousand years old, others posit that there has always been an Earth in existence. Many people are curious. Some of those curious people wondered just how old the world really might be. It is not easy to figure this out because of course, new rocks are made from volcanic and other geological processes all the time.
Over millenia, the newer rocks eroded to cover the older rocks. So it can be difficult to find old rocks and even more difficult to find the oldest rocks. The oldest rocks which have been found so far on the Earth are about 3. The age of these ancient rocks is determined using radiometric techniques the decay rate of isotopes.
Some of these rocks are sedimentary, so they are the result of erosion and deposition. The fact that the characteristics of organisms have changed over generations is observable and testable. People routinely use fact that the characteristics of organisms change over generations to produce many different kinds of goldfish, dogs, pigs, horses, cows, pigeons, flowers, grains, and ornamental shrubs. For organisms that live for short periods of time, we can watch the change.
We can watch viruses and bacteria change characteristics over many of their generations. We may not be able to watch large organisms change over generations, but we can observe evidence of the changes in characteristics of large animals over very long periods of time by digging up fossils and measuring their age using radioactive decay rates. By lining up similar fossils in a time sequence we can observe and describe the changes in their characteristics over time.
So it is an observable and verifiable fact that organisms change their characteristics over generations. We can also measure the amount of change over time. How this change of characteristics over generations works is another matter. In science, both the fact and the process of change in organisms over generations is called evolution. In , it was used by Charles Lyell the geologist. Darwin did not consider his concept to be a progression, but only a series of modifications acquired by descendants.
However, the belief in the ascendancy of people over animals won the day and the term evolution with its implication of progression became the popular term and remains the one used today. Science has an explanation for how evolution works. Currently that explanation explains most, but not quite all of the observable and testable aspects of evolution.
There are so many aspects to how organisms change characteristics over generations, and why they do so, that the explanation of every aspect has not yet been completed. The process of evolution is mostly known but not all of it. So it is called a theory. This means the theory of evolution as a process and the fact of evolution as observable events, can exist at the same time.
The fact is what we observe, and the theory is an attempt to figure out how and why the characteristics of organisms change over generations. When you toss a ball in the air and it falls down to the earth, you call that the effect of gravity and you know it will happen every time, but we are not completely certain how or why it does that.
When animals reproduce over and over again, the young are not exactly the same as their parents. We see that happen every time — even twins are slightly different one from each other.
We know that is going to happen every time, but we may not be completely certain of how or why that happens, and what the consequences are over very long periods of time when different youngsters grow up and have babies with others of their generation that are not exactly the same as they are. Evolution is more complicated than gravity.
0コメント