So much news, so little sense

[Amianthus]

Well so far it looks to me like this chimp understands what a hypothesis is better than a science major in chemistry and engineering does.

Yeah, I know. Declare victory, hit enter.

All you've shown (once again) is that you do NOT understand science.

[sirs]

Oh yeah, BTW, you can wish us a happy 21st anniversary (which we just celebrated) as well.

BIG time congrats, Ami

[Michael Tee]

<<Yeah, I know. Declare victory, hit enter.>>

Kinda late in the day.  You've already done it.

<<All you've shown (once again) is that you do NOT understand science.>>

I stand by what I said - - the hypothesis is nothing more than an educated guess.  And all you've shown is that you've got yourself a pretty expensive piece of framed wallpaper.  Better hope your profs don't see this thread, or they might wanna take it back.

[Amianthus]

Better hope your profs don't see this thread, or they might wanna take it back.

Actually, I'm sure they'd tell you that you're just using the "dumbed down" explanation of hypothesis, theory, and law that are used to explain an outline of the concepts to 6th graders.

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually, I'm sure they'd tell you that you're just using the "dumbed down" explanation of hypothesis . . . .>>

Well, there ya go.  If you want to substitute "simplified" for "dumbed down," you just proved my point and you get to keep your diploma.

[Amianthus]

Well, there ya go.  If you want to substitute "simplified" for "dumbed down," you just proved my point and you get to keep your diploma.

No thanks. I'll stick with the correct version.

[Amianthus]

Well, there ya go.  If you want to substitute "simplified" for "dumbed down," you just proved my point and you get to keep your diploma.

I'll let you prove to me how you're right.

Under your viewpoint, a hypothesis is a guess, a theory is a better guess, and a law is something that is proven beyond a doubt and inviolate, right?

That's the "simplified" version you were taught, correct?

[Amianthus]

Interestingly enough, no response.

[Michael Tee]

<<Under your viewpoint, a hypothesis is a guess, a theory is a better guess, and a law is something that is proven beyond a doubt and inviolate, right?>>

Wrong.  For one thing, only a moron would believe that any law of science is inviolate.

A hypothesis is an educated guess.

A theory is a temporary explanation based on the available data of the time.  Your theory, for example, that since I had provided no answer to your previous asinine post at the time of your last post, I must have been unable to do because your post embodied the wisdom of Socrates, was only a temporary explanation that failed to take into account simple basic facts such as the lateness of the hour and that I had previously pulled an all-nighter and wanted to get some early shut-eye.  There are good scientists and there are bad scientists, and clearly you fall into the latter category.

And a law is a handy rubric that does nothing more than provide a verbal handle for a theory that provides the underlying basis for predictive calculations on raw data.

[Amianthus]

Your theory, for example, that since I had provided no answer to your previous asinine post at the time of your last post, I must have been unable to do because your post embodied the wisdom of Socrates, was only a temporary explanation that failed to take into account simple basic facts such as the lateness of the hour and that I had previously pulled an all-nighter and wanted to get some early shut-eye.  There are good scientists and there are bad scientists, and clearly you fall into the latter category.

Never claimed it was a theory.

So your theory must be wrong.

[Amianthus]

And a law is a handy rubric that does nothing more than provide a verbal handle for a theory that provides the underlying basis for predictive calculations on raw data.

This is what I wanted to get to. So, a law is predictive. It is not a law until it can be used to predict future occurrences.

Therefore, Newton's Laws of Motion, which are scientific laws and still taught as scientific laws, are correct, uncontradicted at this point in time, and predictive of the motion of objects, correct?

And a theory is only used to explain observed data and is not used to predict future occurrences?

[Michael Tee]

<<Never claimed it was a theory.>>

Naturally.  You never even realized that it was a theory.

<<So your theory must be wrong.>>

Yeah.  Right.

[Amianthus]

Naturally.  You never even realized that it was a theory.

Because it was never a theory. No collected data, other than one point (which is insufficient for even a hypothesis to be formed), no mathematical foundation, no formal testing, no boundaries, no formalization, etc...

Absolutely cannot be a theory.

[Amianthus]

And a law is a handy rubric that does nothing more than provide a verbal handle for a theory that provides the underlying basis for predictive calculations on raw data.

Wait a minute.

So now you're saying that even scientific laws are nothing more than good guesses until something better comes along? They're just theories with a different name?

[Michael Tee]

This is what I wanted to get to. So, a law is predictive. It is not a law until it can be used to predict future occurrences.

Therefore, Newton's Laws of Motion, which are scientific laws and still taught as scientific laws, are correct, uncontradicted at this point in time, and predictive of the motion of objects, correct?

And a theory is only used to explain observed data and is not used to predict future occurrences?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, the laws I can think of off-hand - - Newton's laws, Boyle's law, the Beer-Lambert law - - the first two are used to predict, the latter to measure, which I guess is a form of prediction, so, yeah, I won't argue with that.  So far.

And I don't know if Newton's Laws of Motion would predict the motion of all objects, no, but for all intents and purposes they do well enough at predicting the motion of any objects that I'm likely to be dealing with in my lifetime.  I don't know for a fact that they predict the motion of objects travelling near the speed of light, for example, or at a distance approaching infinity.

And I don't know that a theory can't predict future occurrences.  As a matter of fact, I think the theory of evolution can and does predict that resistant viruses and "super-bugs" are on the way in a variety of different diseases.

You're really hilarious.  You're all over the map with your bullshit definitions and characterizations, getting in deeper and deeper, simply because your arrogance and vanity won't permit you to admit to one simple and extremely stupid mistake that you made when you denied that a hypothesis was just a form of a guess.  You just more and more look like a complete ass, and of course there's no way out, when all you have to do is say, "Yeah, you know what, that's right, a hypothesis IS a guess."