Quote:
Originally posted by island911
Part of the problem; Science types rarely talk about where their knowlege ends. . . .what it doesn't explain. They generally want to tell you how their model does work.
Newtons models work great - undisputable, repeatalble . . .until Einstein came along. 
Unified theory . . . the answer is between zero and one. --easy, right.
|
I disagree with this completely. While scientists don't speak in the mainstream about where their theories stop working, a good scientists will
intentionally try to find where his theory breaks. Only by looking for more and more plausible ways to make your theory fail can you show to colleagues that your idea is a good one.
Newton's models
do work great. We know that they don't explain everything. We found out where they break, but it doesn't make them irrelevant.
In fact, the most exciting field in physics right now loves to talk about the failure of the two most succesful theories in history - quantum theory and the general theory of relativity.
Quote:
Originally posted by bryanthompson
Let's just stop teaching anything that isn't proven in schools, that'll fix it. If one theory can be taught but another can't, even though neither can be proven or disproven, throw them both out.
|
Bryan - the goal of science isn't to prove things. That's why modern ideas with lots of evidence to back them up aren't called 'laws' anymore. The goal of science to find explanations and mechanisms for the processes of nature. The ID discussion is frankly a fascinating one - in philosophy, metaphysics and theology. But it doesn't belong in a science classroom. Until the ID proponents can show a verifiable
mechanism it's all just conjecture.