Time to clarify some terms for the sake of sanity!

Their seems to be a lot of confusion based on the language we use here in this forum. I felt like we needed to clarify some terms that are commonly misconstrued. Now, by no means am I an authority but a little reading goes a long way. I'm sure we all can benefit from a little bit of clarification. Of course this is not a comprehensive list but I do think it's a good start. Feel free to suggest some definitions of terms you may feel are being taken out of context. In addition, let's not have this devolve into the usual debate. This is more of a resource as opposed to a discussion.


Now, to start, SCIENCE seems to be one of the most misused terms here. Some people tend to think its synonymous with "belief" or "philosophy". Science is also NOT some sort of object outside of ourselves.

Science

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science

Now, classic philosophy was a way to systematically describe the world we live in through logic. It was mainly a mental exercise until sufficient empirical evidence was found. Another definition is more so how you view and live your life. That does not necessarily mean what you believe is correct.

Philosophy

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language

Science does not tell you what to do. Other people tell you what to do. Many times it would be a good idea to heed the advice science lends but that's on you if things go wrong.

Dogma

a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

To arrive at a conclusion that is provable we use....

The Scientific Method

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world. Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.

This next term is used to describe the most current and workable versions of an observed phenomenon.

Scientific Theory

systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

This way, below, of using "theory" is frequently confused with what is a "scientific theory".

Theory(general usage)

abstract thought : speculation

A hypothesis is the precursor to a scientific theory once sufficient evidence is gathered and agreed upon.

Hypothesis

b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

The next 3 basically are the whole base on which we exist and are pretty immutable.

Evidence

that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

Empirical Evidence

Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.

Fact

something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.

To get to the point of agreement that all facts have been accounted for there is the process of....

Peer review

formally it is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.

I felt like I needed to add this one here because many people here have mistrust in experts. Although it's good to have a healthy dose of skepticism, there do exist people who know more than others. Put it this way, would you be offended if you've been in your profession for a number of years and feel like you've attained a vast knowledge and skill of it and someone with less knowledge comes in and tries to tell you what to do? Of course everyone is capable of error but wouldn't you trust the person who's immersed themselves in a specific profession over the person who hasn't?

Professional

characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession (2) : exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace

continue

PAGE 2

This term definitely needs no introduction yet somehow still needs clarification.

Evolution

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

Often confused and mixed up with Evolution by creationists is.....

Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis (/ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss[1]) or biopoiesis is the process by which life arose from inorganic matter.[2][3][4][5] In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen.

I'm sure there will be some debate over the version I have picked but I feel like it is the best,simplest default position on the subject.

Atheism

atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist

Of course this one is not referring only to the Christian god and shouldn't be assumed as such. When Atheism is debated it usually seems as though the focus is on the Abrahamic God/s but that would be ignoring the literally thousands of gods that have existed through history.

Theism

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[1] In a more specific sense, theism is a monotheistic doctrine concerning the nature of a god or goddess, and their relationship to the universe.

Hardcore Atheists think you're being wishy washy and theists think you're being stubborn.

Agnosticism

is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable

Logically if you're all knowing there is no, zero, nada, nothing, past, present, future that you don't know. No playing dumb here.

Omniscience

mainly in religion, is the capacity to know everything that there is to know.

So, if someone ever says the "onus is on you" it usually has come after a claim is made that needs explanation or verifiability. It does not come after you have challenged someone else to prove or disprove your statement.

Onus (is on you)

burden of proof.

Well, so far that's all i have for now. I'll try to think of more but I'm sure you guys will have plenty to add.

Thanks for reading!

Science is just observing.

So why when a scientist observes something some people consider it fact, and when someone observes the Virgin Mary, people question it as not proof.

God and Jesus are independent beings, They don't have to prove anything to you.

reply to post by randomname


Clearly you didn't even read the gosh darn descriptions the OP posted.

A scientist doesn't just "observe" things. For something to be a scientific FACT it has to be reproducible. Sightings of angels and other anecdotal evidence is not.

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world. Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.

something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.

reply to post by randomname


put it through a rigorous scientific method and you'll have your answer.

this thread isn't about debate.

to answer your edit. sure jesus doesnt have to prove itself to me but you do.

reply to post by randomname

and when someone observes the Virgin Mary...

If you want the existence of the Virgin Mary, or her ghost, or whatever it is, to be considered to be a FACT, you need to find a method that allows all of us, believers or not, to experience the same thing. You can't.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


Well. There are multiple sightings of the Virgin Mary reported, so it means it fits your criteria as fact.

Can you reproduce the sun, the answer is no, so according to your definition the existence of the sun is not fact.

But you can say you see it, Well a person who was born blind has never seen the sun, And because he has never seen it he can't claim the sun doesn't exist because others who have seen it reported otherwise.

He's basing on what you have seen, not scientific fact from his point of view.

Science only observes what already exists, it reproduces nothing, It all already exists just in different forms.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


You want to see the Virgin Mary ask her to appear to you. But if she doesn't that's her choice.

Originally posted by randomname
reply to post by phishyblankwaters

 

Well. There are multiple sightings of the Virgin Mary reported, so it means it fits your criteria as fact.

Can you reproduce the sun, the answer is no, so according to your definition the existence of the sun is not fact.

But you can say you see it, Well a person who was born blind has never seen the sun, And because he has never seen it he can't claim the sun doesn't exist because others who have seen it reported otherwise.

He's basing on what you have seen, not scientific fact from his point of view.

Science only observes what already exists, it reproduces nothing, It all already exists just in different forms.

edit on 11-1-2013 by randomname because: (no reason given)

based on the laws of physic we can create a sun. we do not have anywhere near the technology at this point but none the less.

also, the blind person doesnt need to physically see the sun for it to still exist. not to mention anytime they go outside they can feel the heat radiating.

btw you just remined me of another term! thanks!

p.s. this is not a debate so kindly stop.

another term

Moving the goal post fallacy

a metaphor meaning to change the criterion (goal) of a process or competition while still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an intentional advantage or disadvantage

reply to post by randomname

Can you reproduce the sun, the answer is no, so according to your definition the existence of the sun is not fact.

Another one that doesn't understand what "reproducibility" means.

reply to post by iterationzero


thanks for another one

Reproducibility

the degree of agreement between measurements or observations conducted on replicate specimens in different locations by different people. Reproducibility is part of the precision of a test method.[1] Reproducibility also refers to the ability of an entire experiment or study to be reproduced, or by someone else working independently. It is one of the main principles of the scientific method.

Verified/Verifiable?

reply to post by Prezbo369


ahh good one. Another term that seems to be absent from many a tale told on ATS.

Verified

supported or established by evidence or proof

Excellent thread. I hope it gets stickied, as we *really* need it.

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch
Excellent thread. I hope it gets stickied, as we *really* need it.

Good thread. It's nice to have threads like this to occasionally point to reality instead of all the crazyness that gets posted in here. Funny how the first response in the thread is a guy that didn't even read most of it and tries to pigeon hole science into his own definition, giving evidence as to why we need threads like this.

reply to post by Barcs


Thanks. I felt like this thread was made with minimal bias although, i won't lie, you can tell which side of the fence i'm on.

BUT, that should not be relevant to the fact that people should know and fully understand them anyway.

reply to post by randomname


As this post clearly illustrates, no glossary exists that will prevent willful and belligerent ignorance from declaring itself justified in crippling a perfectly reasonable discussion through exercises in inane semantics digression.

Originally posted by randomname
reply to post by phishyblankwaters

 

Well. There are multiple sightings of the Virgin Mary reported, so it means it fits your criteria as fact.

Can you reproduce the sun, the answer is no, so according to your definition the existence of the sun is not fact.

But you can say you see it, Well a person who was born blind has never seen the sun, And because he has never seen it he can't claim the sun doesn't exist because others who have seen it reported otherwise.

He's basing on what you have seen, not scientific fact from his point of view.

Science only observes what already exists, it reproduces nothing, It all already exists just in different forms.

edit on 11-1-2013 by randomname because: (no reason given)

How can one be so lost when they imply they have faith,

The Sun is a rather ridiculous example you give and anyone reading has probably lost a million brain cells from the confusion of trying understand your logic.

GOD help you