Gotta read these posts carefully cause they are looking like shorthand/code.

The audio electronics industry use to say something odd about negative feedback in operational amplifiers. It was stated that its OP Amps would compare the input signal to the output signal and correct the distortion differences.

This really was never possible, but all the magazines stated it. It is something I know about because I made pre amps. All negative feedback can do is short an amplifier stage a little bit (gain isn't full) so that it lowers distortion, or adjusts frequency balance with an r/c feedback network. I don't believe all I read these days. Anyone can make a theory about anything, and it's just a theory. When the theory is proven it is law. 

I think you might just be stupid. 

too smug, to dismissive (ahem, I feel a rant coming on... ahh, averted at the last moment). He was trying to say something. Even if I myself don't understand what that was.

I'm a layman's layman of course, but string theory seems like one of the most interesting cases in science. I read a book of interviews with scientists and I remember one guy saying something like "the fact that brilliant people have dedicated decades' worth of work to an idea without any idea of a way to prove or disprove it, is unprecedented in science." That's very interesting. I'm sure aftering reading that guy I need to read some defenses of string theory but he had me pretty much convinced that it was unscientific. 

You have to understand that you cannot prove a physics theory to be correct, you can only prove it to be wrong. We assume that relativity is an adequate model because it has been used sucessfulley to predict the outcome of experiments many times. That does not prove anything. Tomorrow we may find a contradiction and relativity is done as a theory / model.

You can only prove anything to be correct in mathematics. For example, you will never find a triangle that has a 90deg angle and where Pythagoras' tjeorem does not apply. 

Proof is relegated solely to logic/math.

Evidence/experiments/demonstrability are dedicated to science.

String theory is not science, it's math, but once they are able to test it or otherwise test predictions, it will enter the realm of science. A lot of it, based off what I've seen from The Elegant Universe, was based off an idea that physicists have that the universe can be expressed in 'elegant' equations, which they got from the 4 electromagnetic equations, which in turn are apparently very simple to express. To me, that's a very silly notion to base something on, that 'the universe can be expressed using elegant equations.'

But they also wanted something to reconcile relativity and quantum mechanics, which I guess it does pretty well, at least mathematically. 

all I meant with reference to that particular physicist's interview, was confirmation as per prediction (ie einstein's theories confirmed in 1921 (feel free to confirm the date that may be wrong)).

that said I am well aware that the whole idea of science (or at least this seems to be popular and I totally agree with it) is karl popper's idea of falsifiability. When I said my last post I was by no means meaning "oh here's an opening implying ignorance, please tell me what I clearly don't already know / haha." Obviously I'm aware of what Popper said and it's obviously a powerful view of science.

what I understood, as a layman, to be the problem with string theory, was that the theorists could always come up with a new mathematical formula to explain a given situation, since the theory itself did not predict any results but rather tweaked itself to predict whatever results one did observe. 

The Elegant Universe! Great book. 

Re #147, That means an idea to any particular theory always remain in limbo. I'm sure theories do get proven and are part of a stage in progress. I have my own definition of the term theory, and you have yours. Nothing is wrong with that. And yes, I'm stupid as anyone else can be. No big deal... 

not proof. And no, I don't have my own definition of the term "scientific theory", I'm referring to what is generally understood under this term (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Scientific_theories). If you mean something else, you should clarify that.

And I didn't, and wasn't going to, call you stupid ;-) 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFdh1DV00DU 

It's my bad composition.
I guess then, verify as many points so as to prove a theory would be in the right spirit. As ricky has it. Nobody here is really off on the definition I feel, and wouldn't be wrong if they used their own (slightly different) interpretation. As long as nobody is trying to fool anyone. Spirit Rules! 

I didn't notice myself tipping over a cup of water. later, I noticed my feet were wet. Deduction led me to believe 100% it was the tipped cup. But, I didn't see it. So there's no proof. Dang! 

Wut 

Zwiffle says. I don't understand what you are trying to say! 

I didn't notice myself tipping over a cup of water. later, I noticed my feet were wet. Deduction led me to believe 100% it was the tipped cup. But, I didn't see it. So there's no proof. Dang!

That is correct. And why science has theories. That's the whole definition thing.

There's also no proof that either the cup, the water or your feet exist. Or that you exist. (see comments on descartes many posts ago) 

Oh, and the word you are looking for in your previous posts is hypothosis. Not theory. 

Proof is for mathematics/logic. Of course you don't have proof. But what you do have is EVIDENCE (your foot is wet, there's a puddle of water near where the cup fell, etc.)

Also, when you deduce something, you don't believe the results, you 'think' the results. You 'think' you tipped the cup over, you don't 'believe' you tipped the cup over. Belief is appropriate where there is little or no acceptable evidence.

Also, from a previous post, you don't 'feel' definitions. You define and accept or reject them. And yes, when debating about things logically, it is incorrect and JUST PLAIN BAD to have differing definitions of things, having different definitions is unacceptable. I have a suspicion that's what causes so much ignorance about science nowadays.

Especially in the USA, people don't know the difference between hypothesis and theory. They think Darwin's Evolution somehow is a theory of everything that includes the origin of the universe, encompasses all of physics, and somehow also explains how life started on Earth, when all it does is explain how species change over generations through ecological pressures into different species, and nothing more.

That's why I asked for a definition of mainstream science earlier, because I had no real concrete idea what that term meant.

Now for your example of the tipped cup specifically, I assume you're trying to get across how science fails, but I can't really see how you could reach that conclusion from that example. I don't see how it's scientific. You did no tests/experiments, etc. So I'm still unsure what you were trying to convey. 

I'm an engineer by profession, a scientist by practice, and a Christian by choice. I'll talk about it more if anyone's interested, but I just wanted to say that there do exist Christians who believe in science wholeheartedly. 

Are you American? That would be like the smallest of minorities in America then - Christians who accept science (even when it doesn't agree with their doctrine!) 

How can you be a scientist and still be a Christian? Those things seem mutually exclusive to me. Science is about measurement and fact, Christianity is about believing an enormous amount of unverifiable things that were written in a single book, by anonymous people.

There is absolutely no way to prove the hypothesis of Christianity. If you believe that you're going to heaven or hell, why not also believe that rocks lay eggs? If you believe that a man 2000 years ago turned water into wine and was born without conception, why not believe in magic or unicorns or vampires?

If you take one thing on faith, why not everything? 

The pointless discussions on the rest of the internet are over there ---> 

There is the argument that 'science can't explain everything' and thus some things must be taken on faith, or that there is something supernatural that exists (that can't be detected no matter how much you try, but also heavily influences the physical world - explain the logic behind that to me please.)

Some people say that 'science can explain the 'what' or 'how' of things but not the 'why' of things. In order to explain the why, you need a supernatural entity. To them I'd ask to show why the universe would have a reason for its existence in the first place. A 'reason' is more of a human creation rather than a universal principle as far as I can tell - the universe isn't alive in the sense of a human, so it having a reason to exist would be nonsensical. It merely exists as a result of the physical laws of nature.But then, where did those come from? Also the question 'why?' can be rephrased as "for what purpose?" or "for what reason?" eliminating the question of "why" altogether, or at least putting it in terms science is prepared to tackle.

And then we reach the god of the gaps, which is "science can't yet explain this, therefore god!" which is also utter nonsense. Science gains ground very rapidly and our understanding improves and refines itself each and every day. Note that there is a subtle but important difference between god of the gaps and the first example - god of the gaps says 'we don't yet know, therefore god' but the first example says 'there are things that are unexplainable by science.' How they know there are things unexplainable by science is beyond me, but somehow they just know.

Anyhoo, just thought this was an interesting topic and despite mwh's protests I wouldn't mind continuing the conversation. :) 

To post 166, the answers from my perspective as a semi-traditional, fundamentalist Christian would be yes, and...

I'd further say, well stated. I doubt I could or even would argue with anything (generally speaking) that you've postulated. Logic has very little meaning to those who have faith in "In the beginning God...". In fact, I'd say that empirical proof is absolutely nonessential and would actually be damning to the position I hold in "faith".

Illogical, foolish, irrational and seemingly the antithesis of science? You bet. I'm not ashamed to be labeled like that. Christ refers to himself as "God's own fool." why should his followers be any different? I certainly wouldn't try to convince you otherwise or condemn you for any negative opinions you have of me or my beliefs.

On the other hand, believe it or not I'm very pro-science and am constantly amazed at new breakthroughs and revelations "it" reveals. One nice thing about faith ( the way I understand it) is that it's positioning isn't, or maybe shouldn't be static, aside from some very essential doctrines. In my life's experience, science (what limited exposure I have to that vast oceans of it) has done as much to reaffirm my faith as it has to give me temporary reason to question it. The former always coming out on top.

So, I guess I'll take the refuge of a scoundrel and simply state that my personal experiences (OH NOES! He's being anecdotal) have solidified my irrational, foolish and possibly lunatic faith. All pejorative terms I've been labeled with before, but not by any here, I'm not attempting to put words in anyone's mouth.

This is always an interesting conversation, which usually ends poorly but oh well, we're all big-n-tough game nerds right? And fair warning, I'm prone to answer many-many questions with "I have no idea, I'll leave that to faith and time." Also, I do tend to be a grouchy old fart these days (the o'lady refers to me as being "old and busted") so please forgive me if I've come across that way. 

Why are you christian? Rather than generic theist I mean (I don't mean why do you have faith in God. Just why specifically christianity?) 

Great question, I want to try and avoid any histrionics, so give me a bit time to best explain the wherefore's and why's.

In brief though my "religious" background kind of looks like this;

- Born into a very dysfunctional home that was "saved/fixed" via a very legalistic fundamentalist Christian church community. That'd be the Plymouth Brethren in this case and very little was actually fixed.

- Rebelled from pretty much every aspect of it at age 13-14.

- Was a pretty violent, head-bashing drunk from age 16-25 or so. I did a whole lot of soul searching throughout this time period, which included loads of time researching several other sects and religions.

- Found my true north when I was invited to hang out with group of like-experienced Christians. No legalism, loads of grace. Met my wife there, we've been hitched for 20 years, have not looked back since.

Okay, that's the history. I'll get to the why's once I've thought through the best way to communicate it. I think that in the end though, it's gonna be that whole "square peg in a round hole" scenario.