Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Aug 2010 22:47 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 438760
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-10-26
Sorry, this is off-topic and I do not want to start a discussion on climate change, but the "just a theory" line of reasoning always annoys me:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Scientific_theory
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Scientific_law
Summary: in science, laws are observations and theories are explanations. Really good theories don't become laws, they become established and accepted scientific theories. The theory of evolution explains why we observe evolution. The theory of global warming explains why we see global warming. Of course, if the theory does not match the facts, then it is a bad theory, but an established scientific theory will have experiments and measurements that give reason to believe it is a good model for the way the world works. Science never "proves" anything; it provides evidence that a given explanation seems to work very well.