how is the word 'paki' any more offensive than the word 'aussie'? it's just shortening the country name and chucking a "ee" sound on the end.

it's not like he even used it in a negative context or anything. he's laughing at the guy's question and Dawkin's response, not the fact that he happens to be a paki.

untwist your panties and l2internet.

This was interesting until someone talked about boat people for some reason and wasted 20 minutes.

Fact and theory are scientific terms which mean different things.

When Dawkins says "fact" he means the infallible type. Hence my issue with it. He uses it to try win an argument against people who will never concede. It's much like this thread.

The theory is dynamic (even though the scientific term "fact" allows that), probably more so than it was in 1981. For example, Lamarkism/Epigenetics is actually taken some what seriously now. Evolution assumes traits are acquired by inheritance.

When Dawkins says "fact" he means the infallible type. Hence my issue with it. He uses it to try win an argument against people who will never concede. It's much like this thread

Here's are the only times he uses the word in the transcript:

[Can one be a believer in God, as well as a believer in the theory of evolution?]
RICHARD DAWKINS: Obviously you can be a believer in God and in evolution, because the archbishop of Canterbury is, the Pope is - at least the previous pope was and the present pope almost is kind of there and so is any bishop, any archbishop, so is any cardinal, so is any priest worthy of the name. So that is absolutely clear as an empirical fact. It is easy to be both. I find it slightly hard. I have a certain niggling sympathy for the creationists, because I think, in a way, the writing is on the wall for the religious view that says it's fully compatible with evolution. I think there's a kind of incompatibility, which the creationists see clearly but the archbishops and the bishops, nevertheless they've see the evidence. Anybody who's seen the evidence knows that evolution is a fact and so you can't get away from it, but I think the writing's on the wall.

Note the use of the word empirical before the first instance. He's talking about fact in the scientific sense, i.e. repeatable observation. A guy like Dawkins doesn't use the word "theory" as a synonym for "conjecture", and he wouldn't give "fact" similar treatment without qualification/signposting; much less change meanings within the same response.

The theory is dynamic (even though the scientific term "fact" allows that), probably more so than it was in 1981. For example, Lamarkism/Epigenetics is actually taken some what seriously now.

Of course - that's the point Gould was making in the last paragraph of the quote I posted.

Evolution assumes traits are acquired by inheritance.

Not really, not inheritance alone - such assumptions haven't been held for quite some time; mutations for instance are hardly anything new. Darwin was of course unaware of genetics and things like genetic drift which make up modern evolutionary theory.

Evolution as an observed phenomenon, is a fact. In the same way you can say gravity as an observed phenomenon is a fact; without precisely understanding how or why gravity exists.

Obviously nowadays we actually know a lot about the mechanics of gravity, but it was still a fact right back when it was just a general observation.

oh...what are the mechanics of gravity?

Let me preface this by saying I'm not a scientist -- but I'm referring to stuff like how we now know its not just a force that makes things fall to the ground: instead, we know that all objects exert a gravitational pull on all other objects relative to their mass. Thus gravity works differently on the moon, the sun exerts a gravitation pull on the planets, stuff like that.

oh...what are the mechanics of gravity?

Heh, we're still learning about the mechanics of both gravity and evolution; despite the observational evidence, we're only arguing about whether one of them exists.

I picked up a copy of Dawkins' book yesterday (his new one, The Greatest Show on Earth). I've only just started reading it, but in the first chapter he does go into detail about what he means when using the words fact, theory, hypothesis, theorem, conjecture etc.

He correctly points out that the Oxford English Dictionary has a few definitions for the word theory, but the 2 applicable in the debate are first, the formal scientific definition of theory which is based upon a hypothesis and borne out by experimental results which don't disprove the theory, and the second definition is the more non-scientific definition which makes theory just a synonym for hypothesis or conjecture or an educated guess etc.
When scientists use the word theory they mean what in more common parlance would be called a law or something. There's evidence to support a hypothesis and no evidence to contradict it.
He also points out that there are NO scientific theory's etc that can be *proven*. It can't even be *proven* that the Sun is larger than the Moon (and for a least some periods of human history the Moon was thought to be larger). However there is a scientific theory now that the Sun is larger than the Moon with so much evidence to support that's its basically considered a fact.

He does say that unlike Science, Mathematics *can* prove their theories if their theories are based upon assumed axioms. Mathematicians call their *provable* theories Theorems. Fermat's Last Theorem for example. As compared to the "such-and-such Conjecture" which is an unproven mathematical theory. As in, no evidence has been found to disprove the theory but it hasn't been *proved* that there never will be evidence found to disprove it.


In his book he decides to create the word Theorum (a different spelling to Theorem) to better distinguish between the scientific meaning of the word Theory and the non-scientific meaning.

When Scientists call it the Theory of Evolution they do NOT mean it's "Just a mere theory. We're not really sure. We don't have any real evidence."
Which is of course what the deluded, trollish or just plain ignorant Creationists claim what Theory means in the Theory of Evolution.

Thus gravity works differently on the moon

With the Hat of Pedantry +1 on I'd argue that gravity works exactly the same on the moon as it does on the earth, it's just a lot weaker there. :)

gravity sucks, it ruins everything

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/7412606/US-creationists-unswayed-by-evolution-exhibition.html

They plan to become doctors, researchers and professors, but these students from Liberty University, an evangelical school, also believe that God created the Earth in a week, around 6,000 years ago.

The young "creationists" examined a model of the Morganucodon rat, believed to be the first and common ancestor of mammals that appeared some 210 million years ago.

Lauren Dunn, 19, a second-year biology student, was unimpressed.
"210 million years, that's arbitrary. They put that time to make up for what they don't know," she said.
Nathan Hubbard, a 20 year-old from Michigan and a first-year biology major who plans to become a doctor, regarded the model with suspicion.
"There is no scientific, biological genetic way that this, this rat, could become you," he said, seemingly scandalised by the proposition.

Theres is some pretty interesting Comments added at the end of the article and worth a read.

Not really, not inheritance alone - such assumptions haven't been held for quite some time; mutations for instance are hardly anything new. Darwin was of course unaware of genetics and things like genetic drift which make up modern evolutionary theory.

What I meant was that there is some evidence *new* traits can be acquired during the life of an organism and passed on to subsequent generations. As in it may be possible for a organism to alter its genotype though some sort of reverse transcription or something. It's highly controversial, and terribly old fashioned, but mind blowing if true.

When scientists use the word theory they mean what in more common parlance would be called a law or something.

A theory can be something completely untested, or untestable. Theoretical physics is contradictory and literally theory alone. General relativity theory was untested until the space age, yet was largely accepted. Theory isn't equivalent to "law" at all. Of course, that depends on the branch of science.

Theories can also be provably wrong, but at the same time also accepted. Both the particle model and the wave model of light are empirically wrong, yet that's ok.

My issue with Dawkins is that he doesn't seem to go out of his way to convince people of things, he preaches. He attacks the beliefs rather than throwing the evidence at them. A die-hard creationist is never going to believe it, but getting people's backs up, attacking their religion (even if it doesn't encapsulate their entire belief structures - people aren't sheep they create their own) and generally just being a dick about it doesn't help his cause. He is also completely wrong about spirituality.

And I say that as a proper atheist myself, not one of those half-arsed agnostics.

Also, isn't the gravitational constant supposed to be changing?

My issue with Dawkins is that he doesn't seem to go out of his way to convince people of things, he preaches. He attacks the beliefs rather than throwing the evidence at them. A die-hard creationist is never going to believe it, but getting people's backs up, attacking their religion (even if it doesn't encapsulate their entire belief structures - people aren't sheep they create their own) and generally just being a dick about it doesn't help his cause.

If writing numerous books and appearing in uncountable interviews is not going out of his way to convince certain people that they might be misguided then I'm not sure what does count as going out of his way. His recent book is primarily focused on the evidence of evolution, though I'd bet that the lack of reading it won't prevent a lot of creationists from commenting on it.

In some interviews he can come across as being a dick when trying to get his point across. Though it must be terribly frustrating at times to encounter people who believe something that is likely to be false but aren't sure why they believe it (exhibiting intellectual laziness) or believe something that is likely to be false in the face of contradictory evidence (exhibiting intellectual dishonesty).

You cannot argue with religious people, well you can, but usually without any tangible benefit.

People like Hitchens/Dawkins/QGLers would be better served creating an atheist lobby group rather than constantly attacking people who believe in invisible sky wizards.

Attacking religious groups only seems to increase their resolve and their crazy, all we can do is try to limit their effect on our lives. Apathy is a bigger threat than religiosity.

A theory can be something completely untested, or untestable

No, it must be testable, even in the esoteric world of theoretical physics. Look at the (rightly deserved IMO) controversy over whether String Theory is actually a scientific theory.

General relativity theory was untested until the space age, yet was largely accepted

Hmm... wikipedia would disagree with you there, on both points:

During that period, general relativity remained something of a curiosity among physical theories. It was clearly superior to Newtonian gravity, being consistent with special relativity and accounting for several effects unexplained by the Newtonian theory. Einstein himself had shown in 1915 how his theory explained the anomalous perihelion advance of the planet Mercury without any arbitrary parameters ("fudge factors").[6] Similarly, a 1919 expedition led by Eddington confirmed general relativity's prediction for the deflection of starlight by the Sun during the total solar eclipse of May 29, 1919,[7] making Einstein instantly famous.[8] Yet the theory entered the mainstream of theoretical physics and astrophysics only with the developments between approximately 1960 and 1975, now known as the Golden age of general relativity.

Both the particle model and the wave model of light are empirically wrong, yet that's ok.

Models aren't meant to be perfect 1:1 representations, that's why they're called models. Just like Newtonian dynamics, the wave and particle models perfectly valid within their domain of validity.

Also, isn't the gravitational constant supposed to be changing?

You may mean the cosmological constant?

Just calling something "theory" does not make it a theory. String theory is not a scientific theory in the way Dawkins defines a theory. The use of the word "theory" in string theory is more a philosophical use.

My issue with Dawkins is that he doesn't seem to go out of his way to convince people of things, he preaches. He attacks the beliefs rather than throwing the evidence at them. A die-hard creationist is never going to believe it, but getting people's backs up, attacking their religion (even if it doesn't encapsulate their entire belief structures - people aren't sheep they create their own) and generally just being a dick about it doesn't help his cause.

It's like you've never read a single one of his books...