|
Post by gillianren on Oct 8, 2007 16:48:59 GMT -4
I wouldn't worry about them at all. Greenmagoo has an uncanny ability to edit his own posts and ban people who ask for any detail of his theory, and that all it is a theory. It isn't a theory. Theories have evidence and make predictions.
|
|
|
Post by macapple on Oct 8, 2007 20:14:16 GMT -4
I wouldn't worry about them at all. Greenmagoo has an uncanny ability to edit his own posts and ban people who ask for any detail of his theory, and that all it is a theory. It isn't a theory. Theories have evidence and make predictions. Theory comes from the Greek, theoria meaning to contemplate and speculate. Theory can also be used to start discussion a debate on any factual, or hypothetical subject. Oxford Dictionary states Theory • noun (pl. theories) 1. a supposition (an assumption or hypothesis) or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. 2 an idea accounting for or justifying something. 3 a set of principles on which an activity is based. However whilst all that is true an untested (unproven) theory is just that, a theory. As these guys continue to just post stuff without real scientific research it remains a unproven theory. If the theory then is tested and becomes a factual statement then it matures. Sorry if I sound a bit stuffy on this, my professor pulled me up on this when i was doing my Masters.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Oct 8, 2007 20:34:05 GMT -4
My turn to be stuffy:
I'm with gilianren on this one. My instructors hammered-home that a theory is not a guess. it has a direct relationship to evidence and observation. The statement, "If the theory then is tested and becomes a factual statement then it matures. " is dead contrary to what I learned. According to the scientific method, If a hypothesis then is tested and validated, it becomes a theory. Further testing and data will mature a theory or invalidate it.
The phrase, "Just a theory" ticks me off. A theory has evidence to support it, explains that evidence, and has passed every test which has been applied to it. If someone's guess has not been tested, it is a hypothesis, not a theory.
Heck, gravity is just a theory.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 8, 2007 23:57:33 GMT -4
It depends on if you are speaking English or Science... Under English a theory is a set of ideas that attempts to explain something. ie, I have a theory that my socks disappear from the washing because a goat is eating them. Under Science, we'd call that a hypothesis. A theory is what we develop after experiemental observation and conclusions. ie, I watch my washing like a hawk and note that indeed the goat appears to have a pention for socks, this I can conclude that the goat is eating my socks and formulate the Theory of Missing Socks. If my socks continue to go missing, and each time I can show that the goat was responsible, I can upgrade it to the Law of Missing Socks.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Oct 9, 2007 0:38:33 GMT -4
He has unsuccessfully been unable to prove any of his assertions Er, I think there's one too many "un"s in that sentence.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Oct 9, 2007 0:54:27 GMT -4
I have a question for those of you who create videos. Do you think it would be a good idea to disable comments on your videos? Instead, you could put a message like "to comment on this video, go to apollohoax.net" at the end of the vid. They haven't shown enough bravery to venture over here before. What makes you think adding that tag to a video would change anything?
|
|
|
Post by svector on Oct 9, 2007 0:58:24 GMT -4
He has unsuccessfully been unable to prove any of his assertions Er, I think there's one too many "un"s in that sentence. You're right. It's a double-negative.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Oct 9, 2007 1:15:45 GMT -4
It depends on if you are speaking English or Science... Well said. Yes, I gravitate* towards the scientific definition. *Pun intended? Gee, y'think?
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Oct 9, 2007 8:33:49 GMT -4
They haven't shown enough bravery to venture over here before. What makes you think adding that tag to a video would change anything? At least one wouldn't have to answer their retarded statements on YT.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 9, 2007 10:35:40 GMT -4
I agree with gillianren, Count Zero and PhantomWolf.
Hypothesis --> Theory --> Law
Moving from left to right requires observation, experimentation, and validation.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Oct 9, 2007 12:16:56 GMT -4
They haven't shown enough bravery to venture over here before. I suspect we're talking about two different things. When you say, "they have shown bravery" you're clearly referring to people like macapple, hard-core hoax believers. As I said in my last post, if you enjoy arguing with them, them I think that's great. But I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the legions of undecided. In my opinion, youtube's bathroom wall debate format does them a disservice. I'm trying to think of ways that we can help them so that fewer of them become macapples. Adding a clickable link to a video description greatly lowers the amount of work required to find this website and obtain factual information on apollo. Think of a person who has seen one or more hoax videos on youtube. His head is filled with the "questions" that hoax believers ask. These are questions that have simple answers - but if this person doesn't get the answer, he goes away thinking there is something substantive to the hoax claim. He finds your video. Perhaps you answer one of his questions. Now he's thinking, "well, there are still 50 other questions! Apollo must be fake!" Further, he sees the youtube bathroom wall discussion, which gives the appearance that your video is very controversial. There's something called the Baby Duck Syndrome, which says that people prefer the first thing they see. If you're raised on creationism, you have a hard time believing evolution, for example. I'm trying to think of ways to get people exposed to both sides of this issue before they, like a baby duck, imprint on the hoax claims.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Oct 9, 2007 18:15:10 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by svector on Oct 9, 2007 18:25:21 GMT -4
Heh. Yes I saw it. I draw inspiration from many sources.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Oct 10, 2007 4:13:39 GMT -4
Wow, he made one of his ad hominem pics about you too? Join the club!
|
|
|
Post by VALIS on Oct 10, 2007 19:37:43 GMT -4
I agree with gillianren, Count Zero and PhantomWolf. Hypothesis --> Theory --> Law Moving from left to right requires observation, experimentation, and validation. I'm not sure that's quite true. Scientific theories don't get promoted to laws, as far as I know. Laws are mathematical descriptions of empirical observations, while theories are explanations. Phil Plait made a blog entry about this a few weeks ago (IIRC).
|
|