Science/Environment Science - What is hypothesis, what is theory, what is fact, what is the difference?

Remove this Banner Ad

I think anything Bruce disagrees with can probably go in the fact column and anything he classes as a valid alternative view can go in the bin

Thoughts?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I think anything Bruce disagrees with can probably go in the fact column and anything he classes as a valid alternative view can go in the bin

Thoughts?

doesnt a dictionary kill the need for this thread?
 
BruceFromBalnarring


Disproven/ superseded theories:


Take notice of what they all have in common, once youve read through them all - tell me what they have in common……

BiologyEdit

ChemistryEdit

  • Caloric theory – the theory that a self-repelling fluid called "caloric" was the substance of heat. Rendered obsolete by the mechanical theory of heat.
  • Classical elements – All matter was once thought composed of various combinations of classical elements (most famously air, earth, fire, and water). Antoine Lavoisier finally refuted this in his 1789 publication, Elements of Chemistry, which contained the first modern list of chemical elements.
  • Electrochemical dualism - the theory that all molecules are salts composed of basic and acidic oxides
  • Phlogiston theory – The theory that combustible goods contain a substance called "phlogiston" that entered air during combustion. Replaced by Lavoisier's work on oxidation
  • Point 2 of Dalton's Atomic Theorywas rendered obsolete by discovery of isotopes, and point 3 by discovery of subatomic particles and nuclear reactions.
  • Radical theory - the theory that organic compounds exist as combinations of radicals that can be exchanged in chemical reactions just as chemical elements can be interchanged in inorganic compounds
  • Vitalism – See section on biology.
  • Nascent state refers to the form of a chemical element (or sometimes compound) in the instance of their liberation or formation. Often encountered are atomic oxygen(Onasc) and nascent hydrogen(Hnasc), and chlorine (Clnasc) or bromine (Brnasc).[8]
  • Polywater, a hypothesized polymer form of water, the properties of which actually arose from contaminants such as sweat

PhysicsEdit

Astronomy and cosmologyEdit

Geography and climateEdit

GeologyEdit

PsychologyEdit

MedicineEdit

 
In my limited understanding, a fact, if you want to call it that as something that is measurable and empirically observed, can be used in either a hypothesis or a theory. But it's a scientific law that is at the top if the truth hierarchy, if you will.
 
As the modern scientific method developed all the half baked “theories” were replaced. A long long time ago.

Theories should be renamed imho. It makes it sound like a half thought out idea - nowadays nothing becomes a scientific law any more. The more we know the more we know we dont know.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

She’s no orator, but she makes a good point.
It's the just science is not on the internet but it will just make it look like it was just the way you got the thing with that one thing people climate...
 
Can anyone defend (and its mainly on twitter) those suggesting that Australia's inaction on climate change has been a measurable contributory factor to the devastating bushfires and floods over the past few years?

Not looking at projections and modelling for such future events, and taking into account our contribution to world emissions (albeit too high per capita) what could we have done and when, as a single emitter to have made a material difference?

Good time to start? sure, but there are a lot of people directly blaming an inaction on climate change from the current government for these disasters.

Happy to accept a continuation of the status quo from the worlds emitters may contribute to similar or more severe weather patterns in the future, and that more could have been done by all emitters to prevent the current, but to suggest that current Australian climate policy and our emissions are causing/materially contributing to these events is not science.
 
Can anyone defend (and its mainly on twitter) those suggesting that Australia's inaction on climate change has been a measurable contributory factor to the devastating bushfires and floods over the past few years?

Not looking at projections and modelling for such future events, and taking into account our contribution to world emissions (albeit too high per capita) what could we have done and when, as a single emitter to have made a material difference?

Good time to start? sure, but there are a lot of people directly blaming an inaction on climate change from the current government for these disasters.

Happy to accept a continuation of the status quo from the worlds emitters may contribute to similar or more severe weather patterns in the future, and that more could have been done by all emitters to prevent the current, but to suggest that current Australian climate policy and our emissions are causing/materially contributing to these events is not science.
Can I point to how our actions materially affect climate change?


Yes, yes I can
 
Yes, burning coal is bad for the environment.

You didn’t answer my question though.
Are you denying climate change?
Are you denying the impact of climate change?
Or are you denying Australia's impact on climate change?
 
Can anyone defend (and its mainly on twitter) those suggesting that Australia's inaction on climate change has been a measurable contributory factor to the devastating bushfires and floods over the past few years?

Not looking at projections and modelling for such future events, and taking into account our contribution to world emissions (albeit too high per capita) what could we have done and when, as a single emitter to have made a material difference?
Stop selling coal. But our governments got addicted to it, and our manufacturing sector is cactus as a result. We're a hole in the ground that other countries throw money down in return for shiny rocks.
 
Your infographic said nothing of Australia’s link to floods and or bushfires.
Hey Bruce do you believe in man made climate change?
If yes do you believe Australia being one of the worlds largest exporters of coal has a large impact on climate change?

If no why not?

If you believe in climate change and our role in it do you maybe think the bushfires and floods can be linked back to that?

If not why not?


Because I believe from everything that I've read it's pretty well proven at this point that
Man made climate change is real
When you include the coal we export we are one of the worlds worst polluters
Climate change leads to more extreme weather events be that drought or heat or rain or cold
That extreme weather has a direct impact on the severity and frequency of bushfires and floods in Australia
 
Hey Bruce do you believe in man made climate change?
If yes do you believe Australia being one of the worlds largest exporters of coal has a large impact on climate change?

If no why not?

If you believe in climate change and our role in it do you maybe think the bushfires and floods can be linked back to that?

If not why not?


Because I believe from everything that I've read it's pretty well proven at this point that
Man made climate change is real
When you include the coal we export we are one of the worlds worst polluters
Climate change leads to more extreme weather events be that drought or heat or rain or cold
That extreme weather has a direct impact on the severity and frequency of bushfires and floods in Australia
I’m agnostic on the basic theory.

I note various scientists who do subscribe to the theory have pointed out multiple times that weather events attributed to anthropogenic climate change are natural and regular occurrences and such attribution is damaging their efforts to properly explain and act to prevent the long term consequences of the theory.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top