Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="YukonGlocker" data-source="post: 2781132" data-attributes="member: 425"><p>I apologize if something came across as offensive.&nbsp; I did state &quot;I don&#039;t mean that as a personal attack.&quot;&nbsp; But, to be fair, I don&#039;t think you were &quot;simply asking questions&quot;.&nbsp; You made specific claims about science, and the legitimacy of those claims do deserve the same criticism and skepticism that defines science itself.&nbsp; There&#039;s a great deal of variance in how the terms &quot;hypothesis&quot;, &quot;theory&quot;, &quot;law&quot;, and &quot;fact&quot; are used and defined, so it&#039;s quite difficult to discuss those without clarification (which I&#039;m assuming is one big reason why people haven&#039;t responded to that).&nbsp; I don&#039;t understand what you mean by &quot;whether science still recognizes&quot; these terms.&nbsp; And, what do these terms mean to you (which is critical information if we are to have a discussion about them)?</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="YukonGlocker, post: 2781132, member: 425"] I apologize if something came across as offensive. I did state "I don't mean that as a personal attack." But, to be fair, I don't think you were "simply asking questions". You made specific claims about science, and the legitimacy of those claims do deserve the same criticism and skepticism that defines science itself. There's a great deal of variance in how the terms "hypothesis", "theory", "law", and "fact" are used and defined, so it's quite difficult to discuss those without clarification (which I'm assuming is one big reason why people haven't responded to that). I don't understand what you mean by "whether science still recognizes" these terms. And, what do these terms mean to you (which is critical information if we are to have a discussion about them)? [/QUOTE]

Verification