Hi, Deeje. I'm going to jump in here if that's ok with you. I promise I won't be rude.
Thank you for your kindly manner....it is refreshing.
Those phrases are perfectly fine in a discussion of scientific ideas and concepts. Especially when the discussion is being kept fairly general. I've taken science courses in several different fields and talk like this comes up a lot.
As they should....
For example, when doing a microbiology course we carried out a lab experiment where we grew little cultures of bacteria in a growth medium (like a cloudy soup of nutrients for germs) and tested the contents of the medium under different conditions. We found that different concentrations of nutrients "seem to" result in different behaviour. When we added glucose, for instance, we later measured the lactose concentration increased. We "supposed it likely" that the bacteria "could be" expelling lactose because they prefer glucose and had limited space for storage (though that isn't only possibility).
The language used reflected the state of knowledge that the students had and the ideas that the instructors were trying to encourage us to reflect upon.
And I understand that the learning process is just that. Experiments are useful in providing data in a “hands on” manner.
I have no problem with this. I am all for experimentation because the conclusions are important....but where it comes undone IMO, is when conclusions are forced to fit a theory rather than to allow the results to speak for themselves. Bias encourages nothing but brainwashing. Leading people to conclude things that may not be true accomplishes what? How is science trustworthy when it could all change tomorrow?
In astronomy we covered theories of the moon formation and there was a lot of talk about how it "appeared likely" that they moon was formed of the result of a "possible" collision between the Earth and "a hypothesised" smaller body and the evidence was discussed for that idea.
Other branches of science do not impact on human behavior more strongly than the theory of evolution. This area of science alone is under challenge here because we can see in the world that eliminating a “need” for an Intelligent Designer”, eliminates accountability and removes morality from the world. An immoral world is not a nice place to live......but a world filled with hypocritical religion isn’t either. Both are destructive.
Science is often taught with a lot of hedging language because a given explanation might be wrong or just very general and the nitty gritty is discussed more rigourously in the journals. And sometimes that's just the individual's communication style.
And I have no problem with that either, provided that young and impressionable minds are not led to believe that something is absolute truth, when it isn’t. No one wants to be a “sheeple” where thinking is done for them and conclusions are reached and preached that cannot be substantiated, yet there is pressure for acceptance.
I would agree with that. But I would also add that when a scientist believes something relevant to the field they work in the can provide evidence or good hypothetical reasons for that belief.
I would argue that when a scientist has his own views clouded by an all invasive theory, which remains unproven to this day, then popular opinion overrides anything science can actually prove.
All experimentation is conducted to see how closely it fits with conditioned expectations. They are actually looking for anything that will perpetuate their theory. What doesn’t is often dismissed. That will then stifle any conclusions that fall outside of that ‘box’.
All I ask is an honest approach. Science in this branch is not honest IMO. What is said, compared to what is “believed” seems to be poles apart.
We can see how aggressively some argue for evolution as if their life depends on it.....I can only wonder why it offends them so much when their precious theory is threatened......it’s almost like we have attacked their mother.
But they have attacked my Father.....