Science Is Dead

Honestly, I don't know what it is with this site. I been here a week and this is the Fourth time somebody wanted to debate the meaning of "Scientific Theory". The correct and classic definition of the word; Theory - an idea that has yet to be proven true. Seems to be inconceivable to many people. They claim there is a difference between the "Scientific Definition" of the word and the "Everyday Definition" of the word. They may have brought me around to their way of thinking. The words, "Scientific Theory" should have an alternate definition. Here's my suggestion. Scientific Theory (noun) - A way to sell a sucker anything. A hypocritical statement that allows an incorrect statement to be presented as true. How can you not notice the hypocrisy of your position? Tests and observations prove that an idea is false - and you say, "That's OK because it's only a Theory." I then suggest it should be taught as only a possible but unproven idea and then people go crazy. Shouting, "It's a Scientific Theory" and that means it's Science, and no other ideas should be presented. It's Science, and that makes it's right. You idea boils down to saying, A "Scientific Theory" should be taught as though it is true and then excused when proven false. How can you call that science? How can you justify saving theories with theories? Are you completely oblivious to the fact that no idea could ever be proven wrong, by this reasoning. When Theory 1 fails invent Theory 2 to save it. When Theory 2 fails invent Theory 3 to save it. When Theory 3 fails invent Theory 4 to save it. Rinse, Lather, Repeat Stuck, repeating the behavior expecting a different result. I asked Con to name any invention or discovery that HAS made a significant difference in humanity since 1972. And everything he mentions, fails to meet that test. He mentions AI (Artificial Intelligence) This fails on two levels. First, it does not impact humanity in any significant way at this point. Can you honestly tell me AI has had the same impact on our way of life as Alternating Current? Or a Light Bulb? Second, AI is just logical extension of previously discovered technology. In 1956, shortly after the invention of the computer, scientists at Dartmouth began working on AI Nothing new here. - Fail http://www.livinginternet.com... Next he mentioned a New Ancestor: Did this make your electric bill go down? How about cure cancer? How was anybodies life changed by this, never mind all of humanity? - Fail Next he mentions CRISPR: Did you read in the question where I stated - "Notice I said "has", not "could" or "should". Yet, here is what you answer with - Gene modification has been MAKING significant progress, they WOULD be viable for human transplant There HAS been no progress MADE here, only the promise that the check is in the mail, so this fails as well. Next is Species, 211 new species were discovered in 2015 alone. And once again, this has absolutely no impact on humanity. These species have existed all along. Do you really think these species weren't here in 1972? - Fail Cancer Detection: Swedish scientists developed a blood-test that can detect cancer 96% of the time, and furthermore classify the cancer, and inform courses of treatment. Again, Whats new here? Scientists or Blood Tests? The technology you infer but don't mention is antibody-based matrix and it's been around for a long time. Quote - Antibody-based identification methods have been used in some form for decades. http://wineserver.ucdavis.edu... So this fails because 1. It's not in common use all over the world. In fact, I'm not sure the technology you mention is in public use anywhere.2. It's just an extension of old stuff. And Lastly - New Antibiotic FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 30 YEARS: Here we go again -This antibiotic MAY usher in a new era of antibiotic SO...Antibiotics..not new. In use all over the world...no Making a significant difference in humanity RIGHT NOW- Fail. Does anything you mentioned affect millions of people everyday such as penicillin? Does anything you mentioned affect millions of people everyday such as airplanes? Does anything you mentioned affect millions of people everyday such as satellites? Not only does everything you mentioned fail the test of making a SIGNIFICANT difference to all humanity. Nothing even comes close. We have killed in innovation with theory. We have killed progress with theory. In 1985, a time-travel movie called Back to the Future, made numerous predictions about life 30 years into the future. All of which seemed perfectly reasonable, at the time. 1. Flying Cars. 2. Fusion Reactors 3. Real Hoverboards Since the actors are still alive, they just make fun of how absolutely nothing has changed in 30 years- Science is Dead and the blind defense of failed theories is what killed it. I'll take a supersonic passenger jet to London and celebrate my win in this debate, Oh wait.. I'd first have to time travel back to 1972 to get access to that kind of advanced technology.