Well ok, perhaps 'fact' is not correct - but its very true that these theories are believed by millions to be the truth. Not too different to religious belief - a herd believing what a few say.
You don't sound like you know the difference between a scientific theory and how the word's used in normal conversation, Jayram. I don't say that to be insulting, by the way. There's basically no such thing as a scientific fact, as all knowledge is open to reinterpretation and re-examination. Gravity is a scientific theory, for example.
I am talking about scientific theory not law - for instance the theory that the world wobbles on it's axis. Apparently proven by GPS, but in truth still a theory. Most people would believe that it is a fact, when it is not.
You are wrong here - there are theories and facts in science. Scientific facts are described under 'Scientific Law', as opposed to 'Scientific Theory'
I wasnt tying to compare the two.... my point is the interpretation by the masses. 99 out of a 100 people (not those, like you who seem to know the subject), take scientific theory, hypothesis, or law as fact in their day to day lives.
I think some people narrow the argument and limit the debate by defining the parameters of explanation as being either religious faith or scientific absolutes. When in fact it is not as black and white as this at all. There are lots of strands of metaphysics that attempt to give plausible theories to phenomena that as are yet not able to be satisfactorily explained by rigorous scientific theory. As I said, I 'm a big fan of science for it rigorous practice, but it is still bound by it's own subjectivity as the observer is always a part of the context of what is trying to be objectively observed - and thus cannot ever be objectively outside of it. Current scientific theory is good up to a point, beyond that it doesn't currently have the parameters to explain the metaphysical. There's an old saying. Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. Science can only currently explain a limited understanding of our cosmos.
PNE - thats nonsense. There are many things that are completely unexplainable, things that happen that science can't explain. Most people who believe in God have a personal relationship with him, things happen when you become an adult that galvanise these beliefs. I am a scientist in my mind first and foremost, I have always had a passion for learning about our world and how things work, physics in particular. I am far from an expert, I studied Electronic Engineering to National Diploma level and we took modules of science which fascinated me. There are many scientists who believe in God, so surely that is a conflict, a contradiction of sorts, surely in the face of such obvious evidence of their not being a God these learned people would acknowledge it .. but they don't. The great Einstein didn't believe in a "personal God" but he did believe that there was/is a God "the creator". To quote him:
Even the most ardent scientist would admit that science is still yet to satisfactorily explain everything. PNE I think your definitions of metaphysics are skewed. They are not about 'flying spaghetti monsters' as you patronisingly put it, but about expanding the parameters of rigorous theories to incorporate that which can be percieved but cannot be measured by usual scientific doctrine. As I said, it's not a black and white argument between rigorous science and fervent religion - that is as blinkered a view as the one which you are trying to rubbish.
Whilst I'm not a subscriber to a monotheistic God or creator - I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the universe didn't suddenly spring up out of nowhere, for no reason, with no catalyst. However, I found this picture quite pertinent and apt. please log in to view this image
