[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

On the contrary. It underlines the fact that science is a dynamic process of investigation and refinement, which from time to time generates useful data and hypotheses, none of which are claimed to be immune from scrutiny and revision. Unlike politics, philosophy, economics and religion.

The dangers of "established science" are underlined by the current debate in COP29 where folk who live in overpopulated, ecologically fragile areas are demanding that those who don't, pay them to continue doing so.

Established doesn't necessarily mean final, complete, nor unchanged permanently. Some theories can be widely accepted for decades, centuries, or even millenia before being superseded.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

his belief in atoms?a concept most scientists of his era dismissed.

Given that Democritus posited the notion of atoms 2000 years earlier, chemists had been using Dalton's more precise atomic theory for almost 100 years, and Doebereiner and Mendeleev organised atoms into a periodic table with predictive properties by 1870,  I find this statement less than credible.   

But we found out that atoms can be divided further into subatomic particles.

[alancalverd]

Afaik, his proponents also use the same term.

I never have, because it is meaningless. Evolution is an observation. Evolution of species can be considered a very sound theory, but as there is no consistent definition of species, it isn't a useful one.

[alancalverd]

But we found out that atoms can be divided further into subatomic particles.

And there's the divide between chemistry (the behavior of atoms and molecules) and physics (the behavior of pretty much everything bigger than a molecule or smaller than an atom). But it doesn't detract from the fact that "atoms" were scientific currency in Boltzmann's lifetime.

[varsigma]

What do you think is the biggest flaw in my arguments in philosophy, and what can be done to improve or correct it?

One argument is that you don't need philosophy to perform an experiment. The experiments you've been doing are the product of your curiosity.

I once pulled a lawnmower apart, completely, because nobody told me I didn't have to if I wanted to fix it. I was 8 years old though. So you could say I learned a lot from that one. But I don't remember thinking about the Zen of lawnmower maintenance, or much at all except how to dismantle.

[Bored chemist]

Given that the observable answer to "Where do I get my confidence to challenge established theories?" is "chatbots", maybe  you should stop.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Afaik, his proponents also use the same term.

I never have, because it is meaningless. Evolution is an observation. Evolution of species can be considered a very sound theory, but as there is no consistent definition of species, it isn't a useful one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species
On the Origin of Species (or, more completely, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life)[3] is a work of scientific literature by Charles Darwin that is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. It was published on 24 November 1859.[4] Darwin's book introduced the scientific theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection although Lamarckism was also included as a mechanism of lesser importance. The book presented a body of evidence that the diversity of life arose by common descent through a branching pattern of evolution. Darwin included evidence that he had collected on the Beagle expedition in the 1830s and his subsequent findings from research, correspondence, and experimentation.

In his book, Darwin proposed a hypothesis, and collected evidence that verified it. He also tested alternative/competing hypotheses, which were refuted by the evidence. His work is qualified as a modern scientific theory. So, why can't we call it a scientific theory?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But we found out that atoms can be divided further into subatomic particles.

And there's the divide between chemistry (the behavior of atoms and molecules) and physics (the behavior of pretty much everything bigger than a molecule or smaller than an atom). But it doesn't detract from the fact that "atoms" were scientific currency in Boltzmann's lifetime.

You can say that atomic theory was already established by then.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

One argument is that you don't need philosophy to perform an experiment. The experiments you've been doing are the product of your curiosity.

The philosophy is not for motivating an experiment. It's to know why should we accept or reject a proposition. How do we know that something is true or false. What should we pursue in our lifetime.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Given that the observable answer to "Where do I get my confidence to challenge established theories?" is "chatbots", maybe  you should stop.

Which chatbot do you know that challenged established theories? which theories?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I see the need for posting this thread to give a story behind what I've written in the other threads. Simply posting facts and figures do not seem enough to get people's attention and gain traction.

Simply stating facts and figures, as well as showing statistics can't usually change people's mind. We also need to provide background context, and their implications, especially when they're related to people's lives.

[Bored chemist]

Given that the observable answer to "Where do I get my confidence to challenge established theories?" is "chatbots", maybe  you should stop.

Which chatbot do you know that challenged established theories? which theories?

I never said it had.
I said that's where you get your confidence.
You ask the bot the wrong question, get an irrelevant answer and think it supports your "new idea".

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I never said it had.
I said that's where you get your confidence.
You ask the bot the wrong question, get an irrelevant answer and think it supports your "new idea".

Which question?

[Bored chemist]

I never said it had.
I said that's where you get your confidence.
You ask the bot the wrong question, get an irrelevant answer and think it supports your "new idea".

Which question?

Is molecular motion frictionless ?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I never said it had.
I said that's where you get your confidence.
You ask the bot the wrong question, get an irrelevant answer and think it supports your "new idea".

Which question?

Is molecular motion frictionless ?

I already had the confidence before asking that question.

[alancalverd]

You can say that atomic theory was already established by then.

So your chatbot was wrong about Boltzmann. No surprise. GIGO.

[alancalverd]

So, why can't we call it a scientific theory?

Evolution is no more a theory than fire is a theory - it is an observation. The theory Darwin advanced is that speciation is a result of evolution and circumstance. His opponents wanted their customers to believe that speciation was ordained by the Sky Fairy 6000 years ago. 

Even the most radical creationist cannot deny that he doesn't look exactly like both of his parents. That's evolution - a fact. Whether he is related to an orang-utan, or indeed whether an orang-utan is significantly different from a creationist, depends on the evolution of species - a reasonable hypothesis, except that there is no rigorous  definition of  "species".

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You can say that atomic theory was already established by then.

So your chatbot was wrong about Boltzmann. No surprise. GIGO.

It wasn't a chatbot. It's a YouTube video.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The theory Darwin advanced is that speciation is a result of evolution and circumstance.

Then just call it Darwinian theory of evolution. In contrast to Lamarckian theory of evolution.
There's also Lorentzian theory of relativity which have some differences from Einstein's.

[alancalverd]

No. Evolution is not a theory.

Darwin's theory is of speciation and does not suggest the underlying mechanism of evolution, merely that circumstance may favor the survival of particular characteristics.

The Lamarckian theory of the mechanism of evolution lacks any rationale or evidence.