[Salvanas]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Maybe.. but not all theories are equal in the PROBABILITY of them being true.

Rationally speaking. The theory of the big bang is more probable than the theory of creationism (I'm assuming you agree that the scientific method is the most rational way to investigate a hypothesis). Therefore they are not equal.

Also I find your black and white position regarding true and false to be quite nihilistic if you follow it to it's ultimate conclusion.

Because even so called "truths" are only truths because the probability of them being false is essentially nil (and I'm talking about things like the sky being blue or gravity etc.) and vice versa.

You have a point. (And aye, I do agree that the scientific method is the way to go for investigating such things)

As for the nihilistic point, I have been called that a few times, although personally, I do not see myself as one.

For the last paragraph however, gravity is an iffy subject, and the sky being blue isn't a good example. For example, the sky looks blue, but who says, we as a human race, cannot see it's real colour and are actually blind to it's real colour? It's a very vague experience, but it's possible.

Also, many "facts", like the one above, do not have a nil chance of being false. Because many truths can, in fact be proven incorrect.

An example, is that we claimed that mercury was safe to handle. It was a fact at the time. However, now we know it can cause cancer.

I think one of the main "truths" out there is that everything is made by atoms. The truth can still be expanded, and saying that atoms are infact made up of smaller things.

The problem with that analogy is that it is implied that all the eggs are considered equal from the outset and that there are only two outcomes for the egg. That they hatch or they die.

In the modern world, theories are constantly modified and tweaked as more evidence is discovered.

Off the top of my head I would say a theory is more like a virus. If it is not eradicated by it's conditions (i.e. incompatibility with the real world) then it evolves.

Your analogy may be better suited to explaining hypotheses.

Good point. It was the best analogy I could think at the top of my head.