We study the stars but still only speculate on the creation of the planets and the universe. We still speculate on life on this planet. Were we colonized?,are we the product of natusal selection?, are we divine intervention?, speculation and science run hand in hand,what was thought to be fact 20 or 30 years ago has been proven to not be fact at all. The dinosaurs were thought to be lizards or of the reptilian family,while now scince swings toward the avian premise because modern technology has uncovered more questions than answers.
fact and speculation are always subject to change,but being a woman,I'll tell you that once my mind is made up,you aren't going to change it....and thats a fact...lol

The things you describe are not merely speculation. There is physical evidence and very good mathematical reasons that lead to the current models of the formation of planets and the universe. The models were based on observation, and those parts that were not yet confirmed were nevertheless testable by prediction, later experiment, and observation. The discovery of the cosmic background radiation is a good example of something that was predicted to exist based on the rest of the evidence in the model, and which was found to be correct. The ability to make predictions is one of the most important aspects of a scientific theory.

As for dinosaurs, you're somewhat incorrect. Some dinosaurs are reptilian, others are avian. Only theropod dinosaurs are related to birds. Sauropods, for instance, are reptiles.

Ah yes, and let me add that I blame the news media for their horrible reporting on science news. The sad fact is, if you're not getting your science news from a science news source, you're getting a heavily distorted interpretation of things. It's like hearing a joke retold in the words of someone who didn't understand the joke in the first place -- You won't get it.

They blow things out of proportion and focus on entirely the wrong aspect of some stories, they misrepresent general consensus by showing two conflicting statements and never telling you that it's a difference in consensus of 10000 to 5, and they love to promote random crackpots who go straight to the media instead of getting their work reviewed by peers who will examine it thoroughly. Like that "I can create energy from salt water!" guy. Oh yeah? What's that big generator for, then? "Oh, well, I need to pump radio waves into the water to get it to react." Oh, and how many watts of radio waves are we talking about? "Um...about 200 watts." And why do we measure radio waves in watts? Because it's energy! So basically he's using a generator to convert electrical energy into RF energy, then using a chemical reaction to convert that RF energy into heat energy, and then using a steam converter to convert that heat energy back into electrical energy, losing some energy at every point in between, and yet news coverage was all over this farce.

I agree with this, except for one point... "Those observations" are not facts, they are empirical evidence of potential facts. Observations are, by their very nature, experienced subjectively (eyes seeing, ears hearing...). The "facts" are pertaining to an objective reality. This leads to one huge potential point of failure within the scientific process. Subjective empirical evidence needs to be analyzed / understood within the proper context to see how it applies to which objective facts. We do indeed use our faculty of reason in this process, but errors in translation (from subjective to objective) are unfortunately all too common. This is why "scientific facts" change as human understanding grows.

Fine, I shouldn't have used the word "fact", but I thought it would communicate the idea most clearly. It's extremely difficult to communicate actual science to the public in this age of "postmodernism" and using words that mean one thing to science and another thing to the general public, like "theory".

aha,see you speculated!!!!

Hate to bring an old topic back up, but I have my own two cents to put in:

I see two possibilities. First, if the uncertainty of quantum dynamics is the uncertainty of truly random events, if things on that small of a scale are utterly and totally random, if things can happen with no measurable precedent-- Then yes, there is free will.

Otherwise, if the uncertainty at such a scale is not fundamental, and is in fact an artifact of a lack of perfect equipment --(that is: if you could "see" everything, you could predict it)-- then we have no free will. Because it may seem random to us, in the knockings about of the subatomic particles we can't comprehend, but if it is not random, then all things happened like a chain reaction, so everything is predetermined.

I'm thinking it's the first one, because the second one is, as far as I know, contradictory to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I'm no physicist, though; I could be wrong.

Whatever.

Ok this is the only way I've ever been able to make sense of this whole concept:


Picture this:

At birth you are basically set down at a juncture of time and space. Consider this "time and space" as souped up GPS coordinates, and the family you're born into is your starting point on the roadway of life. No free will in that matter, you're set down where you find yourself.

However as you make your way along the roadway of "time and space", at any given moment you are confronted with hundreds of opportunities to choose the direction of the next step. Free will.

You are limited by your time and space but moving within that environment is up to your decisions at any given time. However:

Finally there is one more considerable limitation and that is the coordinate of time can never move backward, once you've made the choice and taken the step you cannot undo that step. So you're limited also by the choices you've made along the roadway. You still have free will concerning which direction you will take next. It's a limited free will, free will exists within the limitations of "where you are". (There's no fast travel.)