Maybe it would be good for science to make up new words to describe laws, etc

[rousseau]

If you call a theory something that implies it's more certain, then you're misstating what it is, because it's a theory.

I'd be hesitant to start framing scientific terms for political reasons, because that's exactly what science tries not to be: political. Then it would become a slippery slope into dishonesty, when really the problem is a bunch of people who have nothing to do with scientific research.

Beyond that, a misunderstanding of scientific terms is political, it's not a blatant misunderstanding. If the religious really wanted to understand what theory meant, they'd only be a Google search away.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What is Scientific Theory

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

It really doesn't get much clearer than that

Someone who is using the word theory for scientific theory is probably scientifically illiterate. If not, then willfully ignorant.

 

[skepticalbip]

^^^

Yes, it would be much more helpful if those who do not understand science use a more appropriate word than 'theory' when arguing their ideas. I would suggest they either use 'baseless belief' or 'wild-ass guess'.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes, it would be much more helpful if those who do not understand science use a more appropriate word than 'theory' when arguing their ideas. I would suggest they either use 'baseless belief' or 'wild-ass guess'.

We can start with overhauling courtroom procedurals. Every time the lawyer character, either in court or in a planning session, says, "Well, I have this theory," we have Special Guest Star Neil Degrasse Tyson pop in and bitch-slap them. Then Hugh Laurie (as House) explains, "What you MEAN to say, you marble-mouthed, lip-reading, mouth-breather, is your Hypothesis, or 'Plot Device.' YOu may now continue."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Yes, it would be much more helpful if those who do not understand science use a more appropriate word than 'theory' when arguing their ideas. I would suggest they either use 'baseless belief' or 'wild-ass guess'.

We can start with overhauling courtroom procedurals. Every time the lawyer character, either in court or in a planning session, says, "Well, I have this theory," we have Special Guest Star Neil Degrasse Tyson pop in and bitch-slap them. Then Hugh Laurie (as House) explains, "What you MEAN to say, you marble-mouthed, lip-reading, mouth-breather, is your Hypothesis, or 'Plot Device.' YOu may now continue."

The problem isn't accepted scientific protocol and parlance. What's needed are words that refer to religious, uninformed usage of scientific language. I kinda like "plot device" for theory, and there may be better phraseology to identify and differentiate religious meaning.

Science really doesn't need to change its language. It doesn't deal in make-believe and woo.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The problem isn't accepted scientific protocol and parlance. What's needed are words that refer to religious, uninformed usage of scientific language. I kinda like "plot device" for theory, and there may be better phraseology to identify and differentiate religious meaning.

Science really doesn't need to change its language. It doesn't deal in make-believe and woo.

But as long as anyone is using theory to mean 'i have an idea, now go find me some evidence for it' then the creationists can convince themselves that their plot devices are comparable and competitive.

But

 

[skepticalbip]

^^^

Neil Degrasse Tyson needs to get off his butt and start a serious bitch-slapping tour. I see no other solution.

 

[Half-Life]

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

It really doesn't get much clearer than that

Someone who is using the word theory for scientific theory is probably scientifically illiterate. If not, then willfully ignorant.

But that is the problem with science. Today's theories and facts can become wrong tomorrow. So saying today, "evolution is a testable theory with evidence to back it up" doesn't mean it's going to be true tomorrow. So, people are right to doubt it today if there's no guarantees it's gonna hold up in the future.

That's why if you went to school in the 80's and 90's Pluto was a planet. Nowadays, you would be wrong on your science test if you said it was a planet. So, was it right back then or is it right today? Take a science test from the 80's. "Pluto is a planet." Correct answer. Today: "Pluto is a planet." Wrong answer.

See the problem?

 

[skepticalbip]

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

It really doesn't get much clearer than that

Someone who is using the word theory for scientific theory is probably scientifically illiterate. If not, then willfully ignorant.

But that is the problem with science. Today's theories and facts can become wrong tomorrow. So saying today, "evolution is a testable theory with evidence to back it up" doesn't mean it's going to be true tomorrow. So, people are right to doubt it today if there's no guarantees it's gonna hold up in the future.

That's why if you went to school in the 80's and 90's Pluto was a planet. Nowadays, you would be wrong on your science test if you said it was a planet. So, was it right back then or is it right today? Take a science test from the 80's. "Pluto is a planet." Correct answer. Today: "Pluto is a planet." Wrong answer.

See the problem?

Yes. Your lack of understanding. Pluto has not changed. What has changed is addition of more classification. "Dwarf planet" descriptor has been added to help better identify planetary objects. It is like you can have a jar of marbles. They are all marbles. Someone brings in several more jars of marbles. To help sort and identify them, it is decided to also add a color description. The blue marbles are then called blue marbles rather than just marbles.

Newtonian mechanics still work damn well and are still extensively used. The fact that Relativity showed it failed in the limits does not make Newton wrong for human scale problems.

 

[James Brown]

Rhea, Richard Dawkins saw the same dilemma, and coined the word "theorum" to mean something akin to "theory as used by scientists." Alas, it didn't take like he thought it would, probably for the reasons mentioned--scientists don't need a new term, and non-scientists have no reason to learn it.

 

[James Brown]

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

It really doesn't get much clearer than that

Someone who is using the word theory for scientific theory is probably scientifically illiterate. If not, then willfully ignorant.

But that is the problem with science. Today's theories and facts can become wrong tomorrow. So saying today, "evolution is a testable theory with evidence to back it up" doesn't mean it's going to be true tomorrow. So, people are right to doubt it today if there's no guarantees it's gonna hold up in the future.

That's why if you went to school in the 80's and 90's Pluto was a planet. Nowadays, you would be wrong on your science test if you said it was a planet. So, was it right back then or is it right today? Take a science test from the 80's. "Pluto is a planet." Correct answer. Today: "Pluto is a planet." Wrong answer.

See the problem?

Ever watch a murder mystery on TV? Or read one in a book?


You know the story--a body is discovered, and an investigator is sent in to investigate. Perhaps early in the story, he suspects the victim's wife committed the murder. But he can't just declare the job done--he has to gather evidence that she had the means, motive, and opportunity.


So after some questioning, it turns out the wife has an airtight alibi--she was out of town the night of the murder. So the investigator searches for more evidence, and concludes that the murderer was the man's best friend.


More evidence-gathering ensues, and the best friend was at home with his family. So he's off the hook.


And so on. Finally, after more gathering of evidence, the investigator concludes that it was an angry neighbor who killed the victim; the neighbor confesses, and justice is served.


And that's how it should be. Had the investigator arrested the wife simply because she was his first suspect, then an innocent woman would have gone to jail, or even to Death Row. By gathering more evidence, the investigator was able to refine his conclusion and make an accurate judgment.


For some people, to "refine his conclusion" looks suspiciously like "changing his mind willy-nilly." But of course they're not the same at all. With more evidence comes better judgments.


And so it is with science. A century ago, when Pluto was discovered, we had no evidence of the Kuiper Belt. But we've gathered more evidence, and now we know that Pluto is not one of nine objects, but one of millions. Obviously a new category of solar system objects was needed. We did the same thing back in the nineteenth century when astronomers realized that Ceres was not one of several planets but was in fact one of millions of objects. And so, we developed the concept of 'asteroid' and at a stroke, the number of identified planets fell from twenty-three down to eight. (Boy, were people upset about that!)




And that's how it should be. Science is not dogmatic--it is always open to new evidence, which makes for better answers. Facts do not become 'wrong'; they become improved. Isn't that great?

 

[bilby]

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

It really doesn't get much clearer than that

Someone who is using the word theory for scientific theory is probably scientifically illiterate. If not, then willfully ignorant.

But that is the problem with science. Today's theories and facts can become wrong tomorrow. So saying today, "evolution is a testable theory with evidence to back it up" doesn't mean it's going to be true tomorrow. So, people are right to doubt it today if there's no guarantees it's gonna hold up in the future.

That's why if you went to school in the 80's and 90's Pluto was a planet. Nowadays, you would be wrong on your science test if you said it was a planet. So, was it right back then or is it right today? Take a science test from the 80's. "Pluto is a planet." Correct answer. Today: "Pluto is a planet." Wrong answer.

See the problem?

A fact is an observation. It cannot 'become wrong'.

A theory is a well tested set of rules for predicting how a system will behave. Because it is well tested, it cannot 'become wrong' within the limits of the tests that have been done; But it can be shown to be false when extended beyond those limits, and when that happens, a new theory is required - and the new theory must be equal to the old theory, within the limits of the old theory.

So we see that the new theory of General Relativity produces identical results to the old theory (Newtonian Universal Gravitatation) within the limits to which Newton's theory were measured. Newton wasn't wrong - he was right, for most cases. Einstein was able to find a new theory that provides the same results as Newton's for those cases, but that also produces correct results for the unusual cases that Newton couldn't test.

Similarly, phlogiston was a theoretical substance given off by burning. It turns out that the substance in question would need to have a negative mass, so the phlogiston theory was abandoned in favour of modern chemistry - but you still get the right results from phlogiston theory, as long as you give phlogiston a theoretical mass of minus 16g/mol. Phlogiston is just the absence of oxygen.

Facts and theories cannot become wrong. They can be superseded by more accurate observations, or by more widely applicable methods of prediction. But they are not 'wrong'.

That you think they can be is a sad indictment of the level of modern education.

So yes, I see the problem. You don't actually know what science is, what it does, or how it works; But you nevertheless feel qualified to opine on its failings - while remaining blissfully ignorant of the fact that your assessment of its failings is an assessment of the failings of your incorrect guesses at what science actually is.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But that is the problem with science. Today's theories and facts can become wrong tomorrow. So saying today, "evolution is a testable theory with evidence to back it up" doesn't mean it's going to be true tomorrow.

Actually, that will still be true tomorrow. Evolution will remain testable for the future, as far out as you want to go.
The evidence for evolution will remain evidence for evolution.
The only way for evolution to not be considered the best explanation for the diversity we see will be if someone makes an observation which the current theory cannot explain, then makes a better theory that includes an explanation for the new evidence for the new theory.
But until that new evidence comes to be observed, there is no good reason to discount evolution.

So, people are right to doubt it today if there's no guarantees it's gonna hold up in the future.

Nope.
See, you cannot disprove the theory right now.
You cannot find a fault in the research that produced and continues to support the theory.
You cannot find a fault in the conclusions from the theory, or dismiss the advances made based on the operation of the theory.

So, saying that some day, some as yet unidentified researcher will maybe find an as yet unknown flaw in the theory which will render the whole thing obsolete is an exercise in credulity.
It's an argument from consequences fallacy, with an IOU for the consequence.

Even you should be smarter than that.

That's why if you went to school in the 80's and 90's Pluto was a planet. Nowadays, you would be wrong on your science test if you said it was a planet. So, was it right back then or is it right today? Take a science test from the 80's. "Pluto is a planet." Correct answer. Today: "Pluto is a planet." Wrong answer.

See the problem?

Nope. The science has not, in fact, changed, just the classification.
No one has invalidated the discovery of Pluto, no one has had to junk their calculations of Pluto's gravitational affect on other orbits. No one has had to burn their pictures of Pluto's surface because they used planet-film instead of dwarf-planet-film.

All the science about Pluto remains in effect.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

It really doesn't get much clearer than that

Someone who is using the word theory for scientific theory is probably scientifically illiterate. If not, then willfully ignorant.

But that is the problem with science. Today's theories and facts can become wrong tomorrow. So saying today, "evolution is a testable theory with evidence to back it up" doesn't mean it's going to be true tomorrow. So, people are right to doubt it today if there's no guarantees it's gonna hold up in the future.

That's why if you went to school in the 80's and 90's Pluto was a planet. Nowadays, you would be wrong on your science test if you said it was a planet. So, was it right back then or is it right today? Take a science test from the 80's. "Pluto is a planet." Correct answer. Today: "Pluto is a planet." Wrong answer.

See the problem?

No. I don't see a problem. I understand why Pluto was reclassified. It happened because we accumulated oodles more knowledge since it was first discovered. It's not unlike an organism being reclassified because we now know more about it. Pluto didn't change, it's still the same, just like any organism that got reclassified because we have a new tool called DNA analysis. All that changes are the words we use to describe it now. Maybe Pluto will regain planetary status one day based on more knowledge we accumulate.

Are you saying that language and semantics is a problem?

 

[Half-Life]

Actually, that will still be true tomorrow. Evolution will remain testable for the future, as far out as you want to go.
The evidence for evolution will remain evidence for evolution.
The only way for evolution to not be considered the best explanation for the diversity we see will be if someone makes an observation which the current theory cannot explain, then makes a better theory that includes an explanation for the new evidence for the new theory.
But until that new evidence comes to be observed, there is no good reason to discount evolution.

Nope.
See, you cannot disprove the theory right now.
You cannot find a fault in the research that produced and continues to support the theory.
You cannot find a fault in the conclusions from the theory, or dismiss the advances made based on the operation of the theory.

So, saying that some day, some as yet unidentified researcher will maybe find an as yet unknown flaw in the theory which will render the whole thing obsolete is an exercise in credulity.
It's an argument from consequences fallacy, with an IOU for the consequence.

Even you should be smarter than that.

That's why if you went to school in the 80's and 90's Pluto was a planet. Nowadays, you would be wrong on your science test if you said it was a planet. So, was it right back then or is it right today? Take a science test from the 80's. "Pluto is a planet." Correct answer. Today: "Pluto is a planet." Wrong answer.

See the problem?

Nope. The science has not, in fact, changed, just the classification.
No one has invalidated the discovery of Pluto, no one has had to junk their calculations of Pluto's gravitational affect on other orbits. No one has had to burn their pictures of Pluto's surface because they used planet-film instead of dwarf-planet-film.

All the science about Pluto remains in effect.

Please note the bold I highlighted.

Now, imagine hundreds of years ago someone goes up to a scientist and says, "I think flat earth theory is wrong." The scientist says the below lines:

See, you cannot disprove the theory right now.
You cannot find a fault in the research that produced and continues to support the theory.
You cannot find a fault in the conclusions from the theory, or dismiss the advances made based on the operation of the theory.

So, saying that some day, some as yet unidentified researcher will maybe find an as yet unknown flaw in the theory which will render the whole thing obsolete is an exercise in credulity.
It's an argument from consequences fallacy, with an IOU for the consequence.

 

[skepticalbip]

^^^

You need to find something that science actually claimed that was completely out of bounds. Educated people have known that the Earth was spherical for several thousand years. What they didn’t know was the diameter until a few hundred years B.C. (well over a thousand years before formal science) when Eratosthenes measured it quite accurately considering the resolution of his measurement equipment.

 

[bilby]

Actually, that will still be true tomorrow. Evolution will remain testable for the future, as far out as you want to go.
The evidence for evolution will remain evidence for evolution.
The only way for evolution to not be considered the best explanation for the diversity we see will be if someone makes an observation which the current theory cannot explain, then makes a better theory that includes an explanation for the new evidence for the new theory.
But until that new evidence comes to be observed, there is no good reason to discount evolution.

Nope.
See, you cannot disprove the theory right now.
You cannot find a fault in the research that produced and continues to support the theory.
You cannot find a fault in the conclusions from the theory, or dismiss the advances made based on the operation of the theory.

So, saying that some day, some as yet unidentified researcher will maybe find an as yet unknown flaw in the theory which will render the whole thing obsolete is an exercise in credulity.
It's an argument from consequences fallacy, with an IOU for the consequence.

Even you should be smarter than that.

That's why if you went to school in the 80's and 90's Pluto was a planet. Nowadays, you would be wrong on your science test if you said it was a planet. So, was it right back then or is it right today? Take a science test from the 80's. "Pluto is a planet." Correct answer. Today: "Pluto is a planet." Wrong answer.

See the problem?

Nope. The science has not, in fact, changed, just the classification.
No one has invalidated the discovery of Pluto, no one has had to junk their calculations of Pluto's gravitational affect on other orbits. No one has had to burn their pictures of Pluto's surface because they used planet-film instead of dwarf-planet-film.

All the science about Pluto remains in effect.

Please note the bold I highlighted.

Now, imagine hundreds of years ago someone goes up to a scientist and says, "I think flat earth theory is wrong." The scientist says the below lines:

See, you cannot disprove the theory right now.
You cannot find a fault in the research that produced and continues to support the theory.
You cannot find a fault in the conclusions from the theory, or dismiss the advances made based on the operation of the theory.

So, saying that some day, some as yet unidentified researcher will maybe find an as yet unknown flaw in the theory which will render the whole thing obsolete is an exercise in credulity.
It's an argument from consequences fallacy, with an IOU for the consequence.

The notion that the Earth is flat was never a theory - it's an inference drawn from scripture.

If you didn't seek to provide an example of why science is better than religion, then your example here is a truly epic fail.

 

[steve_bank]

The religious people seem to get so confused about what is a “theory” and what is a “Law.” As stunningly shown by half-life in the “something new” thread. I felt this would be in interesting and very different discussion, so I started a new thread.


So if religionists get confused by the word “law” and think it implies agency, and if they get confused about “theory” and think it means guess, maybe it would be very very useful to come up with some new words, defined only as scientific definitions, that have no baggage that can confuddle the faithful by making them think they mean something else.

Right now, in science and math the following words have specific meanings (that are not equal to the legal or colloquial meanings)
Law
Proof
Theory
Hypothesis
Cite
More?


What might this new vocabulary do for us? What might it include? Who knew this would be so very confusing for laypeople? (Yeah, they should have seen this coming...)

You pretty much said it all.

Theory and law have no specifc definition. No one person ot agency decides which is which.

There is Electromagnetyics Theory which is comprised of a set of laws like Fraday's Law and Amper's Law.

There is The Thery Of Realtivity which has all been demonsted as dar as I know.

Whwen confused just keep in mnd rgadless of what it is called, the mth is what matters along with experimental verification.

I was an electrical engineer. Ohm's Law and Kirchoff's Laws are foundational in circuits dating back centuries. Ohm's Law is a macroscopic model. It does not work at small currents where quantum mechanics takes over.

Newton's Laws do not work at very fast relative speeds and small atomic particles.

The word theory is contextual. It can refer to an established tested model like EM Theory, or it can refer to a new idea that is only theoretical.

The Theory Of Evolution is a catch all for all the scince that goes into the conjecture.

It all boils down to meaning and philosophy. The math models work regardless of what you call them. It would be futile to try to precisely define terms in a rigid structure. That is what philosophy does or tries to do.

 

[steve_bank]

Actually, that will still be true tomorrow. Evolution will remain testable for the future, as far out as you want to go.
The evidence for evolution will remain evidence for evolution.
The only way for evolution to not be considered the best explanation for the diversity we see will be if someone makes an observation which the current theory cannot explain, then makes a better theory that includes an explanation for the new evidence for the new theory.
But until that new evidence comes to be observed, there is no good reason to discount evolution.

Nope.
See, you cannot disprove the theory right now.
You cannot find a fault in the research that produced and continues to support the theory.
You cannot find a fault in the conclusions from the theory, or dismiss the advances made based on the operation of the theory.

So, saying that some day, some as yet unidentified researcher will maybe find an as yet unknown flaw in the theory which will render the whole thing obsolete is an exercise in credulity.
It's an argument from consequences fallacy, with an IOU for the consequence.

Even you should be smarter than that.

That's why if you went to school in the 80's and 90's Pluto was a planet. Nowadays, you would be wrong on your science test if you said it was a planet. So, was it right back then or is it right today? Take a science test from the 80's. "Pluto is a planet." Correct answer. Today: "Pluto is a planet." Wrong answer.

See the problem?

Nope. The science has not, in fact, changed, just the classification.
No one has invalidated the discovery of Pluto, no one has had to junk their calculations of Pluto's gravitational affect on other orbits. No one has had to burn their pictures of Pluto's surface because they used planet-film instead of dwarf-planet-film.

All the science about Pluto remains in effect.

Please note the bold I highlighted.

Now, imagine hundreds of years ago someone goes up to a scientist and says, "I think flat earth theory is wrong." The scientist says the below lines:

See, you cannot disprove the theory right now.
You cannot find a fault in the research that produced and continues to support the theory.
You cannot find a fault in the conclusions from the theory, or dismiss the advances made based on the operation of the theory.

So, saying that some day, some as yet unidentified researcher will maybe find an as yet unknown flaw in the theory which will render the whole thing obsolete is an exercise in credulity.
It's an argument from consequences fallacy, with an IOU for the consequence.

In this day and age such ignorance is mind boggling.

Scince has alweys been in a stae of chage and revision, especialy over the last 300 years. Einstein's spaxce-time model in which time was no long a const was astounding and troubling to both philosohers and scinctists.

There are no absolutes in scince.

Creationists make use of that fact by saying evolution could be wrong and Creationism wright. Because science says something does not mean it is 'right', which is true. Science builds models. For me evolution is the best fit to all the available science and observation. Could the conclusion be wrong that we all evolved from simple self replicating stuctures in a primordial ocean? Absolutely, but until a better theory comes along I'll stick with it.

A few words in an ancient text of unknown authorship about a god creating Earth is not a theory at all. It is an untestable myth. Religion and science are not really in direct conflict. Science and religion address two deferent things. Region addresses the spiritual aspect of humans. Science addresses explanations of physical reality regardless of who created it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Actually, that will still be true tomorrow. Evolution will remain testable for the future, as far out as you want to go.
The evidence for evolution will remain evidence for evolution.
The only way for evolution to not be considered the best explanation for the diversity we see will be if someone makes an observation which the current theory cannot explain, then makes a better theory that includes an explanation for the new evidence for the new theory.
But until that new evidence comes to be observed, there is no good reason to discount evolution.

Nope.
See, you cannot disprove the theory right now.
You cannot find a fault in the research that produced and continues to support the theory.
You cannot find a fault in the conclusions from the theory, or dismiss the advances made based on the operation of the theory.

So, saying that some day, some as yet unidentified researcher will maybe find an as yet unknown flaw in the theory which will render the whole thing obsolete is an exercise in credulity.
It's an argument from consequences fallacy, with an IOU for the consequence.

Even you should be smarter than that.

That's why if you went to school in the 80's and 90's Pluto was a planet. Nowadays, you would be wrong on your science test if you said it was a planet. So, was it right back then or is it right today? Take a science test from the 80's. "Pluto is a planet." Correct answer. Today: "Pluto is a planet." Wrong answer.

See the problem?

Nope. The science has not, in fact, changed, just the classification.
No one has invalidated the discovery of Pluto, no one has had to junk their calculations of Pluto's gravitational affect on other orbits. No one has had to burn their pictures of Pluto's surface because they used planet-film instead of dwarf-planet-film.

All the science about Pluto remains in effect.

Please note the bold I highlighted.

Now, imagine hundreds of years ago someone goes up to a scientist and says, "I think flat earth theory is wrong." The scientist says the below lines:

Well, if he just SAYS that he doesn't believe it, then the scientist has no reason to accept his bullshit.
So you're wrong about what the scientist would say.

See, you cannot disprove the theory right now.

Actually: What's your evidence?

You cannot find a fault in the research that produced and continues to support the theory.

See, just SAYING I don't believe in the theory is not showing that the theory is faulted.

You cannot find a fault in the conclusions from the theory, or dismiss the advances made based on the operation of the theory.

And again, show this fault would be his response. Because this person shows nothing but an opinion.

So, saying that some day, some as yet unidentified researcher will maybe find an as yet unknown flaw in the theory which will render the whole thing obsolete is an exercise in credulity.
It's an argument from consequences fallacy, with an IOU for the consequence.

Except that you and I both know evidence that argues against the flat Earth theory.
Which is completely different than you rejecting evolutionary theory just because it may someday be falsified, maybe. By someone. For reasons we don't know, yet. But you're pretty sure it'll happen.
Any time now.
Probably.
Maybe.
But for sure, some day.

So, no, you have not countered my post.