Guest guest Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 , You wrote: > ... while scientific theories can be disproved they are NEVER proved; merely > supported.... The statement that something is " just a theory " also suffers from grossly incorrect definition. The more common definition of " theory " is a synonym for " hypothesis " or for an " educated guess. " However, if you look through the list of alternative definitions in the dictionary, you will find that the scientific meaning is VERY different. To qualify as a scientific theory, a claim must meet two criteria. First, it must be consistently supported by many tests over a long period of time. It must have survived many challenges without contradiction. In other words, it must be about as close to being proved, as any hypothesis can get, which means it is effectively accepted as " true " by professionals in that field. Secondly, a theory must be foundational or explanatory of a wide body of phenomena, even entire sciences. Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, for example, is essential for making sense out of high speed mechanics, for atomic structure, for nuclear reactions, for electrodynamics, for accelerator properties, for light interactions, for cosmology, chemistry, General Relativity, and on and on. To think that Special Relativity is " just a theory " is laughable to anyone that applies it in their field. The fact that there are plenty of crackpots out there claiming it is false, in no way negates its broad, systematic impact or its overwhelming and compelling body of supporting evidence. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 chuck- thanks for that- this what I meant when I wrote my abbreviated short reply, lol. nancie From: Chuck B Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:59 PM hypothyroidism Subject: What is a theory? , You wrote: > ... while scientific theories can be disproved they are NEVER proved; merely > supported.... The statement that something is " just a theory " also suffers from grossly incorrect definition. The more common definition of " theory " is a synonym for " hypothesis " or for an " educated guess. " However, if you look through the list of alternative definitions in the dictionary, you will find that the scientific meaning is VERY different. To qualify as a scientific theory, a claim must meet two criteria. First, it must be consistently supported by many tests over a long period of time. It must have survived many challenges without contradiction. In other words, it must be about as close to being proved, as any hypothesis can get, which means it is effectively accepted as " true " by professionals in that field. Secondly, a theory must be foundational or explanatory of a wide body of phenomena, even entire sciences. Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, for example, is essential for making sense out of high speed mechanics, for atomic structure, for nuclear reactions, for electrodynamics, for accelerator properties, for light interactions, for cosmology, chemistry, General Relativity, and on and on. To think that Special Relativity is " just a theory " is laughable to anyone that applies it in their field. The fact that there are plenty of crackpots out there claiming it is false, in no way negates its broad, systematic impact or its overwhelming and compelling body of supporting evidence. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 All IMHO very concisely explained. And it supports what I said about the foolishness of the " evolution is only a theory " statement. More below... .. .. > > What is a theory? > <hypothyroidism/message/36882;_ylc=X3oDMTJxYTZ0bml\ yBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzY4ODIEc2V\ jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIwNDgwMDY1NA--> > > > > Posted by: " Chuck B " gumboyaya@... > <mailto:gumboyaya@...?Subject=%20Re%3AWhat%20is%20a%20theory%3F> > gumbo482001 <gumbo482001> > > > Wed Mar 5, 2008 5:59 pm (PST) > > , > > You wrote: > > ... while scientific theories can be disproved they are NEVER > proved; merely > > supported... > . > > The statement that something is " just a theory " also suffers from > grossly incorrect definition. The more common definition of " theory " is > a synonym for " hypothesis " or for an " educated guess. " However, if you > look through the list of alternative definitions in the dictionary, you > will find that the scientific meaning is VERY different. > > To qualify as a scientific theory, a claim must meet two criteria. > First, it must be consistently supported by many tests over a long > period of time. It must have survived many challenges without > contradiction. In other words, it must be about as close to being > proved, as any hypothesis can get, which means it is effectively > accepted as " true " by professionals in that field. .. .. You are a scientist and I am not, so for me to quibble with your definition is no doubt unwise. I would submit, however, that a hypothesis may advance to theory status prior to the " ...consistently supported by many tests over a long period of time... " ; or of " ... surviving many challenges without contradiction... " process. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by the two phrases. My reasoning is that evolution was a theory at the time Darwin published it, and that the supporting tests and survival of challenges came later. I would have thought that evolution would be correctly described as a theory; albeit without the vast support it would receive once it had survived the many tests and survived the challenges. Same for Einstein's theories of special and general relativity. If my idea is incorrect then both Darwin's and Einstein's published works would seem to not have qualified as theories until long after they were published. They did, of course, become _well supported_ theories during this process of tests and challenges [and therefore more generally accepted as true in the professional fields]; whereas I would describe them as less well supported theories prior to that [admittedly unspecified] time. If my notion is incorrect then please clarify; unless I'm obviously in so far over my head that I could not possibly understand it... .. .. > > Secondly, a theory must be foundational or explanatory of a wide body of > phenomena, even entire sciences. Einstein's Special Theory of > Relativity, for example, is essential for making sense out of high speed > mechanics, for atomic structure, for nuclear reactions, for > electrodynamics, for accelerator properties, for light interactions, for > cosmology, chemistry, General Relativity, and on and on. .. .. IMHO both Darwin's and Einstein's works profoundly qualified as theories under this criteria. And I would have thought they did so prior the support provided by supporting tests and surviving challenges. It would seem to be in that specific point that my concept of a scientific theory is incorrect within your definition given. To give an example, should someone come up with a GUT [Grand Unified Theory] that 1] Explained all or most of the theories in that field {and probably others} leading up to now; 2] Was well supported mathematically; 3] Had considerable supporting evidence and no contradicting evidence; 4] Made predictions that could be experimentally verified... then that would fit my idea of what a " new " theory should look like. The supporting tests and survival of challenges could come later. Please correct as needed... .. .. > > To think that Special Relativity is " just a theory " is laughable to > anyone that applies it in their field. The fact that there are plenty of > crackpots out there claiming it is false, in no way negates its broad, > systematic impact or its overwhelming and compelling body of supporting > evidence. > > Chuck .. .. It does seem peculiar that no matter how well supported a theory is you will find at least a small number of those who do not accept it; and that no matter how lacking in support and idea may be [life has only existed for 6000 years on Earth] you will always find someone with a great education and apparent intelligence to give it credibility. Which leads to my " theory " [not really! {ggg}] that we are not actually rational creatures at all; but far more creatures of emotion... I don't think Einstein EVER accepted Quantum Mechanics as being correct or complete; despite the fact that he made [i guess] many contributions to its development. Regards, NOT A SCIENTIST! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 , You wrote: > ... I don't think Einstein EVER accepted Quantum Mechanics as > being correct or complete; despite the fact that he made [i guess] many > contributions to its development. He certainly did not buy the " Copenhagen Interpretation, " formulated by Niels Bohr, which dominates today. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.