Jump to content

Talk:Theory/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3


No header

this is a great edithing page. If a theory is not testable, then by definition it is not a scientific theory. All scientific theories can be refuted at some future stage. Theories which cannot be refuted have some other status but are definitly not science. The testability of a theory may lie in the far future and may be extremely difficult (e.g. M-brane theory) but that testibility must exist. Modern scientists avoid if possible the use of the older term "scientific law" because many so-called laws have been refuted or have had to be modified (c.f. Bode's Law & Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation) Joe Dixon (Joedixon 15:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

Now I understand the *head bash wall* of saying something is a theory, and getting biffed for it, because "its a theory, it cant be proven though."; a theory is close to being a law, close to being undeniable...with the exceptions of String Theory, and Theory of Everything.

Great, so the sciences shot themselves in the foot and have been paying for it ever since. Why not update the terminology to reflect what it is, not what it might be later; ie String Hypothesis and Hypothesis of Everything? Or some equally clear term? Rafe, 2007-10-20, T17:36, Z-7, 76.170.116.153 00:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

PacerX 11/11/05

I disagree with the assertion that "testability" is a necessary for the criteria defining a theory, specifically because many theories in science, and commonly accepted as scientific theory are not testable and have removed the reference.

I believe the addition of the word "testable" is a subtle attempt to disqualify certain specific thoughts in disciplines not lending themselves to physical testing.

Furthermore, the definitions of the word "theory" as stated in many exhaustive dictionaries do not require testability.


jan 29 04 - morimom

re the last entry that talks about homeopathy:

you say

"Likewise, other claims such as homeopathy are also not theories, but pseudoscience."

i would suggest that there is a confusion of terms here:

- claims - theories - science/pseudoscience

they're three different kinds of apples and oranges.

as for your sentence, IMHO:

1 - homeopathy is not a claim. it's far too complex for that. it is best described as a system, or a complementary healing method. (whether you or i think whether that method works is a different story)

2 - a claim isn't really a theory. a claim is a statement of (supposed) fact or truth, and it does not need any proof. (that's why we then ask "how can you substantiate that claim?") a theory always leaves room for some uncertainty and improvement.

3 - pseudoscience is a laden term which i suggest should be used with great caution. in fact, your assertion that "homeopathy is a pseudoscience" is an unsubstantiated claim! i think it would be more prudent to say that homeopathy is by some *considered* to be a pseudoscience.

you may want to rewrite your statement in light of these comments.

isabella




Challenge accepted, but not tonight . . . later! Robert Merkel

This is a very clear description of "theory," but it is limited to "theory" in positivist science. I don't think this definition of theory applies to hermeneutics or critical theory. Perhaps people who have worked on articles on these topics can help develop this one? SR

Good point. One note is that I think the definition of theory used here is not restricted to postivist views of science but rather include science in general. I don't think that non-positivists would disagree with the meaning of theory used here. Where the disagreements come from is where and how theories arise and their relationship if any to objective reality.

well, I guess there are two issues. I meant to raise the point that there are non-scientists -- but scholars nonetheless, who attempt to bring to their work some sort of rigor and internal consistency -- who have and use theories, and define theory differently. I think you are raising another but equally important point that some people might characterize scientific theory in slighly different ways.
But I suspect that critical theorists, and certainly those of a post-modernist bent, might appeal more to Wittgenstein's notion of "language game" to account for theories. Is this consistent with the definition here? How would a pragmatist (or perhaps, better, a pragmatacist) define theory? Is there a sense to talking about "Nietzsche's theories?" If so, is one using theory the same way as in this article? SR

Avoiding verificationist language

Karl Popper has argued, to my satisfaction, that theories can never be genuinely "confirmed", but can be extremely well tested and make consistently correct predictions. I just did a set of local edits on wording that reflect that, but leave the meaning of all the statements essentially unchanged (aside from making them consistent with this epistemological point). These edits include substituting "well-tested" for "verified", "reliable" for "thoroughly confirmed", and a few others.Harold f 03:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


Basic flaw: naturalist model of science, where social science is seen as sharing some basic common ground with natural science

This article contains a basic flaw. It starts from the natural sciences to extract principles about theory and theory making. There is a huge debate in philosophy of social science as to whether in fact social sciences share any common ground in terms of theory making and methodology with the natural sciences. Although lots of social research is still carried out under the assumptions of the hypotetico-deductive method, much is not carried out under these assumptions at all. And yet most (all?) social scientists would say that one of the central defining features of their enterprise is based around the discussion, criticism and production of theories. There is need for further delving into the specificities of theory making in the social sciences (last section "Other fields" should be enlarged and actually I don't see why in terms of theory 'Science', which here is really synonymous for natural science should be given such a prominent role; theories about physical reality are no more interesting and fundamental to human life than theories about social reality and human beings). Help needed from philosophers of social science well versed in hermeneutics, critical theory and post-modern theory!! --Vito Laterza 11:56, 21 August 2006 (GMT)

The below is from [Scientific theories]. It needs to be merged into this entry:

What is a theory?

In common lingo a theory is little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified slightly.

Some examples of current scientific theories are gravity, quantum mechanics, and evolution. Some other theories that have been disproved are those such as Lamarckism and the geocentric universe theory. Sufficient evidence has risen to declare these theories false. So, the next time you hear someone arguing with you about evolution, saying, "Well, it's just a theory," remind them, that in science, theories have been declared false.

So, the next time you hear someone arguing with you about evolution, saying, "Well, it's just a theory," remind them, that in science, theories are equivalent to truth. Scientists aren't just guessing that gravity or evolution are true. They are the best theories we have for explaining the millions of data all around us.

A good example of a non-scientific theory is Intelligent Design. Creationists are using it as a wedge to try to get alternative teaching put into schools and such, but the truth is that Creationism is not a theory at all. By saying "Goddidit" as an explanation for every natural phenomenon, we are not predicting anything, and so the theory is useless. We wouldn't have built computers by now if Benjamin Franklin had said two hundred years ago, "God makes electricity, and that is that", instead of actually figuring out the naturalistic explanation.

You say that in science a theory is an "established" paradigm, and that in science "theories are equivalent to truth." The article says that in science a theory is a "verified hypothesis" or a "proven model." But this gives the impression that scientific theories, in order to be scientific, must be established, true, verified, proven, etc. But that's false. The truth is that they can be established, true, verified, proven, etc. -- which is enough to counter the everyday use of "theory" meaning conjecture, guess, etc. But scientific theories can also be false, unproven, unconfirmed, unverified, falsified, untested, just plain bad, crazy, etc. You yourself give examples of theories that have been disproved (Lamarkism and the geocentric theory). They don't stop being scientific theories just because they've been disproved. Moreover, the very idea of testing a scientific theory means you've got to first have an untested scientific theory to test. (Ditto for trying to falsify, confirm, establish, etc. a theory.) Or consider the idea of competing scientific theories. The fact they're competing means they can't all be established, confirmed, true, etc. This is a confusion that is widespread on the internet. But it really needs to be cleared up. Saying that scientific theories can be true (confirmed, established, etc.) is enough to counter those who equate "theory" with being unconfirmed, a mere guess, etc. --Conscat 06:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I took out

Creationists are using it as a wedge to try to get alternative teaching put into schools, but Creationism is not a theory at all. Saying "Goddidit" as an explanation for every natural phenomenon does not predict anything, and is thus useless for science and not considered a theory.

Although I personally agree with it, its's a bit of a rant. And the part about creationists and schools is probably only relevant in the US.

I think the two sections duplicate each other a bit. Merging might require more than just cut 'n paste.

Agreed, it is a bit of a rant, but it still makes a point. Intelligent Design has no testable predictions to be made and therefore can not be a theory. At most it is a hypothesis. So, I've removed it from this article and suggest it be placed at the end of Hypothesis. The other option would be to keep it here but put it under a separate subheading, eg "Non-scientific theories" or "Hypotheses" to prevent confusion. --brian0918™ 21:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree as well. Intelligent design is already rightly included in the list at pseudoscience; surely that would preclude it from being included here... --FeloniousMonk 01:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is everything a theory?

Considering that a theory is believed to be true we believe that we exist. I also believe that the theories are theoretical since it is impossible to test all conditions or to prove things true or false.

An old philosophical saw. Since every test at our disposal and all our senses point in one directioon (we do exist), it is only a mind game that 1) such existence is somehow only a belief and 2) it is impossible to "prove" anything. - Marshman 19:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

A list of theories?

There are WAY more theories than those under the "See also" section. I was going to add a bunch from psychology, but I didn't know what the standards are for importance. Anyone agree that perhaps a "list of theories by subject" page should be made, or just done on the bottom of this page? I mean, we have a List of people who died with tortoises on their heads. :P --Tothebarricades.tk 09:34, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've got a book here, Dictionary of Theories by Jennifer Bothamley (ISBN 1-57859-045-0), your one-stop shopping place for more than 5,000 theories. I don't think listing them all is practical. =) - soylentgrin@yahoo.com

Evolution not in the same league as relativity

The statement "not in the same league as..." is a sports metaphor, not a rational scientific argument. Whoever made this up should be working on sports articles. - Marshman 18:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed evolution from the list discussed in the middle part of the article [but not the list at the bottom] for two reasons.

First, it does not satisfy

3.has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,
4.makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory.

Furthermore, while evolution is linked to theories that might satisfy those theories, the theories that it is linked to often fail. For example, the theory that rocks of older age lie below locks of newer age is falsifiable, but it is often found to be wrong.


The second reason is whatever predictions that evolution does purportedly make are nothing similar in accuracy or testability as either general or special relativity or quantum mechanics.

It is fitting, here, to quote the introduction to a reprinting of Origin of Species. Writing the introduction in 1971, British evolutionist,L.H. Matthews writes

The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory--is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the thoery of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation--both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.

Phantym 18:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

It is in the same league, but it is biology and not physics. You obviously don't understand what a theory is - your quote is absurd, theories are not proven. And the Principle of superposition remains valid in sedimentary geology despite the assertions of your flood geologist friends. So go edit your creationist article and leave science alone. Bye, Vsmith 23:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I gave my reason for it not being in the same league, in particular its lack of predictive element and lack of testability. Throwing names around and other invective does not change this. As for the absurdity of the quote, that is something you will have to take up with the British evolutionist who said it. There are instances of theories in biology that are falsifiable and give testable predictions, but evolution is not one of them.
Sorry for jumping in the middle here, but as for evolutionary theory being testable, there's this news item (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177.html) that says: "If Darwin was right, for example, then scientists should be able to perform a neat trick. Using a mathematical formula that emerges from evolutionary theory, they should be able to predict the number of harmful mutations in chimpanzee DNA by knowing the number of mutations in a different species' DNA and the two animals' population sizes. "That's a very specific prediction," said Eric Lander, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., and a leader in the chimp project. Sure enough, when Lander and his colleagues tallied the harmful mutations in the chimp genome, the number fit perfectly into the range that evolutionary theory had predicted." Doesn't that fit the criteria of testable and predictive? - soylentgrin@yahoo.com
I fail to see how evolution fails to satisfy 3.has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false, 4.makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory.
What critical test has it failed? Doesn't it make predictions? -- Ec5618 20:14, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Ec5618, for at least responding rationally. On the contrary, many scientists have indicated that one cannot think of evolution as a theory because it either fails to predict things or cannot be falsifiable. Others have decided that Evolution is a postulate, axiom, or [in their words] a fact, while natural selection may be a theory.
Gould, for example, (as well as a slough of other scientists I could name if you really need me too) is in this category. Evolution certainly does not predict things in the same way as quantum mechanics or relativity does. A physicist can pre-dict the outcome of an experiment or the outcome of an observation of a supernova, etc. decide beforehand what would be considered viable answers from the model, and then [and only then] see if the data agree. Evolution allows no such thing, it explains observables and its mechanisms [like natural selection] can attempt to explain why certain things occur, but that is very much different.
Perhaps another way of putting this is that every physicist on the earth will agree that Quantum mechanics and relativity fully match the definition of a scientific theory in its fullness, and that statement is patently not true of biologists. Some [like Gould] state it as simply a fact. Some [for example Harris] declare it a postulate which one should not be forced to prove (certainly taking it outside the realm of a theory), others like Patterson [Of the British historical Museum] have gone on record attacking the notion that evolution is a theory at all, French Zoologist Grasse spends an entire book not attacking evolution itself but attacking modern understandings of evolution, declaring that there is little we do, or possibly can, understand about it. Murray Eden attacks evolution for being too plastic, suggesting that it can be formed to fit anything after the fact (suggesting that it is not reasonably falsifiable). I could go on and on.
Why not discuss Hardy Weinberg Equillibrium, or Mendelian genetetics, or any of a whole host of theories that are predictive in nature that no one contends is not a full theory.
Phantym 05:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I considered changing "evolution" in the article to "natural selection", but after reading Evolution I think that would be inappropriate. When scientists speak of "the theory of evolution", they mean the general idea that all species on the planet descend from a common ancestor, and arise through descent with modification. They do indeed disagree on the source of the modifications, and the mechanisms of selection, but the general idea itself is sufficiently precise and falsifiable that it can be considered a theory in its own right. Any of the following would cause great trouble for evolution:
  • Different species having completely different biochemistry
  • Different species having completely different genetic mechanisms
  • Different species sharing no genetic code
  • The fossil record showing that there has been no trend from lesser to greater complexity over time
But as you know, the evidence in all these areas has consistently shown the opposite, and no other theory has come remotely close to giving an alternative. This is why so many scientists believe that evolution is in the same league as, say, heliocentric theory. – Smyth\talk 11:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
It also predicts transitional forms, which have failed to be found after 100 years of looking. Furthermore there are different species with completely different mechanisms, such as the entirety of eukaryotes as compared to the entirety of prokaryotes.
I'm sorry, but that is a laughable statement. Many intermediate forms have been found.
Evolutionist: 'I postulate that Z evolved from A.'
Opponent: 'Show me an intermediate form.'
Evolutionist: 'Here you go. I found one. I call it K'
Opponent: 'Ok, now produce the missing link between A and K, and K and Z.'
Evolutionist: 'Here you go. I found them. I call them F and P.'
Opponent: 'Ok, now produce the missing link between all of those.'
Ad infinitum
And the idea that procaryotes should not exist when eucaryotes exist is silly as well. 'If humans evolved from moneys, why are there still monkeys. Its entirely possible eucaryotic cells evolved from procaryotic cells. -- Ec5618 15:46, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
The above analysis of intermediary forms is an urban legend. Gould, possibly the strongest proponent of evolution on the planet, spawned an entirely different school of thought precisely because transitional forms were so uncommon. Several other biologists have lamented the lack of transitional forms in their own published papers. Biologist Lynn Margulis, famous for her theory on the origin of mitochondria in cells, also attacked neodarwinism on this exact matter.
Also, evolution is predictive, as you can predict the characteristika of fossils.--Kristjan Wager 13:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think people have adequately responded to my main contention. If there are prominent zoologists and biologists who have publicately indicated either that evolution is now considered a postulate in the community, and another collection of zoologists, biologists, paleontologists, etc. that indicate a decided lack of confidence in evolution, what is so bad about simply changing the listed theory to one that everyone agrees is a theory? No physicist in the world will suggest that quantum mechanics is not a theory, no physicist in the world would suggest that relativity is not a theory. If you are going to list a collection of theories that fully exemplify what makes something scientific, why insist on putting one there that a reasonable number of secular scientists view in a different light? It makes no sense. Other theories are better examples. I have listed theories that are much more predictive, and much more falsifiable than evolution. These are theories that no biologist would suggest fail these tests.
Can anyone give a single reason to include a theory that prominent scientists contend is not one when there are several examples in the same field that all agree on?
As a compromise I am changing it to microevolution, which is does not suffer these flaws.
I'll agree with the compromise, as many people seem to think that evolution deals with the formation of humanity, life, Earth, and the universe, like Kent Hovind, and as there is no clear definition of either science, or theory. That evolution is a theory is hardly contested though, and should preferably be mentioned in the article, as it illustrates some of the finer points of both science and theory. -- Ec5618 15:46, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
It is mentioned at the bottom in the list of theories. However the statement That evolution is a theory is hardly contested though appears to be false. If the head of the British Museum of Natural History [which has the riches array of fossils in the world] says flat out Evolution is not a theory. That appears to be a contest. Note that I am not claiming that Patterson is a creationist or that he disagrees with evolution, but he [and others] have admitted that evolution cannot be considered a theory either because it is too plastic or unfalsifiable,etc.
Can you please provide a link to Patterson's CV? Thanks. --brian0918™ 16:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
It is not a CV, but I can tell you he was a paleontologist who was Senior Principle Scientific Officer in the Paleontology Department of British Museum (Natural History), London from 1962 to 1993. He died in 1998. He was a leader in a philosophy called transformed cladistics. Phantym 17:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Biologists who call evolution a "postulate" are merely saying that they consider it so permanently verified that they do not consider it possible for it ever to be displaced. This places it in the same league as things like "heliocentric theory" or "atomic theory", both of which were once heavily questioned but are now so strongly supported that it is impossible to imagine them ever being abandoned. Nevertheless, this does not stop them from being theories in the strict sense, even though it now seems strange to call them that.
This is not what all biologists mean when they call it a postulate. For a very clear case consider Harris' explicitly stating that evolution should be considered in a new light, where it was no longer considered a theory to be substantiated or disproved, but an axiom. This is not because Harris thinks evolution is beyond dispute. If the neo-Darwinian theory is axiomatic, it is not valid for creationists to demand proof of the axioms, and it is not valid for evolutionists to dismiss special creation as unproved as long as it is stated as an axiom Harris clearly draws a line between theory and postulate.
In fact, scientists in general never use the term postulate to refer to something that they consider impossible to disprove. If there is a theory that has held up so much that it is considered fundamental, they use the term law. Postulate has a very specific usage in mathematics and science.Phantym 16:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I was unable to find a source for whatever it is you're referring to. Can you provide a link? – Smyth\talk 20:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Biologists do not indicate a decided lack of confidence in evolution. Even the creationist's best friend Michael Behe only argues against evolution at the very low biochemical levels.
And how do you suggest evolution occurs at the higher levels if it cannot even happen at the very lowest ones? And, contrary to your statements, many biologists have indicated a lack of confidence in evolution or natural selection. For example, at the Centennial Celebration of Darwinism, Olson made the following comment
There exists, as well, a generally silent group of students engaged in biological pursuits who tend to disagree with much of the current thoguht, but say and write little because they are not particularly interested, do not see that controversy over evolution is of any particular importance, or are so strongly in disagreement that it seems futile to undertake the monumental task of controverting the immense body of information and theory that exists in the formulation of modern thinking. It is, of course, difficult to judge the size and composition of this silent segment, but there is no doubt that the numbers are not inconsiderable
Zitynski, in Science Digest writes that The classical theory of evolution in its strict sense belongs to the past. Even if they do not publicly take a definite stand, almost all French specialists hold today strong mental reservations as to the validity of natural selection
More recently, K.J. Hsu, in the Journal of Seimentary Petrology, wrote Nevertheless, I agree with him that Darwinism contains 'wicked lies'; it is not a 'natural law' formulated on the basis of factual evidence, but a dogma, reflecting the dominating social philosophy of the last century. Note that this quote comes right on the tail of a discussion about how he is not for creationism either.
I could give more recent examples if you guys really want them, but the point is that you cannot claim a consensus advocating that evolution is a theory. Phantym 16:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Please put away your little book of creationist misquotes. In virtually all of the quotes in your book, the scientist concerned is arguing against "Darwinism" or "natural selection", not evolution. For example, K.J. Hsu, in the Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, wrote: "The rising tides of modern creationism may have been inspired by a reaction against the philosophy of social Darwinism. But creationists are barking up the wrong tree. We have plenty of evidence in the geological record for the Darwinian theory of common descent. The root of the evil is not the postulate of evolution, but the Darwinian emphasis on natural selection as a consequence of biotic interactions."
These are not scientists doubting evolution, this is them taking part in the ongoing debate about the mechanisms behind it. – Smyth\talk 20:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
The eukaryotes/prokaryotes division does not contradict evolution. If humans and apes had different biochemistry, that would.
You said species, you didn't make any qualifications.Phantym 16:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Fine, I apologise for being vague, but my point still stands. – Smyth\talk 20:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
And your comment about transitional forms is an argument against evolution's truth, not against its status as a theory. Stay on topic please. – Smyth\talk 15:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
This whole "debate" is sounding more and more like original research rather than citing sources. Consider ignoring individuals whose only evidence is their word of honor. --brian0918™ 16:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Because some biologists feel the fossil record is less clearly in favor of evolution, they would say it should not be considered a theory anymore because it is either not well-understood enough to be given that label or that it fails parsimony (based on what evidence we have...in particular one has to come up with sophisticated microtheories to explain the dearth of transitional forms). Thus, it is very much on topic.Phantym 16:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

In view of the above, it seems that the word "evolution" is understood in too many ways by non-scientists, so I suggest my original idea that "natural selection" take its place. – Smyth\talk 20:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Natural selection is not a theory. It is a mechanism within a theory (evolution). --brian0918™ 21:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Okay, what about "Darwinism"? – Smyth\talk 22:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
No, cancel that, the sentence in question is a list of "established theories", and although Darwinism is very widely accepted there are biologists who seriously doubt it. This is not the case for the more general theory of evolution, which says that species arise from descent with modification but is no more specific than that about the mechanisms involved. – Smyth\talk 22:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

What compromise? The section is about scientific theory - not about religion or pseudoscience dreams or beliefs. Evolution is a valid theory of biology. Vsmith 23:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

You have failed to answer my basic criticism. THere are theories that are not disputed by biologists, there are theories that give much better predictions that are much more easily tested, theories that some biologists have not decided needed to be termed postulates instead. And if the senior fellow at the British Museum of Natural History states that evolution is not a theory, then I hardly see that we are in a position to dispute it. Once again I reiterate, there are several biologists who do not think evolution is a theory. I do not think you will find a single physicist that disagrees that relativity is a theory. This simple statement has not been refuted. - Phantym
Are you sure the complete quotation isn't "evolution is not a theory, it is fact"? The point is, this is one person, and not a prominent biologist. Stop reaching for straws. --brian0918™ 01:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Once again I reiterate, your argument seems to be based entirely on dishonest out-of-context misquotes. Unless you provide links which all of us can check, I'm not going to argue against that anymore. – Smyth\talk 09:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History was misquoted - see [here]. As was Grasse - se here. There are virtually no scientists who doubt evolution, and close to none in fields related to evolution.--Kristjan Wager 11:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


Patterson is not a prominent biologist Excuse me. Sneior fellow for paleontology for over 20 years at the museum housing the richest collection of fossils does not make you prominent? interesting. And no these are not dishonest quotes out of context. In fact, the links you mention do not in any way state that they were misquoted or even out of context!! I never said that Grasse didn't believe in evolution, I said he criticized the establishment's overconfidence in their understanding of it. And I suggest you do a fuller search on Patterson before claiming that your article supports his confidence in transitional forms. If you want to read an article about Patterson from a non-creation source, feel free to read this one which goes into detail about how agnostic Patterson is about evolution.
Please be more careful about slinging such accusations at me. I am not trying to prove evolution wrong by these quotes [which can be found in the links that incorrectly claim I am misquoting him]. I am saying the same thing I have been saying all along, which people appear not to be able to accept: scientists are much more agnostic and lacking in consensus about evolution than they are about other theories states. I have said it before and I will say it again: no physicist in the world would claim that relativity is not a theory. No scientists in the world would suggest that it should be considered a postulate or that it does not make clear predictions. There is no plasticity involved. With evolution, I have shown very important scientists who are uncomfortable with it on soem level, some who say that it must be considered a postulate rather than something that should be supported by the fossil record. Since there are other biological theories that are much less vauge, much more predictive, and about there is much less agnosticism, why insist on using evolution as an example when there are better ones? - Phantym
How can anyone claim that Patterson was not misquoted, when he himself said so?
" "I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false..."[1]. How can anyone choose not to ridicule or mistrust anyone who still uses this quote to defend creationism/debunk evolution? I think you are definitely biased, in this case. Also, please remember to sign your comments, using the 4 tildes. -- Ec5618 21:40, May 31, 2005 (UTC)


Patterson makes an important point about the overconfidence that many evolutionists have in their subjective interpretations of the facts. But neither he nor any of the other people you have named doubt that evolution, in the general sense, is the origin of species. By suggesting otherwise, you are just destroying your own credibility. – Smyth\talk 22:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Because evolution is a perfect example of a theory. It's known to be a fact but just can't be observed directly over long periods. There's not one single shred of evidence against it and everything we know says its real. It's perfect. Better than relativity because it affects all life everywhere. Relativity is not directly experienced. It's a perfect example. --DanielCD 21:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

=== phrasing question ===

Sorry if form-ally this does not follow the protocols; not enough time. The text says, "For a given body of theory to be considered part of established knowledge, it is usually necessary for the theory to characterize a critical experiment, that is, an experimental result which cannot be predicted by any established theory." I found this a tough read. In focus, it's saying essentially, "The theory must characterize a result." Can this be more plainly stated as "The theory must predict a result"?


Geocentrism cannot be disproven. This has been stated by the scientists themselves:

Sir Fred Hoyle (Nicholas Corpenicus, 1973) stated:

"The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view ... . Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory “wrong” in any meaningful physical sense."

Similarly, Max Born in his famous book,"Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345 says:

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space.

Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."

Einstein himself also says:

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. -- Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.)"

Pick an appropriate substitute (I proposed flat earth).

Truth_Seeker

Bullpuppies! If it can't be disproven, then it isn't science - it's religion. The Earth isn't even the center of the solar system, and the solar system isn't the center of our home galaxy - regardless of the out of context quotes you dig up. Yeah, I know, I'm feeding a troll :-) Vsmith 01:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok - clarified the geocenticism of the article as referring to the Ptolemaic model. As some might think it was referring to the religious pseudoscience modern geocentricism. Probably need to find a better example of replaced or disproved theories - don't know that Ptolemies model actually qualifies as a scientific theory. Vsmith 02:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Structure of Theories

I think it would be useful to add a discussion of the role of axioms in well formed theories. This approach is used in both mathematical theories and in theories in the physical sciences, for example Robert Von Neuman, did a great deal of work on an axomiatic theory of quantum mechanics. Physical laws are less precise statements of some of the axioms in physical theories.
It is also worth mentioning that in physical theories, there are three types of axioms: mathematical axoims, axioms of correspondence, and physical axioms. The mathematical axioms only describe the kinds of mathematics used in a physical theory, for example that certain quantities are vectors, fields, or vector operators. The axioms of correspondence relate quantities in the theory to physical concepts, for example that the quantity p corresponds to momentum in classical dynamics. The physical axioms generally contain the equations and related concept that make up physical laws.
We generally do not say that a theory is proven or disproven. We can say that a theorem is proven or disproven by deduction from the axioms; but theories are either faithful or unfaithful to observed experimental facts. Hence electromagnetic theory has been very faitful to measured electromagnetic phenomenae.
It might also be useful to talk about the nature of change of physical theories. Goedel's theorem requires that no theory can ever be completely faithful to all of the facts. Sooner or later a fact must be observed that causes the theory to be unfaithful. But the theory remains faithful for all of the previously observed facts except for the newly discovered fact. The next theory used to consistently explain all the previously observed facts including the new fact will largely make the same predictions as the older less faithful theory. This is true whether the new theory is radically different in structure from the old theory (a revolutionary paradigm shift) or is largely the same as the older theory (a (micro)evolutionary change). In order to demonstrate the faitfulness of the new theory a new prediction is usually found in the new theory and a critical experiment is done that confirms the new prediction. User:f3meyer 2005-08-07 5:45 UTC

contrast with "hypothesis"

Cut from text:

(In contrast, a hypothesis is a statement which has not been tested yet).

I don't think this is true, and I don't think anyone believes it either. An untested hypothesis might be more interesting, since it simply reeks of explanatory potential. But tested hypotheseses don't stop being hypotheses just because you've started to test them, or even if you and everyone else are satisfied that it's now a confirmed hypothesis. Uncle Ed 16:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)


It seems to me that there is a substantial confusion in terminology throughout this discussion.

I would suggest that a Theory is a statement which attempts to explain the relationship betweet a set of variables, i.e., to explain the relationships between certain observed events. In mathematical terms it is: Dependent Variable = ƒ(Independent Variable); in language terms it is: The measured event is some function (is related to) of the manipulated event.

A theory makes no specific prediction, it is purely a post hoc statement. It is only predictive in that the assumed relationship can be tested under new and different conditions. An Hypothesis, on the other hand, is a specific prediction derived from the Theory. Fundamentally, it asks "if the independent variable takes on such and such a value, will the dependent variable occur as the Theory is stated. The Hypothesis is the mechanism, if you will, of falsifiability. An hypothesis sets up a test of the Theory over a specified range of values.

It is for that reason that Popper talks about the lack of symmetry in disproving theories while being unable to ever "prove" theories.

If the results of the test of an Hypothesis do not confirm the accuracy of the Theory the theory will either be discarded or modified to incorporate the test results.

In this context it seems silly to debate whether Evolution is a theory or not. It meets the definition of a theory and tests of the theory can be derived.

Ken Wildman 03:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

restructure

Hello, I would like to restructure this article and alter or rephrase some of the content. It seems very repetitive and convoluted. For example having “types” as a sub of science and then the necessity of “further explanation”. I’m not trying to be irritating and when shooting me down please recall that I brought this up in discussion rather than making a major edit. So civility is welcome.

p.s. where are the references for the current article?

How a scientific theory is developed

Cut from Science section:

Scientific theories are formulated, developed, and evaluated according to the scientific method.

I don't think that the development of scientific theories always (or even usually) follows the "scientific method". It's not 4-step process. Sometimes there's a flash of intuition, as when Kekule figured out the shape of the benzene ring. Sometimes scientists or other researchers have a pet idea which they push (even for decades), arguing about it incessantly. Sometimes an idea is overlooked for decades (see plate tectonics) only to be re-examined later.

And the history of medicine (is this a science?) contains clear examples of doctors refusing to even look at other doctors' pioneering work - let alone trying to replicate their results. The battle to establish the germ theory of disease is a well-known example. Uncle Ed 14:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Those are good examples of how a particular hypothesis may come to be formulated or the resistance the that revolutionary ideas may face. But I can't name one widely accepted scientific theory that hasn't evaluated according to the scientific method. The passage was overly broad, but the idea behind it was sound. Something to this effect should be made in the article is it isn't already. FeloniousMonk 17:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Right. My objection is only to the language which suggests that the scientific method guides "formulation and development" of theories. I'm also thinking of the contrast between the format of the typical scientific paper as published in a journal, and the real sequence of thoughts and events which led to the discovery (actual or claimed) of new knowledge.

As an engineer, I am interested in process and methodology. For example, I've made some corrections recently to refactoring, which along with automated unit tests forms an essential part of the way I develop software. My livelihood depends on getting accurate, reliable results. Uncle Ed 18:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

"Scientific theories are never proven to be true"

How can this be? Can someone add some detail?

Easy. You can demonstrate something to be not true (false) by finding an instance where it is false. Therefore being falsifiable (open to an inquiry that could provide evidence of it not being true) is an important quality that any theory should have. On the other hand, the very fact that a theory appears true on the surface, or true whenever we consider it, is no guarantee that there does not exist somewhere a case where it is false. We cannot really know until we have exhausted looking at all possible cases; and we probably cannot known when we have looked at all possible cases. In short, because a statement is true does not mean it is always and forever true, but finding it false at least means it is not always true (therefore subject to exceptions or just plain false). Since we are not really interested in accumulating false theories, one such demonstration that it is false sometimes means we have to discard or modify our theory. Keeping true theories is what we are interested in, but we must always be aware these could be found false as new information or new methods of inquiry are developed. Thus, we cannot "prove" them true, and would not be interested in trying to do so. However, the fact that we continue to find evidence that a theory fits our research expectations (remains true in a particular case), strengthens our confidence in the application of the theory without "proving" it true. Hope that helps? - Marshman 01:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The only branch of science that can ever proffer to be 'proven' is mathematocs: it is possible by using logic to prove that a rule must always be true, throughout the realm of numbers. These are generally based on the axioms of mathematics: certain (arbitrary) rules that are always true no matter what the eventuality. There are a number of methods by which a mathematical proof can be obtained. Ck lostsword 22:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Theories even in mathematics are not proven. A theorem of a theory can be proven deductively relative to the axioms of the theory. That is it. If you add an axiom or change an axiom, then you can prove different theorems true relative to the new axioms. An examples of this is the development of Reimannian geometry from Euclidian geometry. These two theories have different theorems. Is the distance between parallel lines constant or does it depend on the local metric?
Math is not the only field where axiomatic theories are created. Von Neumann put quantum mechanics on an axiomatic basis early in its history. This has been done for other physical theories as well.
--F3meyer 16:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Physical Laws" are a form of theory

"A theory is also different from a physical law in that the former is a model of reality whereas the latter is a statement of what has been observed" seems to me to contradict the reality of the normal use of the term "physical law". The normal use of the term "Physical laws" includes the Laws of classical mechanics, which although they have been observed to be approximately accurate in some contexts, are inaccurate at greater scales.

I don't see how the common use (as opposed to the specific use as in "structures of theories" above) of "physical law" is anything but a form of theory Nclean 11:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)nclean

I have to agree, the statement is confusing to me as well. It implies (or states) theories are just models and physical laws differ in having observations supporting them. That seems rediculous on the face of it. In the sense as used by scientists, physical laws are a class of theories; a greater mind than I possess may disagree, but I would want to see a more lucid argument - Marshman 17:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The "clarification" did not change the basic problem. I think that historically, physicists believed that their science was on such a strong observational foundation that their theories were "Laws". That changed in recent centuries, and "theoretical physics" is now a (usually) respected branch of physics; but there is (as a generalization) no difference between the "Laws of Physics" and Theory, or scientific law and scientific theory as descriptive terms. Specifically, each theory may be on a stronger or weaker foundation than another in comparison, but there is a continuum from weak theory through strong theory, and "Law" is just another synonymous term for theory (IMHO). - Marshman 19:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What you have stated is the probabalistic nature of science. It is an effort to move from "doubt" towards "certainty", though absolute certainty can never be achieved. At some point, the probability that the theory does in fact explain the phenomenon under investigation, becomes so close to 1.0 that we call it a "Law" or a Scientific Law, or a Law of Physics.

Generally speaking, most "good" theories fail at the extreme values when they do fail. Ken Wildman 03:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Types of theories

I made the word axiom into a link and changed the following sentence around. The original said,

A theory is also different from a physical law in that the former is a model of reality. Whereas the latter is an explanatory statement of what has been observed, explaining the why and how of the observed physical law.

That looked backwards to me. I took the liberty of changing the former and latter around so that the sentence read,

A theory is also different from a physical law in that the latter is a model of reality; whereas the former is an explanatory statement of what has been observed, explaining the why and how of the observed physical law. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 22:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro

The intro seemed to me to fall far short of the overview required in WP:LEAD, so I've inserted a brief explanation showing both the popular and scientific meanings, shamelessly cribbed from evolution. It would be good to have a brief summary of the mathematical meaning as well. ...dave souza, talk 18:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Subsection removed and placed here for further consideration

I have removed the following subsection of the section entitled "Science" and placed it here for further consideration as to content and placement...Kenosis 04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

===Further explanation of a scientific theory===
As noted above, in common usage a theory is defined as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory is not considered fact or infallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproved, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data.04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Theories start out with empirical observations such as "sometimes water turns into ice." At some point, there is a need or curiosity to find out why this is, which leads to a theoretical/scientific phase. In scientific theories, this then leads to research, in combination with auxiliary and other hypotheses (see scientific method), which may then eventually lead to a theory. Some scientific theories (such as the theory of gravity) are so widely accepted that they are often seen as laws. This, however, rests on a mistaken assumption of what theories and laws are. Theories and laws are not rungs in a ladder of truth, but different sets of data. A law is a general statement based on observations.04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
A canonical example of a disproved theory is the geocentric model of the universe proposed by Ptolemy. Evidence, in the form of Galileo's observation of the phases of Venus in 1610, was produced which was completely incompatible with the predictions set forth by the theory. This falsification, though, did not necessarily mean that only one alternative theory was necessarily the "correct" replacement — both the Copernican system and the Tychonic system predicted the phases of Venus.04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

A point of definition. You said "Theories and laws are not rungs in a ladder of truth, but different sets of data. A law is a general statement based on observations.04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)" I have to disagree. What you are calling a law is in fact a theory. A law is a theory that has been well tested to the point that it appears to be "true". As more hypotheses are derived from the theory and subjected to test, and support the the theory, we move closer to certainty that the theory is "correct". We never achieve certainty, but we can approach it -- that is when a theory starts being viewed as a law.

Suggested addition to the section "Mathematics"

I suggest that we add "string theory" to the list of mathematical theories. IANAST, (ST="string theorist") but I argue that if "field theory" is to be considered a mathematical theory, so should string theory.

FYI: this is my first comment on Wikipedia, and may well be my first edit of a page.--69.248.24.40 14:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone changed it all around...

Nowhere do we find the fact that a theory can never be proven to be true. This new article falsely suggests that theories can be proven to be true and become facts. This is not the case.

Someone change it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.202 (talk)

Re Your comment Nowhere do we find the fact that a theory can never be proven to be true. Now what is the status of the assertion a theory can never be proven to be true. Is that really a fact as you suggest?--CSTAR 15:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

--202.180.104.101 05:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it a fact that it says that? Seems to me it is only a theory, perhaps you misread the article or something. Given that, it would be inappropriate to change the article over a mere theory that it says a particular thing.WolfKeeper 15:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Contrast with Practice

It is surprising that there is no section concerning the contrast between theory and practice. This was at the heart of the classical usage, and this contrast has a big influence on how we now use the term theory in both casual and scientific contexts.--Andrew Lancaster 13:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

COMPLETELY FALSE definition of a THEORY in PHYSICS

In Physics, a theory is an physical hypothesis which has been experimentaly proven in at least several "respectful" research centers.

In physics, the hypothesis has to be based in a mathematical model.

The *hypothesis* in physics weighs is a lot more than the *assumption*.

In Physics, the hypothesis is a mathematicaly based assumption, where the math model makes an effort to solve a concrete problem of physical nature; It has to present clear experiments for it's proof.

I have been told by some credible psychologists that psychology considers any set of claims which will yield testable "hypothesis" (not what is an hypothesis in phsyics -- more like an assumption) to be a theory.

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

(Read it thoroughly! It is short and highly informative.)

I. The scientific method has four steps.

1. *Observation and description* of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

[Much *needed* explanation from me: And this means description of the *causes* of the phenomenon, not only description of the phenomenons perception.]

2. *Formulation* of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

[Me: And this means that the hypothesis will explain the phenomenons basis: its cause and effect relationship, not a formulation of a hypothesis about the *perceived behaviour* of the system.]

3. *Use* of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to *predict* quantitatively the results of new observations.

[Me: The hypothesis should be appliable to all areas where it has any sort of connection with any of its elements. And that means that a BPDs *cause od existence* must be hypothesized with relationship to depression *and* ADDs *cause of existence* to name an obvious example.]

4. Performance of *experimental tests* of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

[Me: Experimental proving of the hypothesis will make it a theory, at least in science. The psychological definition of a theory being a set of claims which are not to be proven but need only creation of hypotheses... Is not a scientific one]

--62.162.216.41 07:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Goran Arsov (chetiri4@yahoo.com)

In particular, the first sentence of the comments above couldn't be farther from the truth of the matter.
The description of scientific method offered above is a very reasonable one (absent the "me" responses attached), one of at least a dozen ways of categorizing the cycle of hypothesis and testing. It is, though, only one professor/teacher's way of explaining it to students. ... Kenosis 19:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

−--- Kenosis, you should first read the link that i offered, and then say if the "me" comments are not appropriate. It is clearly satted in the link that i offered that (paraphrasing):"it is not enough to describe a phenomenon, but to relate to it's causes and effect mechanisms".

And that link to The scientific method couldn't be more philosophical, and away from the clear method that i showed to you in the link.

You can come to www.myspace.com to the "Science and Clinical Psychology" group, where we discuss the sci. method and the "need" for falsification.

P.S. that first sentence is as near as truth as your opinion in the question is away from it, i am sorry to say.


Obviously there are some very different defintions floating through this section.

While I have the greatest respect for the unnamed physicist at U.Rochester, I think he has it backwards.

A theory is a explanatory statement of the relationships between observed variables. A hypothesis is a specific question DERIVED from a theory. The hypothesis leads to a specific test of one aspect of the theory. The silly example I often used with students was to note the casual observation that people wear more clothing when it is cold than when it is warm. I assume that there is some relationship between temperature and amount of clothing worn, this is the initial theory. If that theory is a good explanation of what I've casually observed then I can derive a specific, testable, hypothesis that at 30deg I will observe more clothing than at 60deg.

I do the experiment, actually testing the Null Hypothesis (for statistical analysis purposes) that there will be no difference in the amount of clothing at the two temperatures. I collect the data and plot the two data points, amount worn at 30deg and amount worn at 60deg. I observe that less clothing was worn at 60deg. The theory is looking good so I test it further.

If the theory is "correct" what amount of clothing should be worn at 45deg? Mathematically, the best guess would be based on a straight line drawn from one data point to the other. That's the theory. It can now be stated as a linear function. I conduct the systematic observation at 45 deg and find a) the new data point falls on the line or b) the new data point does not fall on the line. Case a) supports the theory, case b) disproves the theory.

Has the theory been "proven"? Of course not, we don't know what will happen at 53 degrees or at 71 degrees. The more we test the theory the firmer our confidence becomes.

But notice what was going on here. The Theory was the tentative explanation of the casual observation. One or more hypotheses were DERIVED from this theory and they were tested. The specific tests were in the form of testing the Null Hypothesis, they were not (as suggested by U.Rochester) tested in the form of Null-theories.

In his automotive example, before you test the battery you must have some theory about the relationship between the electrical system of the engine and the ignition of gasoline to move the piston. Having that theory allows you to DERIVE an hypothesis about the voltage being supplied by the battery, not the other way around. Ken Wildman 04:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Subsection "characteristics"

The content of this subsection has some problems. We can read:

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed.

This looks like the Popper doctrine but in philosophy of science we do not find consensus on this view.

The relevance, and specificity of those predictions determine how (potentially) useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory.

This seems to be an opinion and seems to suggest that "usefulness" is important while other people could think it is not, and say the most important characteristic is (for example) truth. The wording of the article seems to suggest a POV.

Predictions which are not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term theory is inapplicable.

Why is it inapplicable? --Pokipsy76 19:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

I've removed this newly placed paragraph for further analysis and reconsideration as to the value of the assertion(s) it makes. There are plenty of examples of simple theories, and also plenty of examples of more complex laws. As well, there is some confusion here between physics and the other natural sciences. ... Kenosis 04:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Physical laws are also distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens, in terms of the more fundamental laws. -- 04:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Facts v theories

Theory discusses the various usages of the word "theory", and seems to me to do a reasonably good job of it. To me it's better for such content to be in an article like theory than sprinkled about various other places. Friday (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so a section in Theory should distinguish between the usage of the words "fact" and "theory" with regard to the oft-repeated statement, "Evolution is a fact"? --Uncle Ed 19:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I dunno. Fact also goes into this a bit. I'm not sure I'd consider it useful to delve into such a specific thing in a general article on facts or theories. If readers know what a fact or theory is, I'd think they could come to their on conclusions about the meaning of a statement like "evolution is a fact". Friday (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
But the problem is that the quoted phrase uses the word fact in a confusing sense. Our Theory article states that a theory is a model of reality, one that explains certain scientific facts. So is ToE a "theory" which explains facts or a "fact" explained by a theory? Logically, it ought to be the former.
Remember, anti-evolutionists in general don't know much about science and reject out of hand any part of it which contradicts their faith (esp. the 45% of Americans who are young earth creationists). We need to use terminology that doesn't confuse or mislead them. --Uncle Ed 20:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I feel the statement "As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts." is not accurate. Facts and theories are quite different in my thinking. The standards for facts are immensely higher than they are for theories. In contrast to a fact, theories can be known to be wrong (inconsistent with a number of facts) but may represent the best understanding to date (and still be extremely useful). I would like to remove this statement, but, since this topic is under discussion, will wait for comments prior to making the edit. AikBkj 14:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


[[[Maybe the Germ Theory of Disease ought to have a link to and from this article.]]]

editing introduction - putting paragraph on scientific use before common use

I think the paragraph on the scientific meaning (which includes important points on prediction, testing, and explanatory strength) should come before the paragraph on common (colloquial) use. It seems to me an encyclopedia inherently offers a technical discussion of terms, and that technical discussions of technical terms should be given priority in cases such as this. I think it is important that the paragraph on colloquial use is in the introduction, I just think the scientific meaning should come first.

I would make the change myself, but I don't recognize the Wiktionary tag, don't know how it works, and don't want to screw it up...

Could somebody do this, please?

thanks,

America jones 16:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fashion reference deleted

I'm not sure why there was a reference to the fashion label "Theory," but I've deleted it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azymuthca (talk • contribs) 11:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Gravity

In this text:

  • For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

Why did we change the last word to "theory of relativity"? While the theory of relativity modifies the theory of gravity, I wouldn't think that relativity would have a mjor effect on apples dropped on earth. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no single "theory of gravity", the theory before relativity was Newton's law of universal gravitation. Theory of relativity is itself also a theory of gravity.Edwardwittenstein 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Cross posted at General Relativity:
Hi, I watch the article on Theory just to keep tabs on it, and while I have a science background, physics is not a subject I have authoritative knowledge. A little while back there was some change to this sentence:

"For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and a theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the general theory of relativity."

which is in the lead section. This sentence has had a bit of a problem on the exact wording to use (I have made a change or two: one diff here). So I guess I have two questions: (1) seems like this part, '. . .planet, and a theory which. . ." should instead be: ". . .planet, and the theory which. . ." and (2) should the General relativity link be piped to the article Gravitation. I know in general this is discouraged, but current ideas about gravitation are generally described in terms of GR, while there really isn't (technically speaking) a current theory with the name "theory of gravity" which I think is why the confusion began. This will also be posted on the talk page at Talk:Theory. R. Baley 22:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

See [2]. DVdm 11:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of section from Differences between theory and model

I removed this section from Differences between theory and model:

General models and theories, according to philosopher Stephen Pepper (1948) - who also distinguishes between theories and models - are predicated on a "root" metaphor which constrains how scientists theorize and model a phenomenon and thus arrive at testable hypotheses.

Before putting it back into the article, I'd like it to be comprehensible, which I don't think it is in this format. Primarily, what is this "root" metaphor? An explanation should not only say that it contains e.g. "how scientists theorize and model a phenomenon", which could be attributed to almost anything in science.Mikael Häggström 18:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

So I have this theory. Its that the book of James in the New Testament was written while Jesus was still alive. It cannot be absolutely refuted, but so far it has been absolutely rejected. It has merit but no credit. It has substance but no resonance. The variable? Popular Opinion. rem486

That's a hypothesis or conjecture; a pretty poor one at that.--THobern 18:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)

Type Theory?

Type theory is listed as a notable theory of philosophy, but the Type theory article is about mathematics, logic, and computer science. Are we using the term 'philosophy' in its broadest sense, or is this just a mistake? Is there something called "type theory" in philosophy that is different from the mathematical type theory? -- Lilwik 05:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Careful On The Reverts Please

I have made two edits recently which were reverted. The first one was understandable in that the edit I made was arguably major and I marked it as minor (which was my estimation) and without an edit summary. I plan to be more careful about that issue. The second revert, however, which was an elimination of a pejorative judgement (the word misguided) on the common usage of the term "theory" was well explained but, still reverted. AikBkj 16:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. In this context (the common one) the usage of "misguided" is inappropriate. It would be appropriate in the scientific context, but not in this one. DVdm 16:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
In these kinds of cases, the best suggestion is to build a case here on the talk page for your intended changes and try to get consensus. Once you get some people to agree with you, it is far easier to make substantial changes and make them stick. --Filll 16:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, there should be some burden on those that would revert edits to at least read the #$%^&* paragragh. In other words, if your suggesting that I need to build consensus on the statement " a hypothesis is not a fact" , I disagree. So much for be bold, lol. AikBkj 16:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that Filll means that, whenever you find your edits reverted by more than one contributor, you must de-facto try to build a consensus over the content of the article, regardless of the actual objective correctness of what you have in mind. If you bluntly revert without such consensus, you could quickly find a 3RR warning fired at you - and those can hurt :-) DVdm 16:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


I have been around here about a year as a registered editor, and several years as a user. I have more than 20 thousand edits to my credit and I have created over 1000 articles. So I understand your frustration. However, when editing a semi-controversial article like this, one has to be careful.

Why is this article controversial? Because of its relation to the evolution as theory and fact part of the creationism and intelligent design debates. So it is watched more carefully and changes are viewed far more skeptically, especially from someone new, even if they are good contributions, unfortunately.

People can just shoot from the hip when trying to defend an article that gets attacked a lot. This article does not get attacked a ton, but enough to need special handling, apparently. So please do not let frustration get to you.

I think I agree with your reasoning, but we have to move slowly and deliberately on heavily trafficked and heavily watched articles like this one to make changes. It is sometimes easier to work on less controversial articles at first, and then with some skills tackle the more difficult articles. I know that seems sort of silly, but that is how this system works. Sorry!--Filll 17:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see your points and the need for consensus. The unfortunate thing is that the mindset and biases of the those that started the articles are difficult to change and improve once they have become entrenched. For example, those that started this article believe that fact and theory are interchangeable concepts and that theory magically relates to truth or reality. This level of understanding is permeated throughout the article and really needs "adjusting". I will say, those of us who develop theories are astonished, but grateful, that we are held in such high regard. AikBkj 17:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your views and the need to clean up this article. I made some early stabs at it, but I have not worked on it for months. It should be attempted, but it will take determination of a couple of diligent editors over an extended period, I fear. I would be glad to help, but one has to have patience in these matters. You would not believe the attitudes and beliefs I have encountered on WP about these kinds of things.--Filll 19:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Filll. I have looked around at some of the articles that you mentioned above. What an eye opener. I will stick to more worthwhile endeavors such as contributing to low controversy articles. The high controversy articles are not even worth reading, let alone trying to improve. What a sad situation! My suggestion to you is to not waste your time with it, and just let people know what they are getting on the high controversy articles – mainly nonsense. Let the ideologues have them. P.S. To any ideologue who is upset with my edit – removing “misguided” from the Intro., please feel free to reinsert it. AikBkj 00:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Theory

It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.

Now in psychology there are a number of theories that are in opposition to each other. And in Econ.

To me a theory is a model to predict and allows testing but not necessarily a fact. There are many theories as to mental illinesses and even physical illnesses. Now there are 'validated' theories. But we can have a number of theories predicting different things at the same time. Take for instance Keynesian economics. So I think this should be explained in the article. Massachew —Preceding comment was added at 14:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of instances in the article where the POV pushed is "theory and fact are interchangeable concepts". One of my favorites as mentioned in section 22 of this talk is "As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts". As a scientist, I din't realize I was infallibel untills I read this artikle :) Of course, it could be that only those that "believe" (hallelujah) that "theory and fact are interchangeable concepts" are infallible. If I'm wrong and fact and theory are one in the same thing, I apologize in advance for my POV pushing.AikBkj 17:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree. To me a theory can be complete unsubstantiated or heavily substantiated. Now at one time Einsten's theory of relativity had not substatiation till the Morley experiment, correct? Freud's theories in parts have been disproven. And Reich's. Do you see my point? I think the word theory has a range of acceptable meanings. Massachew 14:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been bold and removed the obviously inappropriate link to category theory, which has been in this article since April 2005.

As a model theorist I am also curious why there is a "See also" link to model theory and not to, say, algebraic geometry. Is it just the superficial similarities and the fact that the words "model" and "theory" feature prominently in the Theory article? A similar question seems to apply to proof theory. I alwys feel somewhat handicapped when dealing with philosophy-related things, but it seems to me that if the point here is something fuzzy like "theories have something to do with logic, things can be proved, and theories can be models", then a link to mathematical logic (which includes model theory and proof theory) would be more appropriate but still a bit strange, and a link to logic might actually make a bit of sense (perhaps even a lot, I just don't know). --Hans Adler (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

To make that clear, I am only referring to the "See also" section. The section on mathematics seems to be sound. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Terminology...Evolution is a "Law", not a "Theory"

Should evolution be publicly described as a "Scientific Law" or a "Scientific Theory"? I think that both are accurate, but "Scientific Law" would be understood by the general population as a way of communicating what is actually meant by the level of confidence that the current scientific understanding of Evolution is. This is based on an article I read in wired magazine. The link is as follows: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-11/st_thompson -Alex.rosenheim 13:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theory/Archive_1&oldid=1137247876"