Talk:Theory/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"unverifiable theories"

I removed this section, which read:

Currently unverifiable theories

The term theory is regularly stretched to refer to speculation that is currently unverifiable. Examples are string theory and various theories of everything. In the strict sense, the term theory should only be used when describing a model derived from experimental evidence and is provable (or disprovable). It is considered sufficient for the model to be in principle testable at some undetermined point in the future.

This is wrong for many reasons:

1. just about every new theory is not verified when it is proposed (and cannot be with the evidence available at that moment) - how could it be, if it's something really new? So when it's first proposed it's always "currently unverifiable".

2. string theory is not really one theory - it's a collection of theories - and some of those are verifiable as soon as the particle accelerator the Large Hadron Collider starts up, which will be soon (would be now if it wasn't for an engineering problem), and some others are verifiable using cosmological data right now. That's about as currently verifiable as you can get. Same goes for some other TOES.

3. the claim is that "currently verifiable" is the accepted definition of scientific theory, but that's just not the case. The Popperian definition of scientific theory, which is probably the best one, is NOT that at theory be verifiable, it's that a theory be falsifiable. All versions of string theory could be falsified tomorrow, in quite a few different ways (e.g. by observing violations of fundamental Lorentz invariance, violations of general relativity, etc.). Same goes for any TOE that's sufficiently fleshed out.

4. no theory can every be truly "verified" - one can have very high confidence in it, but it can never be proven. In fact if any theory was every truly proven it would no longer be falsifiable, and hence not science.

If someone wants to resurrect that section, it should be done using an accepted definition (such as Popper's), and with references.

Accepted by whom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.153.165 (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Something published somewhere would be a start. Then if there's an extant debate it can be mentioned, linked to, maybe discussed, etc. Making up definitions, applying them to something, and presenting the results as facts on wiki is not acceptable.Waleswatcher (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about string theory being perfectly verifiable (in principle), but the notion of verifiability should not be so lax that it only requires Lorentz invariance, unitarity, and General Relativity. Measuring violations of these properties would falsify string theory, but it's not a prediction specific to the theory: any quantum theory of gravity will reproduce those predictions. More specific predictions are needed, unless you can give strong arguments that string theory is the only consistent theory of quantum gravity.Likebox (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

History of the word...Thoeory

Just in passing I found this old spelling for Theory, "5. Thoeory of arches and pontypridd;..." in www.amazon.ca. The pamphlet was written c.1750. I didn't want to add it to the article unless it truly added to the article. Seth Whales (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Evolution

Why is evolution listed as a theory? Isn't it considered a fact? (viz., this) --BiT (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

All of science is theories, dear. Hairhorn (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Theory and Law - Contradiction in the article?

Under 'Usage', the article states: In casual speech scientists don't use the term theory in a particularly precise fashion, allowing historical accidents to determine whether a given body of scientific work is called a theory, law, principle or something else. For instance Einstein's relativity is usually called "the theory of relativity" while Newton's theory of gravity often is called "the law of gravity."

However the final paragraph of the article asserts: Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[9] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.

Either the difference between a theory of science and a law of science is an arbitrary historical accident based on scientists' preferred use of language at the time, or it is not. This article says it both ways, quite baldly, without using the references that assert one position to balance the references that assert the other. The final paragraph also seems to be hanging there out of context - is there an argument for combining the final paragraph with the 'usage' section to compare and contrast, in a more useful way, different approaches to the understanding of the difference (or lack of it) between a 'theory' and a 'law'? Riversider (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

it's an arbitrary historical accident. the word 'Law' is just a hold-over from 18th century thought, when scientists thought that theory actually and accurately reflected the natural world (natural law, as opposed to divine law: the two were treated as much the same kind of absolute). no one really uses the term 'law' anymore, except out of habit (sometimes people will refer to 'Newton's Laws' but they've mostly gotten around now to calling his law of gravity a theory of gravity). the modern understanding of science makes a sharp distinction between 'the way the world actually works' and 'the way that science represents the world', and no modern scientist is going to claim that his model of the world actually captures the entirety of the what he's trying to model. well, except for economists... I think you can probably rewrite that, since I can't imagine anyone could ever find a decent source that says it (the two refs given in that section point to another wikipedia page, and what looks like a skeptics web blog).

Requested Move - Does this article need to be renamed?

My other (much more fundamental) problem with this article is that it has been hi-jacked by the task of defining 'Theory' in terms of science. It would more properly be named 'Theory in Science' as the word 'theory' is used in many other ways, and many other contexts - there are multiple 'Theories' out there, but only a small percentage fit the definition of a 'scientific theory'. For the whole article to concern itself with this small percentage of theories, without overtly confining it's title to these specific theories is actually a form of 'linguistic imperialism', and gives a distorted picture of the meaning and usage of the concept of 'Theory' in environments wider than the scientific community, many of which should justifiably be included in an encyclopedia aiming to document the 'sum of human knowledge'. Really there needs to be several articles, which also need to be added to the disambiguation page: Theory in Science (will psychological theories fit in here?), Political Theory, Philosophical theory (and Praxis (process) how theory is related to practice), Theology (theories about God), the Theories which attach themselves to particular socially constructed practises, such as Nursing theory and awkward little theories like aesthetics (art theory) etc. There's even a case for Driving Theory - thousands of people do the Theory test in this every week. As the article stands, it in no way provides an explanation of 'theory' big enough to encompass all these various fields of theory, which I might justifiably expect to find in an article with such a mind-blowingly broad title as 'Theory'. It will make editor's job easier, and make the article much more precise and useful, if we confine it to 'Theory in Science', and use the disambiguation page to direct people to other species of Theory. Riversider (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per recent changes by GregbardSupport For one, the role and meaning of theory in science is such a notable and encyclopedic topic that it deserves a separate article in my opinion. See Brittanica, for example. Or evolution as a theory and fact. For two, the discussion of scientific theory really overtakes this article and the article would flow better with a summary style and a more balanced perspective of what theory means in various contexts. Some more opinions on the name would be good. I like "theory in science" but we also have a scientific theory article which redirects here, and probably fits more with our naming conventions. I do like the broader and more philosophical implications of "theory in science" though. Phil153 (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support The article defines too much and only proceeds to muddy the issue. Theory should not be as ambiguous as it is presented in the article. The sub-definitions only lead to confusion.--Buster7 (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Semi support capitalization of "Science"? Shouldn't that be theory in science? 76.66.193.90 (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Recommend moving to Scientific theory, which is a commonly used term. On the other hand, all other types of theory get their reason for existence from scientific theory, so I have no objection if it is kept at Theory. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support move to Scientific theory, but not Theory in science, as that sounds kind of strange and I haven't heard it used that I can think of. –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per recent changes by Gregbard (talk · contribs). –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. In an encyclopedia, the primary topic for "theory" is, or should be, "scientific theory" (the most common name for which is just "theory"). I would redirect Scientific theory and Theory in science to this article at Theory, and have a dab page for other uses at Theory (disambiguation). A hat note at the top of this article would say, "Scientific theory redirects here; for other uses see Theory (disambiguation)". --Born2cycle (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
• Science acts as a disambguation here - "Theory (science)" is a possibility, as is "scientific theory" (if a move is needed at all) - but "Theory in science" is am awkward non-starter. Knepflerle (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose -- the concept is the same thing, and also the same as a mathematical theory. This is a disintegration, which I oppose. I don't think we need to portray this concept as several different things, or pretty soon the religious nuts will jump on with their own version too. If anything we should be re-incorporating the content from Theory (mathematical logic) back into this article. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose (mildly) - seems kind of a like POV-fork. why don't we just expand this article to include the other material and reduce the scientific bias? --Ludwigs2 05:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I have reformulated the whole article so as to make it more general. I think I have sufficiently expanded its scope so as to remove all justification for any move or renaming. Please reconsider in light of the new formulation. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Looks really good, no need to move now. Phil153 (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment I have deleted the Requested Move, There is now no consensus for the move I suggested, particularly after Gregbard's rewrite. The re-written article is a vast improvement on the version I was critical of, and gives the reader a much more satisfactory grounding in the subject of 'theory'. Some good thinking and hard work has happened here. My opinion as the originator of the Request to Rename, is that such a move is no longer neccessary given the excellent revision of the article we now have. Pontiff GregBard deserves a Barnstar. The only fly in the ointment is the need for a few more citations for the current version, I'm sure these will be soon forthcoming.Riversider (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Post-move proposal edits

Thank you so much for all the recognition. I'm just glad I didn't get anybody mad at me. Say listen .... At least some of the language I inserted was particularly worded so as to clarify certain points which are now lost to subsequent edits. I think at some point I'm going to have to go over it again, but I'd like to see the direction it takes for a little while before I do. Someone should at least put all the lead paragraph links back. Be well all, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The beauty of your version was that it approached the same problem I'd identified, but with a totally different, and much better solution than I had put forward. I'm delighted when such things happen as it proves the value of an open wiki. Riversider (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I take my cues from this thing: Wikipedia:WikiProject Integration. I recommend it to anyone. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Update - the contents have been moved to Wikipedia:Integrate. SilkTork *^YES! 17:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

formally and generally section

I'm feeling the urge to redo this section from scratch. what's there now (while true enough) is absorbed in a formal/mathematical perspective that's really hard to expand or generalize. does anyone have an objection to me doing this? --Ludwigs2 21:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

My thought was that these are the most general things we can say about theories, and that is a good thing. So, I would object on that ground. There is one point of view that says we "formalize" a theory that we have in mind when we write it in formal/mathematical language; and there is another perspective which says that when we form theories we should keep in mind this formalized notion and fit it to that. I think that in an encyclopedia article about "theory" we should give people the template from which to construct good theories (my goodness people need as much help as possible in this regard out there --some crazy theories out there).

I'm not really happy with the rewording from my original, so that may be what you are wanting to address. "semantic thrust?" that's pretty awful.

Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

yeah, tell me. I'm not proud of that phrase myself.

that being said, though, formal theories are only a small fragment of the kinds of theories around, and hardly the most general form. in fact, formal theories were first used in logic as simplifications: attempts to remove semantic ambiguities so that the 'pure form' of the argument could be seen. but the goal wasn't to pursue formal theories in their own right, but to give clarity to meaningful arguments in real discourse. the only place formal theories really thrive is in pure maths; even logic has largely given them up as exercises. --Ludwigs2 04:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you were missing the point of my earlier statement. Every theory takes the form: T:{theorem₁, theorem₂, ... , theorem_n} and therefore this is the most general form. I think I have let the immediate work-over sit for long enough with an open mind. If I do a rewrite, could we let it sit for a while perhaps. I put a whole bunch of content including links in there that were deleted. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

no, I wasn't missing your point. every formal theory takes the form T:{theorem₁, theorem₂, ... , theorem_n}; but this is a structure imposed ex post facto, not a defining characteristic of theories. note that if you think about it analytically, there are an infinite number of theorems that can be derived from any given theory in the real world; which renders this formulation essentially useless for anything except talking about theories in general. it's a 'theory about theories', if you will.

in the real world, theories are statements about proposed truths, and theorems are derived from them at need for the purposes of testing or applying the theory; theories can and do stand perfectly well without any theorems at all (though that's unlikely to satisfy a scientist). --Ludwigs2 19:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

---

SPECIAL NOTE: Since there is considerable variation in the way the term "theory" is used across academic disciplines, the entry in Wikipedia should not attempt to take sides in academic disputes over formal usage, much less endorse only one usage to the exclusion of the others. The point should be to guide those who come to the site (typically with a fundamental lack of understanding of how the term is used). The first obligation is to let such persons know that the term "theory" is used in more than one way.

Nonetheless, since the term is most commonly used in the scientific or empirical sense, I have seen fit to leave the scientific definition very near the beginning of the main article, with directions as to how to find the other usages of the term in the "formally and generally" section. As one whose first academic discipline was chemistry, but who then moved into political science and finally into political philosophy (often called "political theory") and philosophy proper (and even into linguistics), I have been particularly attentive to how the term is now used across a wide variety of fields.

I think that we do well to realize that the point of an encyclopedia is not to say how a term should be used, but simply to point out the various (and sometimes competing) ways that it is in fact used.Landrumkelly (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Theory and Practice

Theory, in the Greek sense, is what practice is not. This much is clear from the opening prose section of Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy, in which, while musing on his misfortunes, he has a vision of a woman wearing an extremely finely woven garment, at the bottom of which is an embroidered Greek letter 'pi' (for Praxis) and at the top of which is the letter 'theta' (for Theoria). Pamour (talk) 10:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this article is fundamentally missing the main point of the term, and indeed the OR proposal that theory has two different meanings is untenable if there were any discussion of where both come from. Presently Theory and Practice is an article about a journal on Wikipedia. It should be a disambiguation page at the very least.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Theory / Hypothesis

I think it would be a good idea to have a Theory vs Hypothesis headline, briefly mentioning in very simplistic language that the way most people use the word "theory" in every day life is really a "hypothesis". This seems especially important since many thing the "theory of evolution" is nothing but a set of random ideas, yet to be proven to be "more than a theory". While it IS a theory, it's not one that's likely to be disputed in the near future (or at all). --Leord (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)