What is a Theory?

Hi, Erik.I apologize for my apparently erroneous usage of the term "philosophy": rookie mistake.I need one more clarification before I can proceed with my argument: I said (paraphrasing), ”the theory need not explain heredity in order to be true,” and you said, “in order to be false.’ Was this just a typo, or was it a misreading, or are you talking about something entirely different from what I was talking about?

---

I'm Bluejay.Darwin loves you.

So religion for someone living prior to the birth of Christ (I am taking a leap here in assuming your religion is bible based, correct me if I'm wrong) was believing in a false theory?? i.e. Abraham?? This statement is a philosophical statement. It simply means that someone making it subscribes to the idea that truth only should be accepted that fits within the confines of the scientific method.Religion is not based on the scientific method. The scientific method is of relatively recent date, therefore it was not the foundation of religion. You are confusing science with meta-physics. Science applies mathematical models to the 'real world', whatever 'that' is. Of course it can never answer what reality 'is'. But it can describe it as accurately as necessary for practical purposes. The way you are applying this concept is incorrect. Let me demonstrate a proof by contradiction.By your reasoning the christian religion is true.But by this same reasoning Islam is true.Islam and Christianity cannot both be true.Therefore your method of 'proof' is incorrect.Does the question: "If these things happen in a green tree, what shall happen in a dry?" mean anything to you?If scientific theories are false because there is always more evidence that hasn't yet been observed, what does that say about religion??

I'd like to point out that this whole topic is philosophy. I'd also like to point out that science is the practical pursuit of knowledge about the natural world. Philosophy is the study of knowledge and so science and philosophy necessarily meet - even if scientists don't realise they are being philosophers, there is an enormous and necessary amount of it in science. Naturally there is a giant amount of philosophy that is little or nothing to do with science whatsoever, but this fact shouldn't be used to distract us from the idea that that within science there is plenty of philosophy to be getting to grips with.When is a explanatory framework secure enough to be considered 'good science'? Does a theory have to be falsifiable in practice or only in principle? (Certain theories in physics might be unfalsifiable in practice since to try would require infinite energy or a device larger than the universe or some such thing, but the are certainly falsifiable in principle) and what about theories that cannot be falsified today, but it is feasible that one day we will have the technology or the means to falsify them?How much induction is too much induction? Bertrand Russell sopke to this old problem, "the general principles of science . . . are believed because mankind have found innumerable instances of their truth and no instances of their falsehood. But this affords no evidence for their truth in the future, unless the inductive principle is assumed.". Is a theory an actual approximation of truth or just a pragmatic model? How closely should we stick to parsimony? When our observations contradict a theory, when do we assume our observations (or scientific instruments etc) are faulty and when do we throw the theory out?As Dan Dennett once argued:

quote:

---

There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.

---

The general answer, incidentally, to most of the philosophical questions posed above is 'leave it up to the collective judgement of scientists'. Still, taking these kinds of issues for granted is exactly the kind of thing that leads to intellectual stagnation.Is "There are a nine planets in the solar system" a theory or not? One could say that this fact, combined with the laws of motion and gravity explain some of what we see in the night sky, and it is falsifiable (just like when the theory was "There are seven planets..." and we'll leave aside definitional issues like with Pluto) - but then it is hardly the kind of general theory that Relativity or the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution or what have you.There were some good posts early on that covered a lot of what I was going to say so I'll draw to a close here. The important thing is that what a theory is dependant on context, and not just whether it is scientific or not. Still, even straight forward simplifications of these issues is difficult enough to hammer into the brain (or gently slide depending on preference) of the typical evolution denying poster around here. It would be a travesty if every time someone turned up with some definitely wrong idea of what the word theory means in the context it is being used we had to devolve into complex philosophical and linguistic discussions (though the occasional thread is good fun and educational for all, of course).

quote:

---

But then again, the underlying (but unproven) assumption is that an infinitely falsifiable theory, such as "Water boils at 100 C", must be false, even if we have not made the falsifying observation as yet.

---

No. By your definition it is NOT false until the falsifying observation is made. And by the normal definitions a true theory would be "infinitely falsifiable" and thus our argument is still wrong whether we use your rigged definitions or not. (And nobody with any sense would use your rigged definitions since thier only purpose is to deceive).

quote:

---

Popper implies that a falsifiable theory will eventually be falsified.

---

Popper implies no such thing.The idea behind falsifiability is that there is potentially some observation that would render the theory false. It doesn't mean that it will necessarily be rendered false, simply that it has the potential to.

quote:

---

I concede the point, however, that the statement that every falsifiable theory will eventually be falsified, is remains unproven. It requires proving that every collection of future observations for a theory, must contain at least one observation that will contradict the theory. It is not trivial to prove this.

---

Demonstrating that a theory is falsifiable doesn't require proof that there will be a future observation that will contradict the theory. Instead, it simply requires hypothesizing an observation that, if made, would contradict the theory. (In fact, of course, it's considerably more complicated than this because, among other things, of the problem with naive falsificationism. However, for purposes of this thread, my statement of the point is sufficient.)You seem to be conflating falsification with the idea that a scientific theory is nothing more than as close a guess as we can make right now based on available evidence which will inevitably be refined, or completely junked, based on future discoveries. While I believe the two ideas are accurate, they are completely different concepts in science, and conflating them as you do ultimately results in nonsense, as you have produced.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

And what exactly is the axiomatic reduction of, say, the germ theory? Or the theory of evolution? There is, of course no such reduction, no mathematical proof. What I told you is perfectly correct. Scientific theories cannot be proved in the same sense that mathematical theories are proved.This difference is also the reason why your misappropriation of Incompleteness is so wrong. Science attempts to describe reality, and reality is not based upon axioms.

quote:

---

For example, "the sum of all angles in a triangle is 180 degrees" is infinitely falsifiable and therefore presumably false.

---

This is the point where you completely disappear up your own arse.

quote:

---

Nobody has managed to prove it, however.

---

That's because nobody's willing to climb in there after you.You have descended into a world of self-indulgent solipsism. How dreary. Does this form of evangelism usually win many converts? Or are you simply some species of troll, trying to make theists look silly? If the latter, I'd say you're doing a pretty good job.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Now I get it! Murphy's Law has become Murphy's Theory: "If a theory can be proven wrong, it will be."Seriously, Erik, science does not deal with different magnitudes of falsifiability. Either a theory is falsifiable or it isn't. If it is, power to the theory. If it isn't, it's not considered even to be a theory.For scientists, unfalsifiability is a bad thing. For you, it is the holy grail, it seems. When you have finally arrived at an unfalsifiable theory, you yell triumphantly: Ha! My theory is unfalsifiable, it can never be proven wrong. Therefore it must be true.This thread could do with two consecutive days of Rrhain.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Yesterday, I kidnapped erikp and he confessed to me that everything that he has said on this thread is false before I plugged him into my secret memory altering machine that implanted a completely different set of memories and erased all memory of him coming over for the day. I then spoke to the Illuminati who forged various bits of evidence that would suggest to erikp that he had the day he thinks he had, and the World Government agreed to erase all records of the travel arrangements we had to make. Fortunately everyone else but erikp is in on it and they made sure to maintain the masquerade.I'm fairly sure my theory is unfalsifiable, which makes it true, which makes erikp's statements all false which means that... I was thinking of a Memory Hole. If erikp can't see the problems with his position now, I don't think five years of Rrhain will change that. The surreal and self contradictory world erikp lives in in which the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Russell's Celestial Teapot, Allah, Domovoi, the Illuminati, and the Christ-God are all true, but "It's raining outside my window in Manchester" is false was fascinating for a while - but I don't think it is possible to reason with such unreason.

Your use of the term “theory” seems to be such that most any tidbit of information could fall under being a “theory”. Now this statement is pretty thin on any qualifying details. But as stated it is NOT a theory, it is a fact. Likewise, “Water boils at 90 C” and “Water boils at 110 C” are also facts. Of course, the qualifying details are respectively “at standard atmospheric pressure”, “at some pressure less than standard atmospheric pressure”, and “at some pressure greater than standard atmospheric pressure”.The 100 C thing could actually be turned around into “100 C is the temperature that water boils at, at standard atmospheric pressure”. In defining the Celsius temperature scale, that boiling temperature of water DEFINES 100 C.Now, there is also the theory of the boiling point of water. But that is the explanation of why water boils and why it might boil at different temperature. Not my realm, but I suspect the big item is the intermolecular attraction between water molecules.As an aside, I’ve just realized that at , having a member name between “M” and “P” is a good qualification for being an administrator. In the forums history there has been a total of 34 administrators. M-P accounts for 12 of them, including all 3 of the currently active administrators. A-L and Q-Z accounts for 22 of them. That is, 17% of the letters yielded 35% of the administrators.So, the facts support the theory that the best admins have member names starting with M, N, O, or P.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

​

"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for ” but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

hello again ericp. According to your argument this theory must be considered false. Problems are (1) that this was not a theory but a definition of a scale to measure temperature, and (2) the original definition included 1 atmospheric pressure.Celsius - Wikipedia

quote:

---

From 1744 until 1954, 0 C on the Celsius scale was defined as the freezing point of water and 100 C was defined as the boiling point of water under a pressure of one standard atmosphere; this close equivalency is taught in schools today.

---

Curiously, using that definition it is an absolute fact that water boils at 100° and one standard atmosphere, because when you have one standard atmosphere and boiling water you have - by definition - 100°.

quote:

---

However, the unit degree Celsius and the Celsius scale are currently, by international agreement,(1) defined by two different points: absolute zero, and the triple point of VSMOW (specially prepared water). This definition also precisely relates the Celsius scale to the Kelvin scale, which is the SI base unit of temperature (symbol: K).

---

Note that the definition has been changed, this doesn't mean that the original definition was wrong or false, just that they decided to change the definition.You can find out what the "triple point" is here - but in essence it is a point that combines the effect of pressure into the equation. Thus this new definition also includes pressure in the definition (just a different one than the original).Likewise the water used in the definition has been changed to "VSMOW" which means "Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water" ("an isotopic water standard defined in 1968 by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Despite the somewhat misleading phrase "ocean water", VSMOW refers to pure water (H2O) and does not include any salt or other substances usually found in seawater"). So they redefined what they mean by "water" as well as what pressure is used. No, because the definition is true by definition. We may change the definition, but that does not affect the validity of the previous definition. Changing the definition doesn't mean that the behavior of water changes or that the temperature cannot be accurately measured by either scale, rather it means that there is a conversion formula from one definition to the other, as there is for converting Fahrenheit to Celsius. Curiously, your opinion has no effect on the behavior of boiling water or any other observable phenomenon, and things will go on behaving as they always have. Plus your inability to see the errors in your logic shows that your opinion is worth less now than it was previously (and it was pretty worthless before). Once again you have made the "all A is B" logical error:Unproven technically means "we don't absolutely know for sure".There are many things you don't know that are true, and many things you don't know that are false, and when something is false, it has been proven to be false (like your argument).Do you know the difference between approximation and absolute accuracy? Would you claim that any approximation is not good enough? That because it is not 100% accurate that it is absolutely wrong?I hope you don't drive over any bridges, as they are all designed by methods that approximate the characteristics of ideal beams with factors of safety thrown in to take care of unknown impurities and unknown stresses due to loading that does not conform to the original assumptions of the design.According to your position all these calculations are absolutely wrong, so the bridges must all fall down (whether made by Jack London or not).Obviously this does not happen, so there must be something missing from your argument ... possibly logic.All theories are practical approximations, not quite the truth but increasingly closer to it. We keep trying to refine the approximation in order to get closer to reality, however like the search for the actual value of π, this doesn't mean that calculations made using only the approximate value of 3.14159 will result in total failure of a design.Nor does it mean that using 3.14159265358979323846 will necessarily result in a significant difference.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : π ala modeEdited by RAZD, : {Edited by RAZD, : redidEdited by RAZD, : significance

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

well ericp, this doesn't really help you: That statement bothers me too, because it is false logic. Anything that is not proven one way or the other means we don't know, not that it is false. So you have taken the false logic of the previous statement and applied it to your (poor) understanding of science. Strangely, that does not make the logic any better: it is still false logic.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Well ericp, you keep demonstrating what you don't know. Haven't talked to a mathematician have you?A triangle is a theoretical object on a theoretical surface, and that surface does not need to be a flat plane. A triangle superimposed on the globe with one vertex at the north pole, one at the Greenwich Meridian (zero degrees latitude by definition) and the last at either plus or minus 90° latitude (east or west) will have three vertices of 90%deg; and total 270°.What you have cited is true in a special condition of a theoretically perfectly flat plane.Curiously, the fact that no theoretically perfectly flat plane actually exists doesn't prevent us from making practical application of the equation in designing useful structures. They just need to be "close enough" to euclidean space that practical approximations can be useful.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I figured that is where you were coming from, and posted as such way back up one of these threads.You have not demonstrated that science according to itself is unproven and false. Science has been telling folks for centuries that it cannot, does not, and will not engage in "proof." Rather, science produces theories, which are the current best explanations for a particular set of facts. Those theories are not false no matter how many creationists or philosophers claim that they are--until there is evidence to show that they are in error somewhere. To counter those theories you need evidence, not fancy philosophical mumbo-jumbo.Second, science does not attack religion. What science does is evaluate claims against evidence. A religious believer may claim that there was a global flood about 4,350 years ago. Fine. Believe what you want, but when you make a claim such as that then science can apply its methods and evaluate that claim. And so far there is no convincing evidence of a global flood at that time period. Now that is not an attack against religion; that is a scientific evaluation of a specific claim. If you don't want your claims evaluated, don't couch them in terms of science, where all claims are subject to such evaluation.Finally, religion is not "unproven and true." Religion centers around beliefs. Those ultimately resolve back to "Trust me!" at some point in time, but that's your business. Burning bush? Talking snake? Believe what you want. You can consider it true, TRUE, or TRVE for all science cares. But that doesn't make it scientifically true, or even an accurate explanation, and if you claim that it is scientifically true expect your claim to be evaluated against the evidence.When creationists argue against the theory of evolution, for example, they are making specific claims that can be evaluated. The lack of macro-evolution, and young earth are two examples where creationists claim scientific evidence for their religious beliefs. Don't snivel to us if some or all of those claims are shown to be inaccurate.And don't try to fool us with sophomoric philosophical word games.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Parasomnium writes:

quote:

---

This thread could do with two consecutive days of Rrhain.

---

I swear I felt my ears burning. On a lark, I look through an old thread that has a white dot and I find my name.Is erikp still at it, trying to claim that the idea something can conceivably be false necessarily means it is?I'm not sure what else I could do. He seems to be intent upon twisting the definition of every single word. First it was "incomplete," now it's "theory": That's because "Water boils at 100 C" isn't a theory. It's a derived conclusion. That you can reduce the atmospheric pressure and make water boil at a lower temperature isn't a violation of any theory. In fact, it is corroborating evidence of theories of physical chemistry: PV = nRT and all that. The statement that "Water boils at 100 C" has unstated premises, the big one being "At standard pressure."That's why real chemists always calibrate their equipment before using it. Just because water boiled at this particular level on the thermometer today doesn't mean it's going to boil at the same particular level tomorrow. Sometimes that precision is extremely important so you always check to see where you are.The theory isn't "Water boils at 100 C." Instead, the theory is "Liquids at a given pressure will always boil at a specific temperature." Other theories (such as molecular theory) will explain why water boils at such a high temperature (hydrogen bonding).Here's the problem: Of course, nobody who actually works in science or mathematics uses the definitions of "proven/unproven" or "true/false" that he provides. How do you get past that? Until he can grasp the concept that because something is potentially false doesn't mean that it necessarily is false, no progress will ever be made.F'rinstance, the Poincaré Conjecture. When it was first proposed, it might have been true. It might have been false. The fact that we didn't know didn't make it false. And, in fact, it's true.Of course, that's an example from mathematics where things can actually be proven true because you can, indeed, make all observations possible. Science, alas, doesn't work that way. It's an observational process which means we can never know for certain if our theories are true.Our understanding of gravity may be absolutely perfect, but we will never be able to declare it true because that requires perfect observation which we can never have. The best we can hope for is the claim that it is accurate.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

science does not deal with different magnitudes of falsifiability. Either a theory is falsifiable or it isn't.

---

"Magnitude of falsifiability" (MoF) can be defined, and can therefore not be rejected without justification.Given a random theory, from the overall collection of theories T, which has MoF=1, that is, just one possible observation to contradict it, what is the likelihood of that observation contradicting the theory ( P(C | MoF=1) ), in absence of any further information? 1 - 0.5 = 0.5.Given a random theory, from the overall collection of theories T, which has MoF=1, that is, just one possible observation to contradict it, what is the likelihood of that observation contradicting the theory ( P(C | MoF=2) ), in absence of any further information? 1 - 0.5^2 = 0.75.MoF P(C)
1 1 - 0.5^1 = 0.500
2 1 - 0.5^2 = 0.750
3 1 - 0.5^3 = 0.875Therefore, the likelihood that a random theory, from the overall collection of theories T, with MoF=k will be contradicted by the facts is: P(C|MoF=k) = 1 - 0.5^k.What does that say about the likelihood that a random infinitely falsifiable theory will be contradicted by the facts?lim (k -> inf) ( 1 - 0.5^k) = 1 (=always)What does that say about the likelihood that a random unfalsifiable theory will be contradicted by the facts?P(C|MoF=0) = 1 - 0.5^0 = 1 - 1 = 0 (=never)Of course, science does not consist out of randomly constructed theories, by just randomly assembling a set of statements expressed in formal language. On the contrary, the scientific method purposely constructs the collection of statements, constituting any of its theories, in such a way that they are hard to contradict by facts.But then again, every scientific theory is still inevitably member of the overall collection of theories T, for which we can state that the likelihood that infinitely falsifiable theories will be contradicted by the facts is 1 (=always).Therefore, regardless of how well the theory has been constructed, if it is infinitely falsifiable, we may safely assume that it will eventually be contradicted by the facts.In this observation Magnitude of Falsifiability (MoF) is a key concept. Therefore, I must reject the idea that falsifiability should not be quantified. It can be quantified and its quantification is instrumental in supporting the case.Edited by erikp, : No reason given.Edited by erikp, : No reason given.