What is a Theory?

I think the complaint this thread attempts to address, that the word theory is used inconsistently, is really about the fluidity of language, and good luck with that. There's no overseer of language usage, even in France where they think they have one.Few if any words have a precise and unambiguous meaning independent of context, and even within science there is ambiguity about the word theory. Like all words it lacks precision unless qualified by other words. Hence we have simple terms like "accepted theory," "rejected theory" and "questionable theory", and the complexity goes up from there. People will use the word hypothesis in place of theory and vice versa. People will use the word theory when talking about a theory that is as broadly accepted as could possibly be (the heliocentric theory of the solar system, for example), and in the very next sentence use it in reference to complete nonsense, e.g., the miasm theory of homeopathy or the Qi (vital energy) theory of acupuncture.Not only is there is a continuum of acceptance of theories that ranges from broad acceptance all the way to widely rejected, but there are other axes of meaning to consider. Someone mentioned string theory, and while it hasn't yet become accepted because it has yet to make any successful predictions that would differentiate it from the standard model, it is widely regarded as promising, and "promising" is a very ambiguous term.In other words, it isn't possible to put theories into neat boxes of "accepted," "rejected" and "pending". Each must be qualified by all the numerous details that characterize its degree of acceptance and the manner in which it is regarded within the scientific community. And this is independent of the layperson's typical misunderstanding of theory as little better than a hunch.That being said, the formal definition of theory as a framework of understanding that explains a body of evidence and that has been repeatedly verified as making successful predictions is very useful conceptually, but this is definitely not the only valid way to use the word theory, even in a scientific setting.Communication is far more than just mechanically stringing terms of precise meaning together into sentences and paragraphs. Most of us reserve the right to be creative in our choice of vocabulary, construction and syntax. Those who dispute a theory simply because the word theory is as fluid in usage as all other words has a pointless complaint about language, not about science.--Percy

The formal proofs of mathematics have nothing to do with scientific theories. The falsifiability requirement of scientific theories means that they are always necessarily incomplete. Rrhain has been stressing this point about the incomplete nature of scientific theory.You're defining a false set to be any set which contains more than zero false statements, then saying that if we consider science as a set of statements that if it contains more than zero false statements then science is false.This is sort of like saying that if my car has one or more non-working parts that I can't get to work. Mathematics is an essential tool of science, but one can conceptualize mathematical abstractions that have little correspondence to the real world, and that is the case with your line of reasoning. While science uses math, like my car it is part of the real world and is not a mathematical abstraction.--Percy

First, about the unproven part: all science is by definition unproven. No scientific theory is ever proven. That's because all theories are tentative, open to change or replacement in light of new evidence or improved insight. You couldn't change a theory that had already been proven now, could you. So of course theories are unproven.Theories are supported (or not) by evidence, and they become accepted by the relevant scientific community only if that evidence has sufficient force. Theories never become proven. Theories always remain unproven.Now second, about where you call science false. This is just poor terminology. Someone could say to you, "I'm going to use the theory of gravity to calculate the trajectory of this rocket in space," and you could reply, "The theory of gravity is false." So this person says to you, "You mean if I use the theory of gravity the rocket won't go where I want it to?" And you'll reply, "No, of course not, it will go exactly where you want it to." So they'll ask, "Then in what way is the theory of gravity false?"The correct answer is that the theory of gravity is not false. It is merely incomplete, which is what you really meant to conclude from the fact of a theory's necessary falsifiability. Falsifiable doesn't mean that theories are false, though some might be, but it definitely means that theories can never be complete. The favorite example is Newtonian physics and Einsteinian relativity. Relativity falsified Newtonian physics by showing where it was incomplete, but it didn't show it was false. Obviously Newtonian physics works just fine under most circumstances.If you use correct terminology by using the word "incomplete" instead of "false" then the falsifiable nature of theories will be much easier to understand.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

You're playing semantic games by equating incomplete and false as synonyms. They're not, and that's why you're arriving at false conclusions that have no correspondence to the real world that science is trying to understand.--Percy

When you reach conclusions at odds with reality, the necessary conclusion is that you've somehow reasoned improperly. But no one can force this conclusion on you, so go ahead and continue arguing irrationally if you're so determinedThis discussion really can't make any progress while you're ignoring the feedback, like that you've misconstrued falsifiability, misdefined incomplete, erroneously asserted that scientific theories assert their own truth, and misapplied the principle of continuity.Naturally you disagree, but instead of addressing this feedback and making clear the nature of your disagreement, you're instead ignoring it while restating your position, sort of the discussion board equivalent of going "la-la-la-la" while sticking your fingers in your ears.--Percy

These aren't scientific theories. One is predictions with no data. The other is data with no predictions.The road to truth does not begin with false propositions, but for some reason you've decided that doesn't apply to you.--Percy

This is from your Message 61 after you cite Gdel: That's your argument against theories that claim their own truth, which scientific theories do not do. Lying at the core of this discussion are the principles of tentativity and falsifiability, and naturally any theories with these properties could never claim their own truth. Please don't try to distract attention from the weaknesses, problems and contradictions in your arguments. I already noted that you're ignoring rebuttals, and you're doing so again by lashing out at me. Please keep your focus on the topic and address what people are saying. Thanks.--Percy

This makes clear that you don't know what constitutes a scientific theory. A scientific theory explains and/or interprets and/or makes sense of a body of scientifically gathered data and observations so as to put it in a consistent framework from which predictions about future phenomena can be made.An example of a very simple theory: The two weeks of observations of rain are the body of evidence.The statement about two days of rain always being followed by a third day of rain is a prediction.--Percy

No, it isn't false, it is incomplete. Continuing to equate falsity and incompleteness while ignoring all the feedback that you are wrong is just going to lead you to more incorrect conclusions. You fail to comprehend the implications of your own arguments.--Percy

"Not particularly well supported" is not synonymous with not supported at all. You continue to make terminological and definitional errors.To make effective points about scientific theories, then if you're going to use simplified examples you would be served best by examples that everyone can agree about. If your point only makes sense for theories with no justification whatsoever, then who cares.--Percy

Yes, exactly, the theory is falsifiable. As a theory of what causes it to rain it is also incomplete. It only posits that two days of rain causes a third day of rain and doesn't explain what causes the first two days of rain. You noted an ambiguity, so let me rectify this by reexpressing the prediction as, "Exactly two consecutive days of rain cause a third day of rain." Anyway, that's why I used that example: it's simple, it explains a body of data, and it makes a prediction that can be falsified.Your theory of "It will rain tomorrow" explained no data but was only a prediction. It doesn't, in Wikipedia's words, "explain a phenomenon", in this case what causes it to rain.I'm sorry you don't like being told you don't know what constitutes a scientific theory, but the way to defend yourself is not with ad hominem, whose definition you also seem unaware of. You might take a look at rule 10 in the Forum Guidelines.--Percy

Now you're off into the section of the Wikipedia article that talks about mathematical theories. We're talking about scientific theories here. Please stick to the topic.--Percy

Uh, no it doesn't, but if you'd like even more precise language, then how about "A day of non-rain followed by exactly two days of rain are followed by a third day of rain."But you're losing sight of the point you were trying to make, which I think was that you do too know what constitutes a scientific theory. Can we now agree that it includes a body of data from which general principles are derived that make predictions about future phenomena?--Percy

Are you even listening to yourself? You just said that scientific theories are both useful and false. You really believe you're going to make headway with this?--Percy

No, mathematical theories are not scientific theories. That's why they're covered in different sections of the Wikipedia article on Theory.Sheesh!--Percy