What is a Theory?

I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say here.Theories are not "proved true," nor are they inherently false.From a list of definitions I have assembled:

quote:

---

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ”it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source

​

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

​

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

​

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

​

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source

---

You write "On the contrary, his job is to prove that they are false (which we know they are, anyway)." This is not necessarily accurate. Because a theory cannot be "proved true" does not necessarily make it false. Neither does the fact that theories are subject to modification as new data arise. Perhaps they might be best considered tentative or maybe even incomplete, but to consider all theories false is inaccurate.

---

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

The most frequent use of "its just a theory" is by creationists, who use that term almost exclusively in seeking to denigrate the theory of evolution.

quote:

---

"Its not true [accurate, important, useful, etc.], its just a theory."

---

As you correctly point out, there is nothing higher in science than a theory.So why do creationists repeatedly claim, "Its just a theory?"Is it dishonesty, or merely ignorance?Actually, its a bit of both.Ignorance: Most creationists know little about science. Their belief provides all the answers, so they don't need to study science. To the extreme fundamentalists, science is the enemy, and a tool of Satan, anyway. Really! You can learn a lot about creationism, apologetics, and junk science, but little about real science, by visiting the various creationist websites.Dishonesty: Many creationists are trying to equate intelligent design and evolution by calling both theories [ID is not a scientific theory]. So we see, "Teach all the theories, its only fair." This is right up there with "Teach the controversy" -- when there is no such controversy in science, just one drummed up by the lawyers and PR flaks over at the Discovery Institute. And these arguments are made not in the scientific journals, but as part of a PR campaign designed to influence school boards and state legislatures. (Thankfully the courts have seen through this duplicity.)

---

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

Nor have you addressed my comments in post #10, above.But you have amply demonstrated why most working scientists have no use for philosophy

---

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

And you are showing once again why working scientists tell ivory tower philosophers to butt out and let them work.You bring to mind that nice Jack London quote:

quote:

---

You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration.

​

Jack London, The Iron Heel

---

---

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

Sounds like you are shilling for some religion.First you "prove" science is false, then you offer up the snake oil."I've got the TRVTH right here! Trust me!"

---

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

This is the problem with philosophy and mathematics; elaborate explanations may not mean anything at all in the real world.This seems to be true of the "theory" that you have been espousing.To say that all science is "false" and can never be anything but false seems to be something that the philosophers should debate in private, and wash their hands afterwords.

---

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

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.

Religion always resolves to "Trust me!""Trust me!" is the ultimate basis for scripture and revelation. And the "faithful" are urged or required to believe, and to accept its claims on faith, without questioning them.A talking snake? "Trust me!"A global flood? "Trust me!"A burning bush? "Trust me!"Eternal life? "Trust me! I can provide that, but you need to tithe 10% of your earnings."
 
 

The profession of shaman has many advantages. It offers high status with a safe livelihood free of work in the dreary, sweaty sense. In most societies it offers legal privileges and immunities not granted to other men. But it is hard to see how a man who has been given a mandate from on High to spread tidings of joy to all mankind can be seriously interested in taking up a collection to pay his salary; it causes one to suspect that the shaman is on the moral level of any other con man. But it is a lovely work if you can stomach it.

​

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

 

---

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

Why don't you tell him to quote definitions by himself... etc. etc. blah blah blah.Here are some definitions for you. Notice that they do not rely on sophistry and philosobabble.

​

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. Source

​

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

​

​

---

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

On the Ark Volume thread Prophet posts: You clearly have no idea what science is, or how it works. Here are a couple of definitions that may help:

quote:

---

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ”it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source

​

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. Source

​

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

---

See the difference?Now if scientists advertised each theory as the unchanging truth, Truth, TRUTH, or even TRVTH, then I can see why you would question any changes. But science doesn't do that. It is religious believers who fail to make the distinction between scientific theory and some form of truth, Truth, TRUTH, or even TRVTH.Don't blame science for doing what it is supposed to do.

---

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

See the above post.

---

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

Try again, and address the definitions I posted this time.And remember, those definitions are terms as they are used in science, not religion, theology, or philosophy, etc.Or if you still want to play games with truth, Truth, TRUTH, and TRVTH, please provide some clue as to which term you are using and how you define it. Short of a tight definition from you, my post and the definition I used still stands.

---

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

You still have not adequately addressed the detailed post I sent you with definitions of these terms as they are used in science.Why should science care how the layman, or you, define these terms? Or a dictionary that includes all uses of the terms?Science has the right, and the obligation, to precisely define the terms it uses so there is less confusion.You seem to be doing just the opposite.

---

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

There you go again.Please try to make a distinction, as we do in science, between these various ambiguous terms. Those uses and terms that are not a part of science should be omitted from your posts when you are posting in the Science Forum.Something not entirely correct (a model, for example, which is a simplification of a complex process, or an early poor-quality light bulb) is not a lie. Nor is a successful model or light bulb "truth" -- whatever you may mean by that.And as I have pointed out, science is not in the business of proof. Try mathematics if that's what you are looking for.Science is in the business of describing and explaining natural phenomena, and seeks only to have an explanation that is as accurate as possible. As new data arise, theories explaining those data may have to be modified. That does not make the old theory a lie.I'm going to keep pointing these things out to you as you have come into the science "clubhouse" and are speaking in terms that are more appropriate elsewhere. That will not get you very far.