Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is a Theory?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 104 of 249 (494177)
01-14-2009 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by erikp
01-14-2009 3:57 PM


Re: All or Nothing
And how is pushing these weird and contradictory ideas working out for you?
Seriously, Eric, now you're just wasting people's time with the short, glib posts, and they'll eventually get you in trouble with board moderation. You should probably stop posting for a while until you regain your composure.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by erikp, posted 01-14-2009 3:57 PM erikp has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 150 of 249 (494311)
01-15-2009 9:15 AM


The Psychology of the Crackpot
This morning on the way to work I listened to a This American Life episode that included a segment about an electrician who believed he had invalidated all of modern physics, including Einstein's equation E=mc2. He believed the correct equation is E=mc, and he believed he had proved it.
The story's narrator was a friend of the electrician's. The electrician had requested his friend's help in writing a book to disseminate his ideas to the world. His friend demurred on the book project and instead was able to eventually arrange a meeting for him with an actual physicist, who read the paper the electrician had produced and immediately pointed out that he was confusing momentum and energy, that he didn't even have his units right.
The electrician was unswayed and still believes to this day that he has revolutionized all of physics, that all physicists are deluded because they have too much education, especially math, and that no one will listen to him because they're all just promoting the party line.
The friend came across a Physics Crackpot Test on the Internet and pointed it out to the electrician, who replied that he had already come across it and taken the test, apparently scoring high. For the electrician this just underscored how biased the physics community is.
The story makes the point that crackpots aren't influenced by information or arguments or logic or rationality. They believe what they believe, and that's that. Naturally I couldn't help but think of this thread as I listened.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 208 of 249 (495944)
01-25-2009 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by prophet
01-24-2009 10:20 PM


Re: Standards (Prophet, from the Ark Volume thread)
Instead of replying to what Coyote actually said in Message 202, you repeated your claim about truth. If you're in effect just going to cover your ears while repeating "Science is a lie" then it isn't a discussion and there's no point in you being here.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by prophet, posted 01-24-2009 10:20 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by prophet, posted 01-25-2009 7:17 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 213 of 249 (496022)
01-25-2009 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by prophet
01-25-2009 7:17 PM


Re: Standards (Prophet, from the Ark Volume thread)
prophet writes:
Just because science has yet to reach truth does not mean (by me) that it does not aspire to.
Coyote provided various definitions of the word truth. If you're going to insist on using the word truth, and if you're also going to insist on not specifying which definition you're using, then no one can be sure what you're saying. Certainly if you're saying that science is searching for the supreme reality and the ultimate meaning, then you're wrong.
Science seeks to understand the natural world. By way of the scientific method it creates theories that make sense of and explain the evidence we find, allowing us to better understand the universe in which we live.
Just as discussion of the nature of science and the role of theory within science was off-topic in the Noah's Ark thread, topics from Noah's Ark are off-topic here. I suggest you repost the part of your post about Noah's Ark over in the other thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by prophet, posted 01-25-2009 7:17 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by prophet, posted 01-25-2009 10:14 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 222 of 249 (496104)
01-26-2009 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by prophet
01-25-2009 10:14 PM


Re: Standards (Prophet, from the Ark Volume thread)
prophet writes:
From Wikipedia:
the·o·ry
Function:noun
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances ”often used in the phrase in theory
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
synonyms see hypothesis
That isn't from Wikipedia. That's from a dictionary, it appears to be Merriam-Webster's definition of Theory. I don't see anything wrong with this definition, and I haven't quoted a dictionary definition to you in the past, so I have no idea why elsewhere in your post you say that one of our dictionaries must be wrong.
If you go the to subsection on science in the Wikipedia article on theory you'll see that for this discussion you want definition #5 from Merriam-Webster.
So too, does it seem science uses its own definitions at its will. This in no way validate them, but rather detracts from their own veracity.
Can you be more specific?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix typo, I meant definition #5 from Merriam Webster.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by prophet, posted 01-25-2009 10:14 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by prophet, posted 01-26-2009 12:54 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 224 by prophet, posted 01-26-2009 2:53 PM Percy has replied
 Message 232 by prophet, posted 01-26-2009 9:31 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 225 of 249 (496155)
01-26-2009 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by prophet
01-26-2009 2:53 PM


Re: Standards (Prophet, from the Ark Volume thread)
Why are you putting your own words in quote boxes? If you need help with the dBCodes, click on dBcode Help.
There's no need to respond to corrections you agree with anyway. Why don't you respond to the substance of what people said?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by prophet, posted 01-26-2009 2:53 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by prophet, posted 01-26-2009 8:20 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 227 of 249 (496163)
01-26-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by prophet
01-26-2009 3:21 PM


Re: Standards (Prophet, from the Ark Volume thread)
Prophet, you appear to be confused about how to use quote boxes, because you're putting your words in quote boxes while leaving other people's words in the main body of your message. It's supposed to be the other way around. I suggest you read dBCode Help.
prophet writes:
Of course that is false!!!
Could you elaborate?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by prophet, posted 01-26-2009 3:21 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by prophet, posted 01-26-2009 9:00 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 229 of 249 (496186)
01-26-2009 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by prophet
01-26-2009 8:20 PM


Re: Standards (Prophet, from the Ark Volume thread)
A quote box is for quoting, not for emphasis. I again suggest you read the dBCode Help. There are other things you can do for emphasis, like this:
Don't put your own text in quote boxes!!!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by prophet, posted 01-26-2009 8:20 PM prophet has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 231 of 249 (496191)
01-26-2009 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by prophet
01-26-2009 9:00 PM


Re: Standards (Prophet, from the Ark Volume thread)
prophet writes:
When this is offered, it is with only a human mind as a boundary.
Human limitations influence everything we do, it is inescapable.
The foundation is based on a perspective and limited too much to include animals.
Are you talking about the theory of evolution? This thread isn't about evolution. It's a discussion about the nature of scientific theory.
Not to mention; it attempts to dismiss God.
Can you provide an example of a theory that "attempts to dismiss God"? Can you even find a theory that mentions God?
prophet writes:
Do I need to copy the entire post then click the reply button and insert my information?
When you click on the little reply button immediately beneath a message, then you're presented a text box in which to type your reply. If you scroll down just the tiniest bit you'll see that the entire text of the message you're replying to is right there. It even has two modes of display, Normal and Peek Mode. Click on the Peek Mode button to see the markup that was used to create any special effects, like quote boxes and so forth.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by prophet, posted 01-26-2009 9:00 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by prophet, posted 01-26-2009 10:10 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 236 of 249 (496252)
01-27-2009 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by homunculus
01-27-2009 2:41 AM


Re: Standards (Prophet, from the Ark Volume thread)
homunculus writes:
through observations the theory progresses to fact if substantial evidence is found to prove every aspect of the theory.
You have to be careful in the way you express this. The word "fact" has more than one meaning, and one of those meanings is something in which we have 100% confidence. Theories are tentative, and so 100% confidence is never possible, but our confidence in and acceptance of a theory can become very strong. In this case the definition of fact that is in play is the one promoted by Gould, who defined a fact as something "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."
An example of a theory that is now considered a fact (though still tentative) is the heliocentric theory of the solar system. This is because the evidence has allowed us to become extremely highly confident that planets orbit the sun rather than the sun and planets orbiting the Earth.
Since then, the word has, apparently, branched out to incorporate other degrees of speculation as well, for the sake of science.
Theories are not a form of speculation. This is the popular conception of theory that everyone has been advising you against. The quotes you included from Coyote are just different ways of defining theory. Your Wikipedia quote is from the general part of the article on theory, you actually want to scroll down to the section on science in the Wikipedia article on Theory. The bottom line is that an accepted theory is the gold standard of science, for it means that it has undergone a great deal of study, replication and testing.
But something doesn't have to have high confidence and wide acceptance to be a theory. Theories *can* be rejected. Examples of once popular theories that have fallen almost completely out of favor are geocentrism (an Earth centered solar system or universe) and the theory of the ether (that electromagnetic phenomena travel through a medium called the ether that permeates all space).
Theories can also not have high confidence or wide acceptance. String theory is widely perceived as very promising, but it has not yet (and may never) achieve the status of wide acceptance.
What makes something a theory is that it makes sense of a body of data surrounding a natural phenomenon, such as gravity, light, or wandering stars in the sky, by generalizing it into a framework of understanding from which testable predictions can be made. About this last part concerning testable predictions, I can again use string theory as an example. It hasn't become accepted because it is still struggling to develop testable predictions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by homunculus, posted 01-27-2009 2:41 AM homunculus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024