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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is a Theory?
prophet
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 54
From: Florida
Joined: 01-19-2009


Message 226 of 249 (496156)
01-26-2009 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Ambercab
01-25-2009 12:42 PM


Re: Standards (Prophet, from the Ark Volume thread)
Yet another theory: Truth only exists in the human mind .
Of course that is false!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Ambercab, posted 01-25-2009 12:42 PM Ambercab has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Percy, posted 01-26-2009 3:59 PM prophet 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

  
prophet
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 54
From: Florida
Joined: 01-19-2009


Message 228 of 249 (496177)
01-26-2009 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Percy
01-26-2009 3:07 PM


Re: Standards (Prophet, from the Ark Volume thread)
I did it so the correction would stand out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Percy, posted 01-26-2009 3:07 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Percy, posted 01-26-2009 8:57 PM prophet has not 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

  
prophet
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 54
From: Florida
Joined: 01-19-2009


Message 230 of 249 (496187)
01-26-2009 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Percy
01-26-2009 3:59 PM


Re: Standards (Prophet, from the Ark Volume thread)

  • Yet another theory: Truth only exists in the human mind
  • Of course that is false!!!
  • Could you elaborate?
    When this is offered, it is with only a human mind as a boundary. The foundation is based on a perspective and limited too much to include animals. Not to mention; it attempts to dismiss God.
    Do I need to copy the entire post then click the reply button and insert my information?

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 227 by Percy, posted 01-26-2009 3:59 PM Percy has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 231 by Percy, posted 01-26-2009 9:19 PM prophet has 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

      
    prophet
    Member (Idle past 5530 days)
    Posts: 54
    From: Florida
    Joined: 01-19-2009


    Message 232 of 249 (496192)
    01-26-2009 9:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 222 by Percy
    01-26-2009 8:34 AM


    Re: Standards (Prophet, from the Ark Volume thread)


    I have seen even a glance provide more information and truth than an entire page of writing. Written and vocal words contain too many boundaries as it is, and should not be confined so harshly. When you constrict definitions to certain and strict boundaries you may also dismiss, exclude and overlook other additional meanings outside the guidelines of that written word, that could shed better understanding. And it is that which can affect accuracy. In hind sight; perhaps, it would have been better had I used the word hypothesis?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 222 by Percy, posted 01-26-2009 8:34 AM Percy has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 235 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2009 8:17 AM prophet has not replied

      
    prophet
    Member (Idle past 5530 days)
    Posts: 54
    From: Florida
    Joined: 01-19-2009


    Message 233 of 249 (496195)
    01-26-2009 10:10 PM
    Reply to: Message 231 by Percy
    01-26-2009 9:19 PM


    Re: Standards (Prophet, from the Ark Volume thread)
    Human limitations influence everything we do, it is inescapable.
    I agree with what you wrote, but not with how you applied it. The words; "human mind as a boundary" is the problem when one considers that animals have minds, some even bigger than ours.
    Are you talking about the theory of evolution? This thread isn't about evolution. It's a discussion about the nature of scientific theory.
    No, I'm not speaking of evolution. But the understanding that lower life forms could have their own knowledge of truth. Just because we MAY not be able to extract that understanding does not mean it does not exist.
    The statement by ambercab was:

    Yet another theory: Truth only exists in the human mind
  • It starts out saying it is a theory.
  • And uses the words; "only exists in the human mind"
    By its own admission; it claims there can be no other owner, which would mean that of a lower life form, or of a higher life form.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 231 by Percy, posted 01-26-2009 9:19 PM Percy has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 234 by homunculus, posted 01-27-2009 2:41 AM prophet has not replied

      
    homunculus
    Member (Idle past 5435 days)
    Posts: 86
    Joined: 01-21-2009


    Message 234 of 249 (496215)
    01-27-2009 2:41 AM
    Reply to: Message 233 by prophet
    01-26-2009 10:10 PM


    Re: Standards (Prophet, from the Ark Volume thread)
    I agree, in the end, for the individual, this is the only truth there is. Fortunately, we have universal senses that intertwine with other "realities" of other individuals. This matrix of individual "realities" is known as the physical universe.
    The ordinances of human nature and the employment of the five senses are similar, sometimes identical. This is a universal compass, because of the similarities of the senses, that causes the physical universe to appear similar, if not the same, to everyone that participates in the collective equitable matrix.
    The word "theory" comes into play as suggestive material to help explain and examine scientific phenomena. Originally, the word theory was used to describe suggestive ideas to assist in explanation through examining the facts. through observations the theory progresses to fact if substantial evidence is found to prove every aspect of the theory. source; http://www.hydroponicsearch.com/...database-!/strategy-exact
    Since then, the word has, apparently, branched out to incorporate other degrees of speculation as well, for the sake of science.
    My good friend, coyote, offered up this definition from nasa.
    coyote writes:
    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.
    Wikipedia chimes in a correlating 'theory' on what a 'theory' is.
    wiki writes:
    The word theory has many distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion. Definitively speaking, a theory is the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another.[1] Additionally, in contrast with a theorem the statement of the theory is generally accepted only in some tentative fashion as opposed to regarding it as having been conclusively established. This may merely indicate, as it does in the sciences, that the theory was arrived at using potentially faulty inferences (scientific induction) as opposed to the necessary inferences used in mathematical proofs. In these cases the term theory does not suggest a low confidence in the claim and many uses of the term in the sciences require just the opposite.
    Theory - Wikipedia
    and from Websters edition from 1913, to illustrate the contrast.
    1913 Websters writes:
    Theory \The"o*ry\, n.; pl. {Theories}. orie, L.
    theoria, Gr. ? a beholding, spectacle, contemplation,
    speculation, fr. ? a spectator, ? to see, view. See
    {Theater}.
    1. A doctrine, or scheme of things, which terminates in
    speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice;
    hypothesis; speculation.
    2. An exposition of the general or abstract principles of any
    science; as, the theory of music.
    3. The science, as distinguished from the art; as, the theory
    and practice of medicine.
    4. The philosophical explanation of phenomena, either
    physical or moral; as, Lavoisier's theory of combustion;
    Adam Smith's theory of moral sentiments.
    Syn: Hypothesis, speculation.
    Usage: {Theory}, {Hypothesis}. A theory is a scheme of the
    relations subsisting between the parts of a systematic
    whole; an hypothesis is a tentative conjecture
    respecting a cause of phenomena.
    source; http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=th...
    As is abundantly obvious, theory can, theoretically, mean what you want it to mean to be able to further interests, as the term has changed meaning, substantially, to outlaw initial theoretical values.
    Most would say, a theory is, universally, an attempt to explain phenomena with examinations of progressive, objective observations and explanatory support. By acclamation of the very word would require a stance of manifested explanation in observation to further support, without regard to interest.
    Edited by homunculus, : coyote writes
    Edited by homunculus, : typo

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 233 by prophet, posted 01-26-2009 10:10 PM prophet has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 236 by Percy, posted 01-27-2009 9:07 AM homunculus has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 235 of 249 (496247)
    01-27-2009 8:17 AM
    Reply to: Message 232 by prophet
    01-26-2009 9:31 PM


    External Knowledge, {not false}ness, and Hypothesis
    Hey Prophet,
    I see some (grudging) progress here.
    I have seen even a glance provide more information and truth than an entire page of writing. Written and vocal words contain too many boundaries as it is, and should not be confined so harshly. When you constrict definitions to certain and strict boundaries you may also dismiss, exclude and overlook other additional meanings outside the guidelines of that written word, that could shed better understanding. And it is that which can affect accuracy.
    Which is a good reason to doubt any written page without having an external source for verification. Science tests concepts against the evidence of objective reality to eliminate ones that are false.
    We also see that science approximates truth with a concept that makes predictions that can falsify concept, but never prove exact concordance with reality. Thus the only thing science can determine are concepts that are {not false}.
    What other measure/s do you think can help determine if a concept is {not false}. It's a lower standard than TRUTH(absolute), so this should make it easier.
    Beyond that, once we have determined a {not false} concept, is there any method that we can use to determine the probability that it is true?
    In hind sight; perhaps, it would have been better had I used the word hypothesis?
    That would be a step in the right direction, but the real distinction is between scientific and popular usage/s.
    Science specifically means based on facts. The concept is developed to explain all the existing facts. Even at this stage hypothesis in science differs from hypothesis in popular usage: in science an hypothesis is an untested theory.
    The concept is then studied to see what predictions can be made that would occur if the concept were true but would not occur should the concept be false. This is known as a falsification test. A concept can have a falsification test that has not occurred yet, so the result is still unknown, and in this case we still regard the concept as an hypothesis rather than a scientific (tested) theory.
    The more a theory is tested, and the more it passes those tests, the more we can be confident in the {not false}ness of the theory.
    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 232 by prophet, posted 01-26-2009 9:31 PM prophet 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

      
    prophet
    Member (Idle past 5530 days)
    Posts: 54
    From: Florida
    Joined: 01-19-2009


    Message 237 of 249 (496310)
    01-27-2009 3:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 202 by Coyote
    01-23-2009 6:04 PM


    Re: Standards (Prophet, from the Ark Volume thread)
    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.
    I remember, I did in fact, allow a distinction between theory and truth. Actually, my interpetation was to project theory as a path for science to obtain proof in the persuit of truth... not as truth itself.
    This "truth" does not imply it must be expanded until it reaches the "greater truth" - God.
    See the Eglish Alaphbet Capitol "Q"... it is an English Alaphabet Capitol Q =fact=truth yet... no God implied.
  • fact=truth
  • theory=testing ability-possiblity-probability
    If my wording has lead one astray - maybe, I was in a coma and missed a comma?
    Don't blame science for doing what it is supposed to do.
    the aspect of science trying to wade amoung the "lies": (as meaning that which falls short of truth) to sort out the lies and eliminate them, that what remains can be tested, proven, reproduced with exacting accuracy, and submitted for examination to achieve the status of truth should not be considered insulting. How many different ways did Edison discover not to make a light bulb?

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 202 by Coyote, posted 01-23-2009 6:04 PM Coyote has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 238 by Coyote, posted 01-27-2009 4:32 PM prophet has replied

      
    Coyote
    Member (Idle past 2106 days)
    Posts: 6117
    Joined: 01-12-2008


    Message 238 of 249 (496315)
    01-27-2009 4:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 237 by prophet
    01-27-2009 3:49 PM


    Correct terminology (again)
    the aspect of science trying to wade amoung the "lies": (as meaning that which falls short of truth) to sort out the lies and eliminate them, that what remains can be tested, proven, reproduced with exacting accuracy, and submitted for examination to achieve the status of truth should not be considered insulting. How many different ways did Edison discover not to make a light bulb?
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 237 by prophet, posted 01-27-2009 3:49 PM prophet has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 239 by prophet, posted 01-28-2009 7:24 PM Coyote has not replied
     Message 240 by prophet, posted 01-28-2009 7:25 PM Coyote has not replied

      
    prophet
    Member (Idle past 5530 days)
    Posts: 54
    From: Florida
    Joined: 01-19-2009


    Message 239 of 249 (496529)
    01-28-2009 7:24 PM
    Reply to: Message 238 by Coyote
    01-27-2009 4:32 PM


    Re: Correct terminology (again)
    and seeks only to have an explanation that is as accurate as possible.


    The above use of "accuracy" would be considered as ambigious? Maybe I'm being too harsh... I'll lighten up some.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 238 by Coyote, posted 01-27-2009 4:32 PM Coyote has not replied

      
    prophet
    Member (Idle past 5530 days)
    Posts: 54
    From: Florida
    Joined: 01-19-2009


    Message 240 of 249 (496530)
    01-28-2009 7:25 PM
    Reply to: Message 238 by Coyote
    01-27-2009 4:32 PM


    Re: Correct terminology (again)
    and seeks only to have an explanation that is as accurate as possible.


    The above use of "accuracy" would be considered as ambigious? Maybe I'm being too harsh... I'll lighten up some.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 238 by Coyote, posted 01-27-2009 4:32 PM Coyote has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 241 by olivortex, posted 01-29-2009 9:19 AM prophet 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