Bad science?

A moment's thought would have told you that this question must be based on a misconception on your part.Consider : if the distinction between theory and law is what you think it is, then why do the most ardent supporters of evolution always talk of the "theory of evolution" and never of the "law of evolution"?And a little research would have shown you that a "theory" is a well-tested explanation for some phenomenon that incorporates facts and laws (and, sometimes, other theories).In particular, the theory of evolution consists of the law of natural selection (including sexual selection) and the laws of genetics.Why are you debating "Is It Science?" without a knowledge of the most basic vocabulary of science?Oh, hang on --- that is why, isn't it?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, a theory often consists of several laws (though it may have just one).So, for example, the theory of electromagnetism has as its basic laws the four Maxwell equations; Newton's theory of motion has as its basic laws Newton's second and third laws of motion (the first may be derived from the second). I've already given the theory of evolution as an example. Not at all, or scientists wouldn't go about speaking of the theory of gravity: which consists of the laws of motion plus the law of gravity.You may note that the law of gravity on its own would not be a theory, because it would not explain or predict anything. It says nothing to say: "there will be such-and-such a force between two bodies of such-and-such a mass", unless you also have laws saying how a mass will behave when a force acts on it. It is only the collection of laws --- the theory --- which allows us to explain and predict.

No, listen carefully.I said that in the case of the theory of gravity, it is only the collection of laws which constitute a theory.This does not preclude the existence of a theory which consists of only one law. No. It does nothing of the sort, for reasons which I explained in my previous post. The law of gravity on its own has no predictive power whatsoever. It does not tell me that I will fall off a ladder. For that, I also need the laws of motion.

Ne, the line is clearly demarkated.* puts underpants on head *Dearie me the policeman's lonely, whoops, there go the tall man's trousers, inky-pinky sugar and spice, yeti-yeti-yeti-yeti BOOM.Or maybe I have not gone crazy and the distinction between a theory and a law is exactly what I said it is. Cheers.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Sorry, I'm a newbie round here ... I keep trying to reply to the right person but I'm used to different forum software. Oopsie.

Yes.Let's be precise about this. By "predictive", I don't mean that the theory should tell me what I could see a billion years in the future, 'cos I can't test that. I mean that the theory should have consequences I should be able to test right here, right now.By "power", I do not mean precision. I mean that the theory should divide the possible from the impossible, and the likely from the unlikely.The germ theory of disease is a good example.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Nothing at all. I was told that I must go crazy if I tried to distinguish a theory from a law ... I obligingly went crazy.In between distinguishing a theory from a law.Look, I'm English, we have this thing called "humor", only we call it "humour".* bangs head against wall, but very very gently *Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, no, you misunderstand me. I do not maintain that a theory must only have immediately testable consequences --- I mean that only these predictions allow us to evaluate the theory. 150 years ago the ancestor of the manatee was not evidence for evolution, 'cos no-one had seen it. The evidence (when Darwin wrote) lay in morphology and biogeography.My point was, it is no good someone boasting about the immense predictive power of their theory if it only refers to things which can't be immediately tested ... say, a theory which predicts with great precision what will happen in a billion years' time, but with no consequences in the present. This would not be impressive.