Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is a Theory?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 35 of 249 (494050)
01-13-2009 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by erikp
01-13-2009 6:33 AM


your "logic" leaps to false conclusions
hey again, ericp, still having trouble with the logic I see.
If every falsifiable theory will eventually be falsified, it means that every falsifiable theory will eventually be proven to be false. That means that the correct status of scientific theories is: unproven, false.
All {A} is {B}, {B} therefore {A} is a common logical error.
You can see from this picture that there is a lot of {B} that does not have to be {A}
Does gravity not exist because Newton's law of gravity has been invalidated?
Do all the rockets that landed on Mars suddenly disappear into space because their trajectories were calculated using Newton's Law?
As on your other thread, the antithesis has the same conditions, so according to your "logic" they too must be "unproven, false" and again we have conclusions that are a contradiction based on your premise, so the premise must be false.
Again, missing from your logic is the result of a theory that has been falsified:
  • it becomes a special case condition of a larger theory, as is the case with Newton's gravity being a special case of relativity (proven mathematically btw), or
  • the theory is modified to account for the new information plus provide the same explanation for the old information as before, or
  • discarded and replaced by a new theory.
    You have assumed, falsely, that only the third category applies.
    This is important. Too many people use the phrase "scientifically proven", even though, not one single theory has ever been "scientifically proven".
    Curiously "too many people" doesn't necessarily include scientists. This is also the logical fallacy of popularity.
    Scientists are more likely to say "science has demonstrated\shown ..." which would be a true statement.
    Science has shown that evolution has occurred.
    Science has shown that speciation has occurred.
    These are true statements because the processes defined as evolution (the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation) and speciation (the division of a parent population into reproductively isolated daughter populations) have been observed to have actually occurred.
    We can also say that science has shown that no contradiction to the theory of evolution has been observed yet, even though the theory has been tested thousands of time. Therefore it is more reasonable to treat the theory as tentatively true than it is to treat it as tentatively false.
    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 32 by erikp, posted 01-13-2009 6:33 AM erikp has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 37 by erikp, posted 01-13-2009 11:42 AM RAZD has replied

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


    Message 115 of 249 (494212)
    01-14-2009 11:41 PM
    Reply to: Message 37 by erikp
    01-13-2009 11:42 AM


    Re: your "logic" leaps to false conclusions
    hello again ericp.
    All cases are equivalent.
    According to your argument this theory must be considered false.
    "Water boils at 100 C" has always been unproven, and presumably false, but it took a long time to discover that "Water boils at 70 C if you reduce the pressure sufficiently", and that the boiling point for water was replace by a formula in terms of atmospheric pressure. That theory or any further refined theory is, of course, still false.
    Problems are (1) that this was not a theory but a definition of a scale to measure temperature, and (2) the original definition included 1 atmospheric pressure.
    Celsius - Wikipedia
    quote:
    From 1744 until 1954, 0 C on the Celsius scale was defined as the freezing point of water and 100 C was defined as the boiling point of water under a pressure of one standard atmosphere; this close equivalency is taught in schools today.
    Curiously, using that definition it is an absolute fact that water boils at 100° and one standard atmosphere, because when you have one standard atmosphere and boiling water you have - by definition - 100°.
    quote:
    However, the unit degree Celsius and the Celsius scale are currently, by international agreement,(1) defined by two different points: absolute zero, and the triple point of VSMOW (specially prepared water). This definition also precisely relates the Celsius scale to the Kelvin scale, which is the SI base unit of temperature (symbol: K).
    Note that the definition has been changed, this doesn't mean that the original definition was wrong or false, just that they decided to change the definition.
    You can find out what the "triple point" is here - but in essence it is a point that combines the effect of pressure into the equation. Thus this new definition also includes pressure in the definition (just a different one than the original).
    Likewise the water used in the definition has been changed to "VSMOW" which means "Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water" ("an isotopic water standard defined in 1968 by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Despite the somewhat misleading phrase "ocean water", VSMOW refers to pure water (H2O) and does not include any salt or other substances usually found in seawater"). So they redefined what they mean by "water" as well as what pressure is used.
    Whatever theory currently describes the boiling point for water, it will still be false, but we simply don't know why, and that is why we keep using that theory, until the next iteration of refinement produces yet another theory.
    No, because the definition is true by definition. We may change the definition, but that does not affect the validity of the previous definition. Changing the definition doesn't mean that the behavior of water changes or that the temperature cannot be accurately measured by either scale, rather it means that there is a conversion formula from one definition to the other, as there is for converting Fahrenheit to Celsius.
    Even though formally unproven, the point of view that every falsifiable theory will eventually be falsified, and therefore false, is in my opinion, absolutely reasonable.
    Curiously, your opinion has no effect on the behavior of boiling water or any other observable phenomenon, and things will go on behaving as they always have. Plus your inability to see the errors in your logic shows that your opinion is worth less now than it was previously (and it was pretty worthless before).
    In those terms, science is necessarily: unproven, false.
    Once again you have made the "all A is B" logical error:
    Unproven technically means "we don't absolutely know for sure".
    There are many things you don't know that are true, and many things you don't know that are false, and when something is false, it has been proven to be false (like your argument).
    Do you know the difference between approximation and absolute accuracy? Would you claim that any approximation is not good enough? That because it is not 100% accurate that it is absolutely wrong?
    I hope you don't drive over any bridges, as they are all designed by methods that approximate the characteristics of ideal beams with factors of safety thrown in to take care of unknown impurities and unknown stresses due to loading that does not conform to the original assumptions of the design.
    According to your position all these calculations are absolutely wrong, so the bridges must all fall down (whether made by Jack London or not).
    Obviously this does not happen, so there must be something missing from your argument ... possibly logic.
    All theories are practical approximations, not quite the truth but increasingly closer to it. We keep trying to refine the approximation in order to get closer to reality, however like the search for the actual value of π, this doesn't mean that calculations made using only the approximate value of 3.14159 will result in total failure of a design.
    Nor does it mean that using 3.14159265358979323846 will necessarily result in a significant difference.
    Enjoy.
    Edited by RAZD, : π ala mode
    Edited by RAZD, : {
    Edited by RAZD, : redid
    Edited by RAZD, : significance

    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 37 by erikp, posted 01-13-2009 11:42 AM erikp has not replied

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


    Message 116 of 249 (494218)
    01-15-2009 12:25 AM
    Reply to: Message 79 by erikp
    01-14-2009 2:41 PM


    your raison d'etre for poor logic is a logically false statement?
    well ericp, this doesn't really help you:
    The reason why I am interested in the limitations of science, is because science is often used to attack religion. Especially, the typical statement that says "Religion is scientifically unproven and therefore false." bothers me.
    That statement bothers me too, because it is false logic. Anything that is not proven one way or the other means we don't know, not that it is false.
    That is why I demonstrate that science according to itself is unproven and false, while again according to science, religion is unproven and true.
    So you have taken the false logic of the previous statement and applied it to your (poor) understanding of science. Strangely, that does not make the logic any better: it is still false logic.
    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 79 by erikp, posted 01-14-2009 2:41 PM erikp has not replied

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


    Message 117 of 249 (494219)
    01-15-2009 12:40 AM
    Reply to: Message 105 by erikp
    01-14-2009 4:24 PM


    Re: Scope is necessarilly limited
    Well ericp, you keep demonstrating what you don't know.
    For example, "the sum of all angles in a triangle is 180 degrees" is infinitely falsifiable and therefore presumably false. Nobody has managed to prove it, however.
    Haven't talked to a mathematician have you?
    A triangle is a theoretical object on a theoretical surface, and that surface does not need to be a flat plane. A triangle superimposed on the globe with one vertex at the north pole, one at the Greenwich Meridian (zero degrees latitude by definition) and the last at either plus or minus 90° latitude (east or west) will have three vertices of 90%deg; and total 270°.
    What you have cited is true in a special condition of a theoretically perfectly flat plane.
    Curiously, the fact that no theoretically perfectly flat plane actually exists doesn't prevent us from making practical application of the equation in designing useful structures. They just need to be "close enough" to euclidean space that practical approximations can be useful.
    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 105 by erikp, posted 01-14-2009 4:24 PM erikp has not replied

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


    Message 198 of 249 (494627)
    01-17-2009 9:51 AM
    Reply to: Message 194 by Ambercab
    01-17-2009 5:48 AM


    Definition,He not Theory
    Hey Ambercab, welcome to the fray.
    I like the notion (starting with post 169) of debating whether water boils at 100C. Celsius invented a scale by saying that he would make the freezing point of water 100 and the boiling point 0. He didn’t discover it, there is no theory. He simply invented a definition. The scale was reversed after his death to make the one that we know today. (In modern usage, the Celsius scale is linked to the kelvin, which measures absolute temperatures, and the definition has become rather more complicated.)
    See ericp's response to Message 115 ... oh wait, there was no response.
    Enjoy.
    ... as you are new here, some posting tips:
    type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
    quotes are easy
    or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
    quote:
    quotes are easy
    also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
    For other formating tips see Posting Tips
    If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

    ... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 194 by Ambercab, posted 01-17-2009 5:48 AM Ambercab has not replied

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


    Message 215 of 249 (496024)
    01-25-2009 8:25 PM
    Reply to: Message 204 by prophet
    01-24-2009 10:20 PM


    posting tips
    hello prophet, welcome to the fray.
    "I clearly have no idea of science?" You know not what you think.
    ... as you are new here, some posting tips:
    type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
    quotes are easy
    or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
    quote:
    quotes are easy
    also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
    Since you got me here... I'll clue you in on something. truth, Truth TRUTH - and so on... is truth and anything short of that is not truth! An almost truth is still and untruth and an untruth is still a lie.
    Except you cannot know if what you believe is true or not.
    You also cannot know if a theory is true or false if there is no evidence contradicting it. It could be
    ===>> TRUTH <<===

    or it could be
    ||| FALSE |||
    Because you don't know, means that it cannot be a lie, as a lie is an intentional falsehood.
    Ya'll sound so much cooler on-line.
    By the way... I am so much cooler off line!
    Curiously, your opinion on this matter is totally irrelevant to the issue of the truth of scientific theories.
    Science tests concepts against reality and derives approximations of truth by the process of educated trial and error: predicting what we think will be true, and testing to see if it is false.
    Science eliminates false concepts, but it is incapable of distinguishing between truth and what just is not known yet.
    An almost truth is still and untruth and an untruth is still a lie.
    As pointed out by Coyote, you don't know science. It is also apparent that you don't know logic.
    This is known as the "all {A} is {B}, {B} therefore {A}" logical fallacy:
    What is unknown is not a lie, there is the {B} that is not{A}. An unfalsified theory could be true, but the answer is unknown.
    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 204 by prophet, posted 01-24-2009 10:20 PM prophet has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 217 by prophet, posted 01-25-2009 10:31 PM RAZD has seen this message but 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

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024