Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is a Theory?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 108 of 249 (494181)
01-14-2009 4:50 PM


Philosophy
I'd like to point out that this whole topic is philosophy. I'd also like to point out that science is the practical pursuit of knowledge about the natural world. Philosophy is the study of knowledge and so science and philosophy necessarily meet - even if scientists don't realise they are being philosophers, there is an enormous and necessary amount of it in science. Naturally there is a giant amount of philosophy that is little or nothing to do with science whatsoever, but this fact shouldn't be used to distract us from the idea that that within science there is plenty of philosophy to be getting to grips with.
When is a explanatory framework secure enough to be considered 'good science'? Does a theory have to be falsifiable in practice or only in principle? (Certain theories in physics might be unfalsifiable in practice since to try would require infinite energy or a device larger than the universe or some such thing, but the are certainly falsifiable in principle) and what about theories that cannot be falsified today, but it is feasible that one day we will have the technology or the means to falsify them?
How much induction is too much induction? Bertrand Russell sopke to this old problem, "the general principles of science . . . are believed because mankind have found innumerable instances of their truth and no instances of their falsehood. But this affords no evidence for their truth in the future, unless the inductive principle is assumed.". Is a theory an actual approximation of truth or just a pragmatic model? How closely should we stick to parsimony? When our observations contradict a theory, when do we assume our observations (or scientific instruments etc) are faulty and when do we throw the theory out?
As Dan Dennett once argued:
quote:
There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.
The general answer, incidentally, to most of the philosophical questions posed above is 'leave it up to the collective judgement of scientists'. Still, taking these kinds of issues for granted is exactly the kind of thing that leads to intellectual stagnation.
Is "There are a nine planets in the solar system" a theory or not? One could say that this fact, combined with the laws of motion and gravity explain some of what we see in the night sky, and it is falsifiable (just like when the theory was "There are seven planets..." and we'll leave aside definitional issues like with Pluto) - but then it is hardly the kind of general theory that Relativity or the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution or what have you.
There were some good posts early on that covered a lot of what I was going to say so I'll draw to a close here. The important thing is that what a theory is dependant on context, and not just whether it is scientific or not. Still, even straight forward simplifications of these issues is difficult enough to hammer into the brain (or gently slide depending on preference) of the typical evolution denying poster around here. It would be a travesty if every time someone turned up with some definitely wrong idea of what the word theory means in the context it is being used we had to devolve into complex philosophical and linguistic discussions (though the occasional thread is good fun and educational for all, of course).

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 113 of 249 (494197)
01-14-2009 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Parasomnium
01-14-2009 7:13 PM


Re: All or Nothing
For scientists, unfalsifiability is a bad thing. For you, it is the holy grail, it seems. When you have finally arrived at an unfalsifiable theory, you yell triumphantly: Ha! My theory is unfalsifiable, it can never be proven wrong. Therefore it must be true.
Yesterday, I kidnapped erikp and he confessed to me that everything that he has said on this thread is false before I plugged him into my secret memory altering machine that implanted a completely different set of memories and erased all memory of him coming over for the day. I then spoke to the Illuminati who forged various bits of evidence that would suggest to erikp that he had the day he thinks he had, and the World Government agreed to erase all records of the travel arrangements we had to make. Fortunately everyone else but erikp is in on it and they made sure to maintain the masquerade.
I'm fairly sure my theory is unfalsifiable, which makes it true, which makes erikp's statements all false which means that...
This thread could do with two consecutive days of Rrhain.
I was thinking of a Memory Hole. If erikp can't see the problems with his position now, I don't think five years of Rrhain will change that. The surreal and self contradictory world erikp lives in in which the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Russell's Celestial Teapot, Allah, Domovoi, the Illuminati, and the Christ-God are all true, but "It's raining outside my window in Manchester" is false was fascinating for a while - but I don't think it is possible to reason with such unreason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Parasomnium, posted 01-14-2009 7:13 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 162 of 249 (494414)
01-15-2009 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by erikp
01-15-2009 6:30 PM


"Water boils at 100C" is a theory falsifiable by an infinite number of facts.
Can you prove that there exist an infinite number of facts that exist in the real world that would falsify this theory? For example, I get some water, I heat it to 100C - I could argue that only one fact would falsify the theory at this point - it is not boiling.
Why are there an infinite number? Are you suggesting there are an infinite number of temperatures that water could in fact be measured at? If so then this assumes, surely, that the universe is analogue - why do you think that?
My theory covers theories. And indeed, it is not allowed to be "infinitely falsifiable" either. There is only one way to solve that problem: The number of possible theories is finite and not infinite.
Water boils at 100C
Water boils at 101C
Water boils at 102C
Water boils at 103C
...
Water boils nC
Are you sure that there aren't an infinite number of numbers one could theorize that water boils at?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by erikp, posted 01-15-2009 6:30 PM erikp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by erikp, posted 01-16-2009 1:31 AM Modulous 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