Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is a Theory?
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 4 of 249 (464052)
04-23-2008 4:06 AM


What about the potential of falsifiability (testability)?
Suppose a cosmologist comes up with a proposal to get a more detailed picture of the first moments of the Big Bang. His theoretical work is consistent with current observational data, but where it is different, one would need a 10x more detailed picture of the background radiation than what is currently available. To what degree would this be considered a genuine "theory", while the necessary observational data is not available?

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 6 of 249 (464067)
04-23-2008 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Percy
04-23-2008 8:53 AM


Let me be the first to congratulate Percy with this excellent little piece that goes to the heart of the matter. Really nice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 04-23-2008 8:53 AM Percy has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 23 of 249 (492018)
12-26-2008 8:51 AM


"just" a theory?
Reading all this, I think an important observation needs to be made: what sense does it ultimately make to talk in terms of something being "just" a theory (thus, impossible to prove "right"), when in reality there is simply nothing better available (no kind of knowledge that is more reliable) to compare it to? Absolute Truth is nothing but a mythical ghost that can be chased, but can never be captured. One is real, the other is out of reach by definition.
Hammering on the imperfections of scientific theories in general, thus doesn't do their true value and place in our existence justice. Not that we shouldn't try to falsify them, but they should be treated with the proper respect. I'm sure Einstein didn't exactly "look down" on Newton and his flawed theories.

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Coyote, posted 12-26-2008 9:27 PM Annafan has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 51 of 249 (494102)
01-14-2009 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Parasomnium
01-13-2009 4:31 PM


Scope is necessarilly limited
I think one of the issues here may be that theories are always about a part of reality. Which means that whatever conclusions you come up with, most of the time qualifyers will have to be added at some point because it was impossible to include *everything*. So the first theory was "water boils at 100" and can be considered correct in its scope, and when that scope was enlarged a replacement theory was adopted "water boils at 100 when the pressure is 1 atmosphere".. Maybe it later turns out that the specific isotope of water also matters, which would require another change of the scope. Ultimately one could imagine qualifyers like "... and in a universe like our own (with the same fundamental constants)"
Keeping all this in mind, I don't think it's unreasonable to declare theories right in their own scope, even after it is discovered that additional qualifyers are needed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Parasomnium, posted 01-13-2009 4:31 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Parasomnium, posted 01-14-2009 10:19 AM Annafan has replied
 Message 53 by NosyNed, posted 01-14-2009 10:20 AM Annafan has not replied
 Message 76 by Trae, posted 01-14-2009 2:28 PM Annafan has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 57 of 249 (494114)
01-14-2009 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Parasomnium
01-14-2009 10:19 AM


Re: Scope is necessarilly limited
Parasomnium writes:
I think the universe is non-perverse, meaning that it works according to a fixed and finite set of rules1. The hypothetical theory I mentioned would be an exhaustive description of any part of the workings of the universe that could be separated from the rest without making it incomplete. Given the aforementioned fixed and finite set of rules, I think such a theory would definitely be possible, in which case we would have a falsifiable theory that would reflect the ultimate truth and would therefore never be falsified in practice. It would be an example of a theory which is not necessarily false.
1Except for Belgium of course.
Belgium works according to the rules of René Magritte(Ren Magritte - Wikipedia): "Ceci N'Est Pas Un Etat"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Parasomnium, posted 01-14-2009 10:19 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 152 of 249 (494313)
01-15-2009 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by erikp
01-14-2009 1:36 PM


Re: Scope is necessarilly limited
erikp writes:
It is absolutely possible to phrase theories that can only be falsified by a finite number of facts. For example, "it will rain tomorrow". This theory can only be falsified by one fact.
"It will rain tomorrow and next week on Monday." This theory can only be falsified by two facts.
"It has rained yesterday and the day before and also the day before that" can only be falsified by three (already known/knowable) facts.
Therefore, theories that can only be falsified by a finite number of facts, do exist. This kind of theories is the only kind that can be proven. This kind of theories can also be completely true.
I haven't read the thread any further than this, so sorry if I'm running behind. But I'd like to address this line of reasoning because you're running exactly into the problem of the "necessarilly limited scope" as I expressed it.
When you state the "theory" "It will rain tomorrow and next week on Monday.", it might afterwards turn out to be "true" for you (your location). But what will also likely happen afterwards is that somebody will say "This is false, because I was in New York and it didn't rain!" So you'll be forced to add a qualifyer like "It will rain in Berlin tomorrow and next week on Monday." to "save" your theory by limiting the scope.
The point is that there is absolutely no way to know for sure whether such additional qualifyer will be necessary at some point or not, and what kind of qualifyer it will be. Maybe one or more additional qualifyers will be necessary, maybe not. But it does indicate that (scientific) theories that can be falsified by a limited number of facts, are an illusion. You will never be sure that you've covered all the facts because you'll never be sure your initial "scope" was broad enough.
For this reason it makes no sense to hypothesise (scientific,useful) theories that can be falsified by only a limited number of observations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by erikp, posted 01-14-2009 1:36 PM erikp 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