What is a Theory?

quote:

---

But we can't observe every fact, not ever.

---

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.Zero facts is also a finite number of facts. I therefore maintain that the principle of continuity demands that these theories are treated as being true, in accordance with the stated definitions for "true" and "false".Edited by erikp, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Obviously, unfalsifiable theories must not be considered true. They might be true, or they might be false, but we'll never know and because of that, they're useless. They are simply not viable as theories.

---

The same holds true for theories that can be falsified by an infinite number of facts: we will never know if they are true. (in fact, they are almost certainly false). That in itself does not make them useless or unviable as theories.Infinitely falsifiable theories are problematic, but not useless. Idem dito, for unfalsifiable theories.

quote:

---

...erroneously asserted that scientific theories assert their own truth

---

Why don't you quote my words, instead of making up things I would have said? If I asserted something, it should be possible for you to quote it, don't you think so?Your intellectually dishonest approach may somehow work in a spoken conversation, but it is very stupid to try this kind of tricks when there are written records available.

quote:

---

Show me a theory that has a fixed number of observations that can be made, or retract your statement

---

"It will rain tomorrow." is a theory, and it has just 1 observation that can be made to falsify it.

quote:

---

So, e.g., gravity can never be true, so long as it doesn't explain heredity.

---

Let's take the example that says "Water boils at 100 C". As demonstrated before, this theory is false, because reducing the atmospheric pressure will make water boil at 70 C or less. Replacing this theory by a formula that describes the boiling point of water in terms of atmospheric pressure does help, but is still false.The theory that "water boils at 100 C" does not need to explain heredity in order to be false. No. We are only interested in the temperature at which water boils, and nothing else.No matter how much the theory gets elaborated, it will still be false. The current state-of-the-art formula for it, is still false, but we just don't know why, because someone still needs to make the observation that will sink the current theory too.The problem is that the theory is infinitely falsifiable, and that we therefore reasonably can assume that it will eventually be proven false, and that it is therefore false.

quote:

---

Again, what benefit does science stand to gain from using this philosophy?

---

It is not really philosophy. Given the stated definitions of proven/unproven and true/false, science is, in its own terms, unproven and false.I think that exploring the limits of science, or the limits of any discipline for that matter, is one of the most important exercises in that discipline. That is why Gdel's theorems are amongst the most important theorems in math -- exactly because it describes limitations of math.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 is why I demonstrate that science according to itself is unproven and false, while again according to science, religion is unproven and true.

quote:

---

You didn't read the link I posted, did you?

---

Well, you obviously did not read the link properly. From Wiki:

quote:

---

a scientific theory is understood to be a testable model capable of predicting future occurrences or observations and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.
...
Note that this concept specifically does not require that a theory be particularly well supported or have any justification whatsoever.

---

quote:

---

Since your statement doesn't explain a phenomenon (it only makes a prediction) it is not a theory.

---

The theory "It will rain tomorrow." is not particularly well supported and has no justification whatsoever. So what?

quote:

---

This makes clear that you don't know what constitutes a scientific theory.

---

This makes clear that you like ad hominem attacks instead of just making your point. So, that proves that it is you, of course, who is the idiot.

quote:

---

The statement about two days of rain always being followed by a third day of rain is a prediction.

---

The theory that "two days of rain are always followed by a third day of rain" is infinitely falsifiable.But then again, even without additional observation, this theory must be false. As soon as it has rained 2 days, one single time, it will rain forever. Therefore, the theory predicts that it rains non-stop.

quote:

---

Did you read what I wrote? I wrote that your "theory" does not explain a phenomenon. It is only a prediction, it is not a an explanation, and thus not a theory.

---

I have already replied to that in a previous post. Anyway, Gdel writes a good deal about the theory about theories (Wiki):

quote:

---

a (formal) theory is a set of statements expressed in a particular formal language.

---

A set of anything (such as statements) is (zero),one or more of that anything (statements).The formal definition of Rains(X) says that it is a function that returns true if it rains on day X and false if it doesn't.{ Rains(17JAN2008) } is therefore a set of statements expressed in the particular formal language, and therefore a theory.Note that this theory about theories does not require whatsoever, that the set of statements explains anything at all.

quote:

---

"Exactly two consecutive days of rain cause a third day of rain."

---

That still means that after the two first consecutive days of rain, it simply rains forever.

quote:

---

By your definition a theory isn't false UNTIL the falsifying observation has been made.

---

Agreed.But then again, the underlying (but unproven) assumption is that an infinitely falsifiable theory, such as "Water boils at 100 C", must be false, even if we have not made the falsifying observation as yet.Such theory can still be very useful, though. Scientific theories are usually infinitely falsifiable. In fact, a theory has to be infinitely falsifiable in order to be useful.

quote:

---

Now you're off into the section of the Wikipedia article that talks about mathematical theories. We're talking about scientific theories here. Please stick to the topic.

---

Mathematical theories are scientific theories. Therefore,it is sufficient to demonstrate that a theory is a mathematical theory, for it to be a scientific theory.Since "It rains tomorrow" is a mathematical theory (according to the Wikipedia article), it is also a scientific theory.

quote:

---

You just said that scientific theories are both useful and false.

---

Exactly. In order to useful, theories must be (infinitely falsifiable and therefore presumably) false.Stephen Hawking:

quote:

---

A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.

---

A useful theory must make future statements, rendering it unproven. Infinite falsifiability makes such theory useful, unproven, and (presumably) false.

quote:

---

No, mathematical theories are not scientific theories.

---

Really?

quote:

---

Seriously? You didn't just say that did you?

---

Of course, I did.

quote:

---

"It rains tomorrow" A mathematical theory?

---

{ Rains(17JAN2008) } is a set of statements expressed in a particular formal language, and therefore a theory.

quote:

---

mathematical theories can be proved, scientific theories can't

---

Wrong.Mathematical theories are axiomatically reduced, but never proven, because the axioms to which they are (recursively) being reduced, and on which every mathematical statement eventually rests, MAY NOT be proven.Mathematics demands that its entire hypothesis be concentrated in its axioms, which in turn remain unproven.The word "proof" in math simply means "axiomatic reduction". This process does not guarantee that there will be no observations that will contradict the theory. So, even mathematics is fundamentally unproven.Mathematical theories are usually also infinitely falsifiable and therefore presumably false.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.What's more, it is inefficient to disprove this, because its presumed falsehood (hypothesis) is entirely concentrated in the presumed falsehood (hypothesis) of the underlying axioms. Axiomatically reduced statements carry no hypothesis of themselves. Therefore, proving math wrong, should be done by proving one of its axioms to be wrong.