What is a Theory?

Sounds like you are shilling for some religion.First you "prove" science is false, then you offer up the snake oil."I've got the TRVTH right here! Trust me!"

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

First, about the unproven part: all science is by definition unproven. No scientific theory is ever proven. That's because all theories are tentative, open to change or replacement in light of new evidence or improved insight. You couldn't change a theory that had already been proven now, could you. So of course theories are unproven.Theories are supported (or not) by evidence, and they become accepted by the relevant scientific community only if that evidence has sufficient force. Theories never become proven. Theories always remain unproven.Now second, about where you call science false. This is just poor terminology. Someone could say to you, "I'm going to use the theory of gravity to calculate the trajectory of this rocket in space," and you could reply, "The theory of gravity is false." So this person says to you, "You mean if I use the theory of gravity the rocket won't go where I want it to?" And you'll reply, "No, of course not, it will go exactly where you want it to." So they'll ask, "Then in what way is the theory of gravity false?"The correct answer is that the theory of gravity is not false. It is merely incomplete, which is what you really meant to conclude from the fact of a theory's necessary falsifiability. Falsifiable doesn't mean that theories are false, though some might be, but it definitely means that theories can never be complete. The favorite example is Newtonian physics and Einsteinian relativity. Relativity falsified Newtonian physics by showing where it was incomplete, but it didn't show it was false. Obviously Newtonian physics works just fine under most circumstances.If you use correct terminology by using the word "incomplete" instead of "false" then the falsifiable nature of theories will be much easier to understand.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

To me, it sounds like they're taking their freshman philosophy course a little too far.They registered right during winter break and it reads like they just got out of their first semester.

Well there are theories and then there are theories. Do not religions have 'theories' about the correct interpretation of scripture and also what is accepted as such?When I first heard that YECs were not simply YECs but YUCs as well I was astounded beyond belief. It was at a gathering of youth to listen to this YEC / YUC that I first heard this along with the children some as young as 10 years old. The children were all on board with this man 'since he was on the side of God' and they knew nothing yet of science. But when the claim was made that light from distant stars was created in transit it was as if a light switch had been thrown and you could read it on their faces. Even 10 year old children suddenly looked at this man like he was absolutely nuts and you could see them snickering behind his back with each other for the rest of his remarks.I guess the lesson is that faith can be placed in anything whether true or false and that religion is not science and can never become such. Religion is based upon a different foundation than science altogether. Whether one has a foundation for his faith is an individual matter.We are living in an age of greater knowledge than has ever existed previously and we ought to demonstrate some respect and appreciation for that knowledge and some gratitude towards those who have sacrificed much of their lives to provide it to the rest of us.If your theories(views/interpretations) of scripture do not coincide with science, you might find it easier to modify your 'theory' of what those written accounts mean, rather than kick against the pricks of scientific knowledge. Catholics do it. Gerald L. Schroeder in his book "The Science of God" did it. Why can't YEC/YUCs do it? What does the inability to grow and change signify for a child? Will he ever become a man?

"Exactly"?Have you been paying attention?Somehow you managed to misunderstand what I was trying to tell you, namely that not every theory is necessarily false. Unless nature behaves in a haphazard way it is possible to have a theory that is spot on. We may not know it to be so, but that doesn't matter, it's possible for a theory to be the exact truth about some aspect of nature. The theory may predict observations A, B, and C, but we know that if we observe D, E, or F, then the theory is false. That takes care of the falsifiability of the theory. Now, unbeknownst to us, the theory is absolutely correct, so we will never observe D, E, or F, or any other observation that would falsify the theory.What I'm saying is: you're wrong, not all theories are necessarily false.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

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.

By and large, I think what you say is reasonable enough. When dealing with real life theories, your scenario is usually what happens.Bearing that in mind, I'll just add the following: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.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

That is an excellent point Annafan!And a good example is Newton's "theory" of gravity (he didn't really have a theory, just some laws). It is "wrong" in the wider scope but we can use it to land on far flung planets. It is treated as right.It appears that this may be the way most advances will be made now (after the development of QM and GR).The theories we do have work so well that they are not likely to be overturned like the heliocentric theory of the solar system was. They are more likely to be added to, "scoped" and kept on as very useful. That is, "right" in a useful pragmatic way.What ones are most vulnerable to a larger overthrow? Would the developement of a discrete quantized spacetime "overthrow" GR? I would say not, it would limit it's scope to "big enough" even though it's underlying assumption of a smooth spacetime would be as gone as some of Newton's (implicit) assumptions.What is likely for overthrow? Not ToE, I think. What would "overthrow" that? Even ID as the more sophisticated see it would not overthrow it. It would just limit it's scope away from the occasional (and it seems rare) places where God sticks a finger in.

Hey Ned, one thing: The Heliocentric model was overturned? When?

---

I hunt for the truth

LOL he he heWonderful!!!uh, oops

Newsflash: The heliocentric theory, overthrown almost eight years ago, will be reinstated next Tuesday.Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

Belgium works according to the rules of René Magritte(Ren Magritte - Wikipedia): "Ceci N'Est Pas Un Etat"

quote:

---

Now second, about where you call science false. This is just poor terminology...The correct answer is that the theory of gravity is not false. It is merely incomplete, which is what you really meant to conclude from the fact of a theory's necessary falsifiability.

---

Given the definition of "true" and "false", "incomplete" means "false".true: all possible observations concur with the theory.
false: one observation contradicts the theory.An incomplete theory is false, because there will be at least one observation that will contradict it -- there where the theory is incomplete.If all theories are incomplete, they are all false.Gdel already proves that all axiomatic theories capable of expression basic arithmetic are incomplete (and therefore false).Even though it is not proven that all non-axiomatic theories of sufficient complexity, that is, falsifiable by an infinite number of future observations, are also incomplete, and therefore false, it is certainly reasonable to assume this.Since "incomplete" in this context means "false", the entire body of science must be deemed to be false. However, nobody is currently able to demonstrate this statement, by making the observations that will prove it.Edited by erikp, : No reason given.

Only by your definitions. See? Wrong. An incomplete theory simply hasn't had ALL possible observations and circumstances put into it. Everything it says will still be correct, there just needs to be added something to make it encompass more data. Again, only by your (false) logic. Axiomatic theories perhaps, but NO scientific theory is axiomatic. No, it isn't. For if everything we know is false i.e. it does not comply with reality, then how can we ever do anything? Ok, then since it doesn't mean that (only you think so), have we finally reached the conclusion that they aren't? And since it has absolutely no evidence, we can safely regard it as false for now.Here's an example for you to demonstrate the difference between false and incomplete.Say I went to a store last Friday and bought 2 sweets 1 soda and 1 hot dog. Now, when the next day someone asks me what I did yesterday, I tell them I went to the store. This is true (I went there). However, it is also incomplete (I bought several things there, which I didn't mention). Does this make the statement false? NO! The statement is true, just incomplete.I hope it helped.

---

I hunt for the truth

You're playing semantic games by equating incomplete and false as synonyms. They're not, and that's why you're arriving at false conclusions that have no correspondence to the real world that science is trying to understand.--Percy