|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is a Theory? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4307 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
Annafan writes:
As theories are as you say, ’part of reality’. I think we can take it a bit further and say that some qualifiers do not need to be added but are implied by the reality/context. I see no requirement to talk about a lack of atmosphere if we’re talking about deep space, nor does it seem necessary to talk about the atmospheric make up of Earth when I say, “Water boils at 100”. At least that's the way I see it.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
erikp writes: "It will rain tomorrow." is a theory, and it has just 1 observation that can be made to falsify it. This makes clear that you don't know what constitutes a scientific theory. A scientific theory explains and/or interprets and/or makes sense of a body of scientifically gathered data and observations so as to put it in a consistent framework from which predictions about future phenomena can be made. An example of a very simple theory:
This week it has rained three days in a row. Last week the same thing happened. Based upon this data, I would say that two days of rain are always followed by a third day of rain. The two weeks of observations of rain are the body of evidence. The statement about two days of rain always being followed by a third day of rain is a prediction. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
"It will rain tomorrow." is a theory, and it has just 1 observation that can be made to falsify it.
You didn't read the link I posted, did you? From Wiki:
quote:Since your statement doesn't explain a phenomenon (it only makes a prediction) it is not a theory. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
erikp Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
quote: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: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
erikp Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
quote:Well, you obviously did not read the link properly. From Wiki: quote: quote:The theory "It will rain tomorrow." is not particularly well supported and has no justification whatsoever. So what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
erikp writes: Let's take the example that says "Water boils at 100 C". As demonstrated before, this theory is false... No, it isn't false, it is incomplete. Continuing to equate falsity and incompleteness while ignoring all the feedback that you are wrong is just going to lead you to more incorrect conclusions.
The theory that "water boils at 100 C" does not need to explain heredity... You fail to comprehend the implications of your own arguments. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
erikp Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
quote: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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
This is the first honest and sensible thing you have said in your thirty-five posts;
quote: Basically, you are upset because religion doesn't get the same particular kind of respect paid to its claims as science does (even despite the fact that religion is typically shown a great deal of respect, often unmerited). This is why you are so keen to torture logic until, kicking and screaming, it briefly appears to support your world view. This is a fundamentally dishonest approach. Why not get on with your religion of choice and let the scientific community define it's own terms, eh? Mutate and Survive PS: When taking part in an internet debate board, it is usually considered unwise to address the forum director as an idiot. Just a hint. Edited by Granny Magda, : Couldn't resist the PS. "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
erikp writes:
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. The theory "It will rain tomorrow." is not particularly well supported and has no justification whatsoever. So what? I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I'll agree that it's not philosophy. All you are doing is redefining "truth" so that you can say that all unfaalsifiable statements - even the false ones - are "true". Unfortunately for you, you can't even manage to get that simple piece of trickery right. By your definition a theory isn't false UNTIL the falsifying obervation has been made.
quote: In other words you are really interested in redefining words to dishonestly try to make religion look good. Which only succeeds in amking religion look bad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
erikp writes: The theory "It will rain tomorrow." is not particularly well supported and has no justification whatsoever. So what? "Not particularly well supported" is not synonymous with not supported at all. You continue to make terminological and definitional errors. To make effective points about scientific theories, then if you're going to use simplified examples you would be served best by examples that everyone can agree about. If your point only makes sense for theories with no justification whatsoever, then who cares. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
erikp writes: The theory that "two days of rain are always followed by a third day of rain" is infinitely falsifiable. Yes, exactly, the theory is falsifiable. As a theory of what causes it to rain it is also incomplete. It only posits that two days of rain causes a third day of rain and doesn't explain what causes the first two days of rain. You noted an ambiguity, so let me rectify this by reexpressing the prediction as, "Exactly two consecutive days of rain cause a third day of rain." Anyway, that's why I used that example: it's simple, it explains a body of data, and it makes a prediction that can be falsified. Your theory of "It will rain tomorrow" explained no data but was only a prediction. It doesn't, in Wikipedia's words, "explain a phenomenon", in this case what causes it to rain. I'm sorry you don't like being told you don't know what constitutes a scientific theory, but the way to defend yourself is not with ad hominem, whose definition you also seem unaware of. You might take a look at rule 10 in the Forum Guidelines. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
erikp Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
quote:I have already replied to that in a previous post. Anyway, Gdel writes a good deal about the theory about theories (Wiki): quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
erikp Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 71 Joined: |
quote:That still means that after the two first consecutive days of rain, it simply rains forever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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.
--Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024