Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is a Theory?
Trae
Member (Idle past 4307 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 76 of 249 (494147)
01-14-2009 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Annafan
01-14-2009 9:42 AM


Re: Scope is necessarilly limited
Annafan writes:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Annafan, posted 01-14-2009 9:42 AM Annafan has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 77 of 249 (494148)
01-14-2009 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by erikp
01-14-2009 2:15 PM


Re: Scope is necessarilly limited
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by erikp, posted 01-14-2009 2:15 PM erikp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by erikp, posted 01-14-2009 2:56 PM Percy has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 78 of 249 (494149)
01-14-2009 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by erikp
01-14-2009 2:15 PM


Re: Scope is necessarilly limited
"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:
In science, the word theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.
Since your statement doesn't explain a phenomenon (it only makes a prediction) it is not a theory.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by erikp, posted 01-14-2009 2:15 PM erikp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by erikp, posted 01-14-2009 2:48 PM Huntard has replied

  
erikp
Member (Idle past 5550 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 12-23-2008


Message 79 of 249 (494150)
01-14-2009 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Blue Jay
01-14-2009 2:12 PM


Re: All or Nothing
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Blue Jay, posted 01-14-2009 2:12 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Percy, posted 01-14-2009 2:54 PM erikp has not replied
 Message 83 by Granny Magda, posted 01-14-2009 2:56 PM erikp has not replied
 Message 85 by PaulK, posted 01-14-2009 3:03 PM erikp has replied
 Message 106 by Blue Jay, posted 01-14-2009 4:25 PM erikp has not replied
 Message 112 by Parasomnium, posted 01-14-2009 7:13 PM erikp has replied
 Message 116 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2009 12:25 AM erikp has not replied
 Message 118 by Coyote, posted 01-15-2009 12:55 AM erikp has not replied

  
erikp
Member (Idle past 5550 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 12-23-2008


Message 80 of 249 (494151)
01-14-2009 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Huntard
01-14-2009 2:35 PM


Re: Scope is necessarilly limited
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Huntard, posted 01-14-2009 2:35 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Huntard, posted 01-14-2009 2:59 PM erikp has replied
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 01-14-2009 3:05 PM erikp has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 81 of 249 (494152)
01-14-2009 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by erikp
01-14-2009 2:41 PM


Re: All or Nothing
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by erikp, posted 01-14-2009 2:41 PM erikp has not replied

  
erikp
Member (Idle past 5550 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 12-23-2008


Message 82 of 249 (494153)
01-14-2009 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Percy
01-14-2009 2:34 PM


Re: Scope is necessarilly limited
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 01-14-2009 2:34 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 01-14-2009 3:21 PM erikp has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 83 of 249 (494154)
01-14-2009 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by erikp
01-14-2009 2:41 PM


At Last, Some Honesty
This is the first honest and sensible thing you have said in your thirty-five posts;
quote:
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by erikp, posted 01-14-2009 2:41 PM erikp has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 84 of 249 (494155)
01-14-2009 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by erikp
01-14-2009 2:48 PM


Re: Scope is necessarilly limited
erikp writes:
The theory "It will rain tomorrow." is not particularly well supported and has no justification whatsoever. So what?
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 hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by erikp, posted 01-14-2009 2:48 PM erikp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by erikp, posted 01-14-2009 3:22 PM Huntard has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 85 of 249 (494157)
01-14-2009 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by erikp
01-14-2009 2:41 PM


Re: All or Nothing
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'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:
The reason why I am interested in the limitations of science, is because science is often used to attack religion.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by erikp, posted 01-14-2009 2:41 PM erikp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by erikp, posted 01-14-2009 3:38 PM PaulK has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 86 of 249 (494158)
01-14-2009 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by erikp
01-14-2009 2:48 PM


Re: Scope is necessarilly limited
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by erikp, posted 01-14-2009 2:48 PM erikp has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 87 of 249 (494160)
01-14-2009 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by erikp
01-14-2009 2:56 PM


Re: Scope is necessarilly limited
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by erikp, posted 01-14-2009 2:56 PM erikp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by erikp, posted 01-14-2009 3:25 PM Percy has replied

  
erikp
Member (Idle past 5550 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 12-23-2008


Message 88 of 249 (494161)
01-14-2009 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Huntard
01-14-2009 2:59 PM


Re: Scope is necessarilly limited
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Huntard, posted 01-14-2009 2:59 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Percy, posted 01-14-2009 3:31 PM erikp has replied
 Message 91 by Huntard, posted 01-14-2009 3:32 PM erikp has not replied
 Message 98 by Coyote, posted 01-14-2009 3:55 PM erikp has not replied

  
erikp
Member (Idle past 5550 days)
Posts: 71
Joined: 12-23-2008


Message 89 of 249 (494162)
01-14-2009 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Percy
01-14-2009 3:21 PM


Re: Scope is necessarilly limited
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 01-14-2009 3:21 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 01-14-2009 3:35 PM erikp has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 90 of 249 (494163)
01-14-2009 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by erikp
01-14-2009 3:22 PM


Re: Scope is necessarilly limited
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by erikp, posted 01-14-2009 3:22 PM erikp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by erikp, posted 01-14-2009 3:43 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024