define hypothesis, theory, law, evidence

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So I won ten internets then?

Yes. And the world wide web as a bonus for figuring out your score.

 

[gnostic]

How'd I do?

You did great.

Brief, but precise.

If I tried to be precise, each of my definition would probably take a couple of multi-lined paragraphs. I don't know how to be brief.

Here, have a cookie.

...or would you prefer a frubal?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That your "it's so simple" schtick had you talking about a theory that doesn't exist.

And yet, for all the words spilled on the page here, the point from the OP- that the creationist mantra "evolution is just a theory" is based on an equivocation of the word "theory" and that, so far as it goes, the scientific method is quite straightforward and intuitive- still stands.

We can still do both experiments, and we will continually get inconsistent results. The difference is we know why now. It's because this hypothesis testing depended on a theoretical framework which was wrong. Better yet, the experiments were simple enough that there wasn't any way of trying to explain the results within the theoretical framework. That's not true in most cases, which means that it can be extremely difficult to know when your experimental methods are faulty vs. when your hypothesis is.

Again, this doesn't suggest there's anything not simple about the procedure, in theory.

And thus once again we have this "easy" procedure I quoted again, which leads to contradicting results. Only this time, the experiments are not as simple as those of Young's and Einstein's, so interpreting experimental results depends upon a theoretical framework that rests on a particular set of informed assumptions relative to another set. And as a result, your procedure means we don't have answers after 20-30 years because a wide variety of experiments have been interpreted through different frameworks.

By now you should know the refrain- pointing out instances like this, where we haven't devised an appropriate conceptual framework which makes predictions that would differentiate between these conflicting results, doesn't show that the procedure is not, in theory, simple and straight-forward. It doesn't even show that the procedure is not effective.

They aren't "self-acclaimed". They're scientists. The fact that you and I don't think their work is science is a different matter. When you come up with a distinction that holds for all journals and separates pseudo-science from science, then talk to me about "real science".

Lol right, we aren't muddying the water for the purpose of muddy water here or anything... Clearly, ESP and plate tectonics, for instance, enjoy different levels of evidentiary vindication, consistency within the broader web of human knowledge and established science, and adherence to naturalistic principles.

It looks like you were just bored and wanted to pitpick for its own sake- most of what you've written is, while accurate so far as it goes, simply irrelevant, unless there's something I'm missing here.

 

[gnostic]

Here are my definitions for each word, as they were meant to be used in science.

Hypothesis:

Hypothesis is an explanation of possibly observable phenomenon, in addition, it may include predictions to what this phenomenon may do. This is similar definition to theory, with the exception that hypothesis is a "proposed" explanation (and proposed predictions) that is yet to be tested. The tests or evidences (or lack of evidences) will determine if the hypothesis has been "verified" (successful) or "refuted" (unsuccessful, rejected).

Theory:

A theory is an explanation of a phenomenon that predictions made, have been tested and verified. The theory is more detailed and comprehensive than hypothesis. In fact, theory is usually a collection of tested hypotheses.

Law:

Law is a brief statement, which may contain a mathematical equation, formula or expression. A theory may contain law or laws, which a theory attempt to explain in more detail on how or why such law is or can be used.

Evidence:

Evidence is observed fact or observed phenomenon. Evidence can be observed either through tests (in lab environment) or through discovery. Evidence should not be reliance on a personal belief. Evidence is used in science to either support theory or hypothesis, or to refute or debunk them.

That's my definition for each of the term.

In science, theory or hypothesis should be "falsifiable".

Any proposition, hypothesis or theory (or any prediction made) must be open to be "refuted". Statement(s) or prediction(s) can either be supported or refuted through repeated testings or finding independent evidences.

Neither creationism nor intelligent design is falsifiable, because creator deity or intelligent designer cannot be observed or tested. Creationism rely on faith and belief, not evidences, therefore they are unfalsifiable and unscientific. Even should ample physical evidences be provided to debunk creationism (such as the earth is only 6000 or 10,000 years old, or the global flood), the believers (creationists) would not accept the evidences because of their belief in their religion, in their scriptures or in their god.

Science based their conclusion on empirical evidences or testings. Religion, on the other hand, come to their conclusions based on their belief, irrespective of the evidences, which is why religion is called FAITH, not science.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Neither creationism nor intelligent design is falsifiable, because creator deity or intelligent designer cannot be observed or tested.

That's not really true- ever heard of "irreducible complexity"?

ID/creationism does occasionally make specific, testable predictions (IC is one such example)- the problem is that they just turn out to be false...

 

[gnostic]

That's not really true- ever heard of "irreducible complexity"?

Sure, I've heard of "irreducible complexity".

Although, Michael Behe - a biochemist - had put forward this argument for Irreducible Complexity, it was refuted by peer-review journals and have been rejected by scientific communities, even by other biochemists.

And yet, Intelligent Design advocates still want IC to be taught in science, along with ID.

But Irreducible Complexity (IC) didn't even pass the grade of being a "hypothesis", let alone as a "theory", because IC is not falsifiable.

IC still required an Intelligent Designer to guide whatever life or organism for its complex formation (or creation).

The Intelligent Designer itself, like a god or creator, is not testable, let alone falsifiable, so this make ID and IC nothing more than pseudoscience.

Science classrooms should only teach valid theories in whatever fields or branches of science. Hypothesis shouldn't be taught in science classrooms, and unless the teachers are interested in teaching the origin of specific field, the history of science or philosophy.

For examples, in the early 20th century, there were two competing hypotheses about the universe's origin: the Steady State model and the Expanding Universe model (later known as the Big Bang theory, the name 1st coined in 1949).

Eventually, the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) led to the acceptance of the Big Bang model over the Steady State model. The Big Bang model became a genuine theory, and not just a hypothesis.

Teachers can teach how about these 2 hypotheses, but when I was learning physics, we only learned the fundamentals and possible applications of physics, so we didn't explore the history of science in any great details.

For example, I am a qualified civil engineer, so I was taught many different fields of physics that an engineer was required to know. So we were taught the physics (and even some chemistry) of a particular material being used for construction, such as the property of reinforced concrete column (as an example). How much force can be applied to the beam from the top before it reach breaking points? Just because we need to know about compression force, stress or strain of the concrete beam, doesn't mean we were taught about the life of Isaac Newton, because such knowledge is not required.

But getting back to IC and ID.

IC is not a theory, so it shouldn't be taught in school; worse still, IC isn't even a hypothesis. IC is pseudoscience, not science.

Usually when a hypothesis has been refuted, the hypothesis is usually discarded, and the scientist should move on.

But Discovery Institute persisted on bringing up IC as a valid scientific theory, even though it had been refuted and rejected by peer-review and large part of the scientific communities. They keep resurrecting this damn pseudoscience.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That's not really true- ever heard of "irreducible complexity"?

ID/creationism does occasionally make specific, testable predictions (IC is one such example)- the problem is that they just turn out to be false...

So far as I can gather, Behe has not been successful and at best has just retreated or revised (god in the gaps and all). This is not true for certain "design" arguments. Personally, I blame cosmologists for combining physics and metaphysics, but I don't I imagine that people like Hawking, Penrose, Susskind, Carr, Deutsch, Tegmark, Weinberg, Rees, etc., would disagree on this point. In any event, 2 of these (Wienberg and Susskind) are proponents of a multiverse theory in part because it removes the fine-tuning argument that has been the subject of debate especially since Barrow and Tipler's book. As a result, we have Susskind arguing that the holographic multiverse is correct (and removing, it seems, any cosmological arguments) while at the same time we have
Amoroso, R., & Rauscher, E. (2009). The Holographic Anthropic Multiverse: Formalizing the Complex Geometry of Reality (Series on Knots and Everything). London: World Scientific.

which uses the same type of cosmology Susskind does, only argues the evidence points to design and a designer.

On the other hand, we have guys like Paul Davies, who I think is a theist, arguing that multiverse theories aren't science at all. Nor is he alone. Ellis is at least as well known in the scientific community and thinks the same. Smolin (who I believe was a student of Susskind) argues against Susskind's use of the anthropic principle (which, in most cases is either evidence against a creator or isn't at all related to one), but introduces "cosmological natural selection" instead.

Finally, the multiverse theories are related to quantum physics via many-worlds interpretations, which in turn opens up the door for arguments about consciousness. If there is any field of science more speculative than cosmology, it is the study of consciousness. Penrose is against a creator, yet was basically the first to connect quantum physics and consciousness in a scientific manner, and since that time we have not only other quantum consciousness theories (e.g., Stapp), but "quantum-like" consciousness. There are those who argue that neither classical physics nor quantum physics can account for the "mind', yet are atheist or agnostic. They go beyond non-reductive physicalism (itself a rather difficult epistemic approach) into a sort of full-fledged dualism of some sort (e.g., strong downward causation). Others, however, (J. P. Moreland) argue that consciousness is evidence of god, and that it cannot have evolved (as it cannot be possible without dualism).

Which brings us back to evolution an the various arguments (notably Dembski) about algorithmic complexity, an new spin on the "irreducible complexity" but one which is harder to refute. Partly, this is just because it is newer. However, it is also because
1) It's a combination of pretty sophisticated mathematics with the kind of logical arguments only a philosopher could make
2) We don't know enough to refute it all (god in the gaps again).
3) There are disagreements within evolutionary sciences that are exploited to paint them as weaknesses, and although they are not, such counter-arguments cannot be addressed because either way one addresses it the ID proponent can point to the other evidence.

And, finally, we have systems science and systems biology. Here we find descriptions of biological systems which do actually violate the laws of physics. Most are just conceptual models and therefore unproblematic from a biophysics perspective, but for those who argue that the mind is just algorithms upon algorithms, many of the models pose a significant problem for any arguments about consciousness. That's because mathematical models and the sciences which use them do so because formal languages do not have the kind of ambiguity natural languages do. They remove semantics. However, when you are trying to argue about consciousness, about what it means to understand concepts rather than manipulate symbols like a computer, any proof necessarily rests on meaning than proofs should.


What's the point of the above (barely coherent) rant? That when scientists are arguing over whether an entire set of theories qualifies as science at all, and there is no agreement, trying to nail down theory vs. hypothesis and so forth seems like a doomed project.

 

[Tiberius]

For all those people who argue for intelligent design, I gotta ask, by what criteria do you recognize design?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

For all those people who argue for intelligent design, I gotta ask, by what criteria do you recognize design?

Off topic a bit, but I found it amusing. There's a book Debating Design which was put together by two hardcore believers: one for ID, one against. In one of the pro-ID papers, we find an argument that has been argued elsewhere about macroevolution. Basically, the argument is that macroevolution occurs, but cannot occur without a designer, ergo macroevolution is evidence for god.

I found out not long ago that most ID proponents seem to think that macroevolution doesn't occur. They disagree with the most sophisticated arguments presented by the most educated defenders concerning the same theory. So depending on who you ask, macroevolution never happened because it can't and there's no evidence for it, or it happened and it is mathematically impossible for it to have happened without a designer.

So ID proponents don't just have the issue of defining design, but also of deciding what "evidence" for this design means.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There isn't. It's a fundamental problem, perhaps the fundamental problem in physics.

Defining theory? Or gravity?

That your "it's so simple" schtick had you talking about a theory that doesn't exist.

No. This whole thing is litterally lowering my IQ. The difference between a theory and hypothosis is 1st grade stuff. What people are clearly aiming to do with this thread is try and either find a hard line between theories that can be dismissed and theories that hold ground. Its a large amount of ignorance in the whole argument of "evolution is just a theory". So yes it is that easy. Its also very easy to try and pull me into a semantics battle.

Because both experiments followed your procedure:

Sweet. The scientific method is now my personal procedure. Awesome.

We can still do both experiments, and we will continually get inconsistent results. The difference is we know why now. It's because this hypothesis testing depended on a theoretical framework which was wrong. Better yet, the experiments were simple enough that there wasn't any way of trying to explain the results within the theoretical framework. That's not true in most cases, which means that it can be extremely difficult to know when your experimental methods are faulty vs. when your hypothesis is.

Your talking about something different than what I was talking about. You made some massive leaps without explaing what you were talking about. this is what confused me.
1) Just because experiments have inconsistant results doesn't mean that they are "wrong". It means "we don't know why yet". As our understanding evolved so did the sciences and how we viewe the results.
2) This still has nothing to do with defining a theory but rather the evolution of our knolwedge on a theory.

And thus once again we have this "easy" procedure I quoted again, which leads to contradicting results. Only this time, the experiments are not as simple as those of Young's and Einstein's, so interpreting experimental results depends upon a theoretical framework that rests on a particular set of informed assumptions relative to another set. And as a result, your procedure means we don't have answers after 20-30 years because a wide variety of experiments have been interpreted through different frameworks.

Yes. Hypothosis can be conflicting. The accumultive data across several experiments and other evidence that is gathered allows us to construct Theories. Theories can conflict. In fact its a driving factor of science. But for a theory to be legitimate it has to have significant backing that has been peer reviewed. It has to be questioned relentlessly and still be upheld through intense scrutiny. That is the difference between a legitimate scientific theory and hogwash. Thats why it is so hard to become a respected theory.

Tell that to cosmologists. Or consider Einstein, who believed that current physics was clearly fantasy.

I would and do on occasion. As stated before it must stand up to scrutiny. Their psudo science doesn't stand outside their tiny little group. If the rest of the science world pokes massive holes in your science then it fails the scrutiy tests.

Also kudos on us for advancing fast enough half a century to blow Enstien's mind. Though you can't fault him for lack of understanding. If there was legitimate research that stood to scrutiny and peer review with sceptics then I would believe the bullcrap that psuedo scientists come up with.

They are all respected by someone.

so are young earth creationists but that doesn't mean they are right or even come close to having legitimacy behind them. I mean again what I have said now for the 3rd time the ability to stand up to scrutiny and questioning from people who are skeptics of their work. They don't.

There is no general science community. I have no clue what agricultural sciences that are behind specific crop strains involve. There is the community that relates to some set of fields, and to be a viable scientific theory, you need to pass one paper through peer-review, which has become so easy in some cases that it has taken amateurs to point out glaring errors and there are numerous scientific volumes, committees, papers, etc., all trying to reduce what is becoming a serious problem in which the peer-review fails repeatedly.

I call it a general scientific community. I mean those that stand by real evidence and can support themselves. Those that aren't bought in by crazy ideas with little backing. That is the general scientific community. "Peer review" can be flawed by at the same time it is the best system set forward. Often those in two fields or near by fields can review as well which allows them to point out new holes in the science.

They aren't "self-acclaimed". They're scientists. The fact that you and I don't think their work is science is a different matter. When you come up with a distinction that holds for all journals and separates pseudo-science from science, then talk to me about "real science".

Sigh. People who have science that can stand up to scrutiny, questioning ect from skeptics of the work and still stand strong enough to convicne them they are onto something would be "real" scientist. "Scentistis" that are only respected in their very narrow field that does not operate in accordance to other fields of science do not count. YEC scientists for example. They have degeres and work on evidence to state that the earth is 8,000 years old. No such thing but they are respected in a narrow field but everyone else knows the truth. They have psudo science that is debunked by mountains of evidence in opposition.

It does not stand up to scrutiny or questions from skeptics. It does not hold true through sheer force and magnitude of evidence. I do not, and neither do most scientists, consider their "theories" to be "scientific theories".

What's your field?

Mine? I majored in Accounting with a minor in biology and physics.

That's what models and theories do. Because once we have that description, we have explanatory power.

A Law is the rules we have defined to exist in our universe. Theories attempt to explain "why" things happen. A law is merely "what" happens. The law of evolution states things change over time. Doesn't explain why, how or any specifics except things change over time. The Theory of evolution explains why. It goes into allels, passage of genes, survival of the fittest, gentic variation, habatat, ect.

Wrong.

ON what grounds? please support yourself before simply stating a negative.

Show this.

The law of gravity is a bunch of math that has been calcutated to provide the mechanics of what gravity is in our universe and how it affects us. It is the math and equations that tell us the speed and force behind a falling object of "X" mass when being attracted via gravity to something of "Y" mass. It tells us that masses are brought together at the center. It shows the rate of speed in which things fall in a vaccume.

The "Theory" of gravity is a physics model stating that gravity is caused by warped space. The more mass something has and in higher density the more space and time is warped and thus things are attracted to each other. IT has nothing to do with the law of gravity except the model for the theory has to match the laws we already know.

 

[Tiberius]

Seriously, the difference between theory and hypothesis is easy.

Theory - an explanation for things that we see. We are very sure it is the correct explanation because we have tested it and it always works. It doesn't require things that we don't see. And it allows us to accurately predict the behaviour of things in the future.

For example, I can use the theory of gravity to determine how fast this hammer will be traveling when it hits the ground if I drop it from a height of seventeen meters.

On the other hand, a hypothesis is an idea which MIGHT be correct, but then again it might not. It doesn't have any compelling or non-circumstantial evidence, and it hasn't been tested thoroughly.

So, a theory is a tested explanation. A hypothesis is just an idea.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Seriously, the difference between theory and hypothesis is easy.

Theory - an explanation for things that we see. We are very sure it is the correct explanation because we have tested it and it always works.

This is almost never true. Most theories are wrong. In any given field, you can classify theories (rather arbitrarily, but this is just for explanatory purposes) into two different groups: those which are well-established and tend not to have any contenders (or, if they do, the differences are small), and those which are newer and frequently one of many contradictory theories. These are based not just on various experiments, but also meta-analyses, literature surveys (i.e,. studies which discuss the experiments relating to the contending theories but, unlike a meta-analysis, are not quantitative analyses but qualitative), critical evaluations (of the methods, interpretations, and or logic of some study or studies), etc.

Because I just finished writing a post on it (and it's fresh in my mind) I'll use quantum mechanics as one example. It's an unusual one, because unlike most everybody agrees (more or less) on how to perform experiments with quantum systems, but there is very little agreement on what these are and what the experiments do.

Another example is linguistics. Here we have two extremely broad set of theories: formal and functional. However, functional grammarians have become increasingly part of the umbrella framework of cognitive linguistics. These are a set of theories about language, the brain, and cognition which tend to share particular features (embodied cognition, lexico-grammatical continuum, a fairly complete rejection of universal grammar, the incorporation of frequency effects on grammar, idealized cognitive models, etc.). The "classic" linguistics approach Chomsky is mainly responsible for rejects embodied cognition, declares grammar to be innate, treats universal grammar as a product of some "language faculty" of the brain which has a certain range of parameters that any given language will rely on a subset of, etc.

Indo-European linguistics has incorporated linguistic typology and the 20th century classifications of languages along an axis (ergative/patient vs. nominative/accusative) and we've got several decades of work arguing over whether or not pre- or proto-Indo-European was a split ergative (or active/stative) language or not.

In computational neuroscience, the "neural code" has two reigning alternative theories: rate and temporal coding (or a mix).

Then there are frameworks that transcend fields and are not theories but general approaches which necessarily translate into particular types of theories. Systems sciences are such an example. So while we have evolutionary biologists, biophysicists, computational biologists, etc., all these can also be part of systems biology, which has as perhaps its defining feature a rejection of the reductive approach.

Within mental health sciences, those representing the "hard" sciences (psychiatrists) pretty much invented their current stance out of thin air and I don't think many psychiatrists actually believe it. Also, they tend to know far less about the brain because they go to medical school to spend years learning about completely irrelevant things rather than the various fields in psychology that actually study the brain, mental health, evidenced-based therapies, etc.

Geneticists, after several decades resulting the crowning achievements of complete genomes, realized to their surprise that genetic differences between worms and humans was rather small relative to what they expected, but also that (this is one theory) apparent genetic redundancies are an evolutionary adaption to slow evolutionary adaption. That is, evolutionary processes involve mutations, most of which are either harmful or non-adaptive. Redundant genes reduce the effect of mutations making it more likely that random mutations won't end up killing you. Also, we now have epigenetics, which has its roots in the age-old nature/nurture debate but is now backed by an increasing realization that we over-estimated how important genes themselves really were.

Within climate science...well that's just a quagmire however you approach it. See e.g. Mathematical and Statistical Approaches to Climate Modelling and Prediction. Within computer science, quite apart form the various computational intelligence algorithms, there's the issue of what happens when we can't pack any more power into silicon? The main contenders are quantum computers (which I don't think will win), microsystems built using microactuators and scanning tunnelling microscope to manipulate atoms and molecules, biochemical systems which use something more like actual neural networks rather than "artificial neural network algorithms", and combinations of the above. Of course, as these are not going to translate into the new PCs any time soon, there's still the ways in which the standard computer science and engineering guys are not only developing more sophisticated products without having to abandon the fundamental architecture that computers have used since the beginning. However, product development is based on consumer psychology, behavioral research, human-computer interaction studies, and in general "soft science" research. Most people don't need a computer that can deal with P vs. NP problems but want stylish, convenient, portable, yet powerful devices. Which brings us back to research methods in the social and behavioral sciences, and the different theories just within consumer psychology and business. These range from different theories about human perception and behavior to theories concerning multidimensional scaling, classification and clustering, and data analysis (thankfully, the big divide between the Bayesians and frequentists is mostly behind us).

It doesn't require things that we don't see.

That cuts out quantum physics.

For example, I can use the theory of gravity to determine how fast this hammer will be traveling when it hits the ground if I drop it from a height of seventeen meters.

You can. However, we know for a fact that that theory is wrong. However, it's a heck of a lot easer to use than relativistic physics.

It doesn't have any compelling or non-circumstantial evidence, and it hasn't been tested thoroughly.

Off the top of my head I can think of at least a half dozen different topics which have competing theories and have been tested for at least a half a century.

 

[Tiberius]

This is almost never true.

Citation needed.

Most theories are wrong.

Care to expand on this?

In any given field, you can classify theories (rather arbitrarily, but this is just for explanatory purposes) into two different groups: those which are well-established and tend not to have any contenders (or, if they do, the differences are small), and those which are newer and frequently one of many contradictory theories. These are based not just on various experiments, but also meta-analyses, literature surveys (i.e,. studies which discuss the experiments relating to the contending theories but, unlike a meta-analysis, are not quantitative analyses but qualitative), critical evaluations (of the methods, interpretations, and or logic of some study or studies), etc.

But if an idea is supported by facts, then it is a theory. it doesn't matter if there is a bunch of contradictory theories and only one of them can be true. If it is supported by the evidence and withstands testing, then it is a scientific theory. The fact that there are other theories that claim it is wrong is irrelevant until those theories can SHOW that it is wrong.

Because I just finished writing a post on it (and it's fresh in my mind) I'll use quantum mechanics as one example. It's an unusual one, because unlike most everybody agrees (more or less) on how to perform experiments with quantum systems, but there is very little agreement on what these are and what the experiments do.

Is it supported by the data? Is it testable? Does it withstand testing? Then in what way is it not a valid scientific theory?

Another example is linguistics. Here we have two extremely broad set of theories: formal and functional. However, functional grammarians have become increasingly part of the umbrella framework of cognitive linguistics. These are a set of theories about language, the brain, and cognition which tend to share particular features (embodied cognition, lexico-grammatical continuum, a fairly complete rejection of universal grammar, the incorporation of frequency effects on grammar, idealized cognitive models, etc.). The "classic" linguistics approach Chomsky is mainly responsible for rejects embodied cognition, declares grammar to be innate, treats universal grammar as a product of some "language faculty" of the brain which has a certain range of parameters that any given language will rely on a subset of, etc.

Indo-European linguistics has incorporated linguistic typology and the 20th century classifications of languages along an axis (ergative/patient vs. nominative/accusative) and we've got several decades of work arguing over whether or not pre- or proto-Indo-European was a split ergative (or active/stative) language or not.

In computational neuroscience, the "neural code" has two reigning alternative theories: rate and temporal coding (or a mix).

Then there are frameworks that transcend fields and are not theories but general approaches which necessarily translate into particular types of theories. Systems sciences are such an example. So while we have evolutionary biologists, biophysicists, computational biologists, etc., all these can also be part of systems biology, which has as perhaps its defining feature a rejection of the reductive approach.

Linguistics is not a hard science, one that is based on mathematics. So not a great example here.

Within mental health sciences, those representing the "hard" sciences (psychiatrists) pretty much invented their current stance out of thin air and I don't think many psychiatrists actually believe it. Also, they tend to know far less about the brain because they go to medical school to spend years learning about completely irrelevant things rather than the various fields in psychology that actually study the brain, mental health, evidenced-based therapies, etc.

Argumentum ad ignoratium. Also, citation needed.

Geneticists, after several decades resulting the crowning achievements of complete genomes, realized to their surprise that genetic differences between worms and humans was rather small relative to what they expected, but also that (this is one theory) apparent genetic redundancies are an evolutionary adaption to slow evolutionary adaption. That is, evolutionary processes involve mutations, most of which are either harmful or non-adaptive. Redundant genes reduce the effect of mutations making it more likely that random mutations won't end up killing you. Also, we now have epigenetics, which has its roots in the age-old nature/nurture debate but is now backed by an increasing realization that we over-estimated how important genes themselves really were.

Citation needed.

Within climate science...well that's just a quagmire however you approach it. See e.g. Mathematical and Statistical Approaches to Climate Modelling and Prediction. Within computer science, quite apart form the various computational intelligence algorithms, there's the issue of what happens when we can't pack any more power into silicon? The main contenders are quantum computers (which I don't think will win), microsystems built using microactuators and [scanning tunnelling microscope to manipulate atoms and molecules, biochemical systems which use something more like actual neural networks rather than "artificial neural network algorithms", and combinations of the above. Of course, as these are not going to translate into the new PCs any time soon, there's still the ways in which the standard computer science and engineering guys are not only developing more sophisticated products without having to abandon the fundamental architecture that computers have used since the beginning. However, product development is based on consumer psychology, behavioral research, human-computer interaction studies, and in general "soft science" research. Most people don't need a computer that can deal with P vs. NP problems but want stylish, convenient, portable, yet powerful devices. Which brings us back to research methods in the social and behavioral sciences, and the different theories just within consumer psychology and business. These range from different theories about human perception and behavior to theories concerning multidimensional scaling, classification and clustering, and data analysis (thankfully, the big divide between the Bayesians and frequentists is mostly behind us).

What does this have to do with what a theory is?

That cuts out quantum physics.

Did you think I meant "see" as in "with the eye"? I meant detect, measure.

You can. However, we know for a fact that that theory is wrong. However, it's a heck of a lot easer to use than relativistic physics.

Wrong. We can't. We can get a very close approximation, but the answer will still be wrong. Einstein's theory of gravity, however, gives us the correct answer.

Off the top of my head I can think of at least a half dozen different topics which have competing theories and have been tested for at least a half a century.

I was talking about hypotheses, not theories.

And as I said before, if an idea is supported by evidence and can withstand testing can can allow us to make accurate predictions about something, then it is a scientific theory. The fact that there may be contradictory theories doesn't invalidate that. It will only be invalidated if we get, at some point, more data which shows the theory to be false, at which point it will be discarded.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Linguistics is not a hard science, one that is based on mathematics. So not a great example here.

Not based on mathematics? From Prawitz Style Derivations for Categorial Grammar

image from "A Bayesian framework for word segmentation"

Or read a whole study: The Hidden Markov Topic Model: A Probabilistic Model of Semantic Representation.

Or google "computational linguistics".

Or you could see what an actual linguistic research center MIT's says about their research:

"Research in the Gibson Lab (a.k.a. TedLab) is aimed at investigating how people learn, represent and process language. In addition, we have recently started to investigate the relationship between language, cognition and culture.

We use a variety of methods, including behavioral experiments (e.g., reading and listening studies, lexical priming experiments, dual-task experiments, individual differences studies), statistical modeling and corpus analyses. In collaboration with other labs we also use eye-tracking methods, event-related potentials (ERPs) and functional MRI." (emphasis added)

Chomsky's TGG was an combinatorial approach to syntactical structures. The point was to develop algorithms necessary to generate grammatically correct sentences, hence the "generative" part of transformational-generative grammar. It was discrete mathematics.

The precursor to modern linguistics wasn't classical philology or IE-linguistics, but formal languages (mathematical/symbolic logic). That's why Chomsky is considered a founder of cognitive science. The others were Claude Shannon, George A. Miller, Edward C. Tolman, Marvin Minksy, Donald Hebb, Karl Lashley, and the two most important duo contributors, Church-Turing and McCulloch-Pitts.

Citation needed.

The page numbers don't match the book I have, so it's probably an earlier edition, but the content is the same:
Nielson, F. (2010). Computational information geometry: Pursuing the meaning of distances.

But if an idea is supported by facts, then it is a theory.

Here are two theories, both supported by an enormous amount of evidence:

Newton's theories of motion (especially his 2nd law, F=ma), and Coulomb's theory of electromagnetism (especially Coulomb's law). Both are still taught and used all the time. And if both were suddenly true, we'd all die.

If it is supported by the evidence and withstands testing, then it is a scientific theory.

“The advent of Quantum Mechanics has created a puzzling and, in fact, unique situation in physics. On the one hand this theory turned out to be enormously successful as a framework for the explanation of the behavior of matter at all scales—from the level of elementary particles, atoms and molecules to the world of macroscopic and even cosmic phenomena; on the other hand, researchers have not been able, in more than eight decades, to reach a consensus on its interpretation. There is not even an agreement over the status and significance of such strange, uniquely quantum features as incommensurability, indeterminacy, indeterminism, and non-locality. Nor is it considered established whether the so-called quantum measurement problem or the classical limit problem are actually conceptual problems or are instead artifacts of some particular choices of interpretation…
Busch, P. & Jaeger, G. (2010). Unsharp Quantum Reality. Found Phys 40: 1341–1367

Then in what way is it not a valid scientific theory?

One can sort of divide those in the cognitive sciences into 2 camps, but both camps have lots of theories that overlap within that camp's framework, and there is overlap between the two camps. Also, both are already picking among a set of theories and rejecting another. For every scientist, then, the "evidence" consists of interpretations of certain experiments such that some subset informs the scientist's theoretical framework and another subset which is rejected, so having a lot of evidence means using interpretations of experiments and theories as a framework to evaluate future studies, theories, etc.

citation needed.

I tried to find freely accessible yet representative papers from peer-reviewed journals, but it isn't as representative as I'd hoped (hence the ones w/o links):
DSM‐III and the revolution in the classification of mental illness
The influence of corporate and political interests on models of illness in the evolution of the DSM
Biological Psychiatry: A Practice In Search of a Science
Behavior Analysis of Psychotic Disorders: Scientific Dead End or Casualty of the Mental Health Political Economy?
Clinical Social Work and the Biomedical Industrial Complex
Psychiatric diagnosis as a political device
Strand, Michael. "Where do Classifications Come from? the DSM-III, the Transformation of American Psychiatry, and the Problem of Origins in the Sociology of Knowledge." Theory and Society 40.3 (2011): 273-313.
Horowitz, A. V. (2002). Creating Mental Illness (University of Chicago Press)
Kiesler, D. J. (2000). Beyond the Disease Model of Mental Disorders (Praegor)
Wright, R. H. & Nicholas, A.C. (Eds.) 2005. Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm (Routledge)

What does this have to do with what a theory is?

Climate science is actually filled with different sciences. Which means that global warming/AGM/climate change involves literally hundreds of systems and even more subsystems and that's without getting into actually constructing temperature records of predictive models. The link I gave you was on the modelling problems. The point is that there is no theory that is independent from many others, and thus every theory is both tested against observations and supporting theories in ways that ensure sorting out theories is doomed from the start. You can categorize them in any number of ways, and the literature does this.

Did you think I meant "see" as in "with the eye"? I meant detect, measure.

No I meant the measurement problem:
“Recall that a quantum measurement is an irreversible process that transforms quantum information to classical information and that there is a strong coupling between the system being measured and the measuring system. The measurements postulate tells us that the outcome of a measurement of an observable, A, of a quantum system is an eigenvalue of the self-adjoint operator, A, associated with the measurement of the observable...
In classical physics there is an unambiguous distinction between a system and the measuring instrument. Also, a description of the system developed as a result of measurements does not depend on a measurement of the system in the same state at a later point in time; thus, we have reasons to believe that the description of a classical system is objective.
From the inception of quantum mechanics, the concept of “measurement” and the relationship between the outcome of the measurement and our knowledge of the state of the quantum system prior, during, and after the measurement proved to be intensely controversial.” P. 134
Marinescu, D. C. & Marinescu, G. M. (2012) Classical and Quantum Information. Amsterdam: Academic Press.


Also see here: Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics

Einstein's theory of gravity, however, gives us the correct answer.

1) Einstein didn't really have a theory of gravity. He had a theory of general relativity and space curvature. Gravitation is curvature.
2) Relativistic physics are a serious problem because there is no consensus on how to incorporate it into quantum physics.

at which point it will be discarded.

Universal grammar and the language faculty have been theories for 50 years and have been contested almost as long. The research is too much for a person to read in a life time. At what point should we expect either of these to be accepted or rejected?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Defining theory? Or gravity?

There is no "theory of gravity", because we have "the theory of general relativity". The lack of a preferred reference frame combined with the fact that the laws of physics apply in every frame give explains what we experience as gravity in terms of more general motions. It's a tensor, actually, and is included in Einstein's field equations (it's actually pretty central to them) as such. Only there isn't a gravitational law so much as several ways in which Einstein's law of gravity in empty space is extended, and as the "force" of gravity is spacetime curvature, it isn't really a force at al and is in general more of a intrinsic component of cosmic structure. Wheeler put it succinctly:
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve

The curvature effect of mass (and motion) doesn't have a single neat equation for gravity itself, because gravity is explained in terms of other things and isn't (again) one thing itself.

No. This whole thing is litterally lowering my IQ. The difference between a theory and hypothosis is 1st grade stuff.

Yes, and fifth grade, and even often college. But I am going to assume that you aren't in grade school or college and thus don't need to rely on 1st grade simplifications. Tell me, what hypothesis confirmed the big bang (standard model) theory? And what is that theory? And why are there so many cosmological models that don't include this theory?

If you were correct, and we had hypotheses and then theory, we'd be suck back in 1905.
Young had a hypothesis. He tested it. It was confirmed, and light was a wave.
Einstein had a hypothesis. He tested it. It was confirmed, and light was composed of "packets' or particles of light we call photons.

The problem is that neither one of these experiments was incorrectly performed. Einstein could repeat Young's experiment and get the same results Young did.

So where, in this fantasy 1st grade realm you speak of, can we find a way to explain why two hypotheses confirmed two mutually contradicting theories?

We can't. Because the sciences are not just a bunch of theories, but are theoretical frameworks. Physics had gone form simple microscopes and telescopes to much more advanced equipment, enabling them to study small organisms, and then cells, and the bacteria and molecules and then finally atomic structure, all with amazing success.

And when they were down to elementary particle level, the entire framework of physics completely broke down.

What people are clearly aiming to do with this thread is try and either find a hard line between theories that can be dismissed and theories that hold ground.

Then they will fail.
“The advent of Quantum Mechanics has created a puzzling and, in fact, unique situation in physics. On the one hand this theory turned out to be enormously successful as a framework for the explanation of the behavior of matter at all scales—from the level of elementary particles, atoms and molecules to the world of macroscopic and even cosmic phenomena; on the other hand, researchers have not been able, in more than eight decades, to reach a consensus on its interpretation. There is not even an agreement over the status and significance of such strange, uniquely quantum features as incommensurability, indeterminacy, indeterminism, and non-locality. Nor is it considered established whether the so-called quantum measurement problem or the classical limit problem are actually conceptual problems or are instead artifacts of some particular choices of interpretation…
Busch, P. & Jaeger, G. (2010). Unsharp Quantum Reality. Found Phys 40: 1341–1367

Its a large amount of ignorance in the whole argument of "evolution is just a theory".

The life sciences subsume a large number of fields and scientists working in them have degrees in all sorts of things. For every field, there are at least a few theories, so there must be a very large number of theories in the life sciences. How many can you name?

Climate science likewise involves paleoclimatology, astrophysics, geology, engineering, computer science, marine sciences, atmospheric sciences, and so on. How many theories other than global warming (or anthropogenic global warming) can you name?

Why is it that theories seem to be either old (and usually wrong), or we have one theory for thousands of scientists working in multiple fields? May be its because for people who don't do research, "theory" is a nice way to describe what is usually basically the equivalent of a field unto itself.

So yes it is that easy. Its also very easy to try and pull me into a semantics battle.

That would mean I'm trying to advance a definition for theory and all the rest of these terms.

Your talking about something different than what I was talking about.

I'm not. You have a conception about the way science works that is wrong, and appears to be motivated largely to defend this singular theory of evolution (which is so intrinsic to the sciences that fields are based on just parts of it, yet is still somehow one theory that a hypothesis tested over 100 years ago).

1) Just because experiments have inconsistant results doesn't mean that they are "wrong". It means "we don't know why yet". As our understanding evolved so did the sciences and how we viewe the results.

We do know why. And it had nothing to do with the experiments. The only way it could be explained was that an entire set of theories was wrong. Most of the theories and laws we talk about, like Newton's laws or Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, are inaccurate or wrong.

Another set of theories aren't are actually more like research areas or scientific fields, like computability theory or information theory or quantum field theory or number theory.

2) This still has nothing to do with defining a theory but rather the evolution of our knowledge on a theory.

The OP didn't say "talk about evolution" it asked for definitions. We had two experiments, two hypotheses and each were confirmed. We didn't learn more about a theory. We learned that most of the theories we had were wrong.

If you want a definition, then you have to explain the various categories of theories we have:

1) Theories from classical physics we know are wrong
2) Theories like number theory which is a branch of mathematics
3) Theories like "the theory of unintended consequences" which is as scientific as Murphy's law
4) Theories like evolution which somehow sprout entire scientific fields which rely on a theory to test a hypothesis which becomes...evolution 2.0?

But for a theory to be legitimate it has to have significant backing that has been peer reviewed.

Great. That gets us nowhere, as peer-review is only as good as the editorial board and the peers, and given the hundreds of thousands of empirical studies that are produced all around the world all the time, why don't we have hundreds of thousands of theories? Well, because if I want to demonstrate that cosmic rays cause cloud seeding, I have to use a lot of theories from astrophysics and the atmospheric sciences just to be able to test this hypothesis, which then is just another part atmospheric sciences.

Thats why it is so hard to become a respected theory.

Like the theory of gravity. Or the theory of unintended consequences. Or graph theory, or number theory, or pattern theory, or counter-examples to the above. You are so desperate to formulate a definition of theory that contradicts the uses of the word by scientists in a number of ways just because of creationism? Does evolution stand or fall on a definition?

Their psudo science doesn't stand outside their tiny little group

That tiny little group is called "modern physics" and it the thin Einstein detested is why we have everything from MRI machines to modern communications technologies.

Sigh. People who have science that can stand up to scrutiny, questioning ect from skeptics of the work and still stand strong enough to convicne them they are onto something would be "real" scientist.

Which peer-reviewed science journals do you read?

A Law is the rules we have defined to exist in our universe.

Like Murphy's Law. Or the Law of diminishing returns. Speaking of existence, as what exists has everything to do with something called the projection postulate (among other things), where do postulates, rules (like Born's rule) theorems, principles, models, and other similar concepts that are part of scientific discussion fit into your schema?

ON what grounds? please support yourself before simply stating a negative.

If science works by formulating a hypothesis and testing it, how is it that a hypothesis formed before we knew alleles existed could be confirmed? The theory of evolution had a hypothesis. Somehow, this hypothesis has resulted in continued experiments to confirm the same theory only that theory has changed constantly and currently involves lots of different theories in different fields yet somehow we have the one "theory of evolution". And a hypothesis that confirmed work which wasn't possible when it was confirmed.

The "Theory" of gravity is a physics model stating that gravity is caused by warped space.

Actually we call that the theory of general relativity.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Snipped to save time and space

You throw a lot of Wiki around in that. Good for you. Doesn't make you any less wrong. As a matter of fact I do know I am correct. The difference between a hypothosis and theory is easy. If you still don't see than then have a nice day and I am done with you.

You are trying to pull me into a semantics battle and have made several dire errors and assumptions about me. Let me clear a few of the big ones.

I have never stated that you must have a lab experiment to create a theory. But you do have to have evidence. Evidence has to be acquired somehow. Facts, data ect.

I have never stated that the theory of evolution was a single theory. Actually I just got done discussing that in another thread where someone accused me of saying something similar.

Einstine had no reason to believe in any such theories (if they existed at the time) about how awesome the new areas of physics would be. i don't fault him on that. However stating that he was wrong on this case doesn't make psudo science without any evidence any less wrong and down right silly.

Yes Evolution has stood every test and weathered every storm thrown at it and yet it still stands stronger than ever.

I have never stated that the vast majority of theories aren't wrong. Usually they are and thats okay. Theories change, get abandoned ect as we learn new things about them. Thats what I was talking about when you brought up the light experiments.

The theory of general relativity is the correct name of what I was calling the "theory of gravity" as most people don't understand what general relativity is. They usually don't know what E=MC^2 means. It didn't stop you from doing a bunch of painfully obvious google and wiki searches in a pointless attempt to try and prove me wrong.

But the difference between a law and a theory is extremely simple. Laws are sets of rules that nature follows. Theories are explanations we have thought up to explain things after having accumulated data and evidence. Hypothesis is nothing more than an educated guess prior to an experiment. Thats all I have said. If you disagree with me then provide some sort of evidence to the contrary.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You throw a lot of Wiki around in that.

I really started the threads below just to show I could use wiki?
Galileo and the Origin of Science
The best sources to understand cosmology and physics
Human thought is culture-specific

And all these posts in threads I didn't start were from wiki too?

Unfortunately, the changes within psychology which included both rejection of unscientific approaches and improvements to older paradigms (e.g., the widespread rejection of the psychoanalytic framework, the creation of research-based therapies like CBT, DBT, etc., the improvements to methodologies which ended the behaviorist approach to the mind, and so on) were short lived successes. Probability theory is very old, and developed alongside calculus during the modern era. Statistics, on the other hand, is in many ways fairly new. Pearson did a lot to set it on firm foundations, but most of the stastical tests used in the social sciences (except the most basic) are newer. Additionally, in order to study any complex phenomenon, univariate and bivariate statistics are almost always inadequate...
Not that this is true across the board. In fact, in addition to a number of books designed to give researchers a better understanding of the techniques they use, the last few decades have seen ever more complaints, criticisms, and warnings about the misuse of statistics within the social sciences. To give just a few examples, we have Rein Taagepera's Making Social Sciences More Scientific: The Need for Predictive Models (Oxford University Press, 2008), Peter Fayer's "Alphas, betas and skewy distributions: two ways of getting the wrong answer" (Advances in Health Science Education, vol. 16), the edited volume Measurement in the Social Sciences: Theories and Strategies (1974), Gerd Gigerenzer's "Mindless statistics" (The Journal of Socio-Economics vol. 33), Taagepera's "Adding meaning to regression" (European Political Science 10), and on and on.

The problem is that most of the people who seem to read or take such works seriously are the same people who are already aware of the problems. And that's without getting into the lack of instruction on the underlying philosophy, epistemology, and justification for standard methodological approaches.

Studying human behavior whether at the micro or macro level almost always involves an enormous number of possible explanations and relevant variables. When the majority of researchers in sociology & psychology (I'm much less familiar with the research coming out in other social sciences) work on studies which involve numerous variables and large numbers of measurements on each, a comprehensive understanding of mathematics becomes essential. But as most psychologists/sociologists aren't required to take more than a few courses in statistics as students (undergrad years included), and most take only what is required, the lack of that essential understanding is a tremendous problem.


Some of the foremost authorities on evolutionary psychology in the world work in my building. Evolutionary psychology may not be as central to cognitive science/cognitive psychology as, say, neuroscience or developmental psychology, but it is hardly ignored either.

Next, they get really fancy (it seems). They "performed diffeomorphic anatomical registration through exponentiated lie algebra".
...actually, although this sounds really fancy, it really comes from [the manual, SPM8, for the imaging software the researchers used. The manual, SPM8, explains] "DARTEL stands for "Diffeomorphic Anatomical Registration Through Exponentiated Lie algebra". It may not use a true Lie Algebra, but the acronym is a nice one."

..."Lie algebra"...has to do with a set of related mathematical notions (fields, vector spaces, commutators, groups, etc.) which might be grouped under the name "abstract algebras".

...They did not perform any "diffeomorphic anatomical registration through exponentiated lie algebra"..But it doesn't sound impressive to say "we then used SPM8's DARTEL" when you can say "we performed diffeomorphic anatomical registration through exponentiated lie algebra", even if this isn't true.

The simplest ANNs have just an input layer and an output layer with a defined threshold value. Basically, a single output y ∈ {0,1} is a function (or, iterated function) of n 2-valued inputs of the "neuron", each with a weight w ∈ {-1,1}. The output y is a piecewise summation function of the weighted inputs such that if the result is greater than the threshold, the neuron "fires", and if not, it doesn't.

Let w represent a vector of n weights and x an input vector with n elements. Then we have

y= 1 if w(transpose)x>= threshold value
&
= -1 if w(transpose)x< threshold value.

In reality, we'd have y(t+1) because we're dealing with an iterated function, but the gist is still the same. Schematically:

You can't do much with this. But you can still do a lot even with a signum threshold function by adding other elements. A "simple" method which vastly increases the power of network schema above is the addition of another threshold function with an adaptive parameter of some sort. Instead of just a simple summation of weights, the linear combination y (the output) becomes part of a larger summation function. This linear combiner not only takes the output as input, but is also a composite function of the input vector and some adaption function. For example:

Adding hidden layers, multiple outputs, etc., further increases the power and complexity of the network all without changing the binary threshold.

However, such networks are still limited by the binary nature of the threshold. Using an interval, rather than a 2-valued output, vastly improves the adaption process and consequently the power of the neural net. The adaption mechanism described earlier is limited in that one of it's arguments, y (or the "output"), can only provide two values. Thus, no matter how complicated your adaptive algorithm is, the central mechanism changing the state of the network is a binary function. Replacing this with some sort of nonlinear function not only maps the output onto some interval in R (usually [-1,1] or [0,1]), allowing a dynamic threshold, but also greatly improves the network's capacity to adapt:

Here a nonlinear threshold function is "updated" using nonlinear adaption functions. However, there is still a threshold. You can store the threshold values within the weight matrix, as the initial output is the product of the weights and inputs. If the resulting value reaches the threshold, the activation function will adjust the network accordingly.

Talk about genius use of Wiki. I didn't just use it, I erased any evidence and prepared it in advance just in case someone would insists on defining a word to defend science (FYI- you aren't helping by misusing the same words creations do).

As a matter of fact I do know I am correct.

Then explain the 4 classes of the use of theory I gave.

The difference between a hypothosis and theory is easy.

Sure. In 1st grade science.

I have never stated that the theory of evolution was a single theory

Do you know what a definite article is? What about grammatical number?

Einstine had no reason to believe in any such theories

Another thread I started: Einstein and "spooky actions"

(if they existed at the time)

Wow.

Yes Evolution has stood every test

And because you know nothing about science you have to defend evolution with an outdated definitions. Try actually learning about the science and you might find that more productive.

The theory of general relativity is the correct name of what I was calling the "theory of gravity" as most people don't understand what general relativity is.

Right. Just like the don't understand how the "law of gravity" works into this mess you're trying to backtrack out of.

 

[Tiberius]

The page numbers don't match the book I have, so it's probably an earlier edition, but the content is the same:
Nielson, F. (2010). Computational information geometry: Pursuing the meaning of distances.

Yeah, I'm not going to go trawling through all of that. If you have a specific argument to make, then make it.

Here are two theories, both supported by an enormous amount of evidence:

Newton's theories of motion (especially his 2nd law, F=ma), and Coulomb's theory of electromagnetism (especially Coulomb's law). Both are still taught and used all the time. And if both were suddenly true, we'd all die.

And there is a tremendous amount of evidence for them being almost, but not quite accurate.

“The advent of Quantum Mechanics has created a puzzling and, in fact, unique situation in physics. On the one hand this theory turned out to be enormously successful as a framework for the explanation of the behavior of matter at all scales—from the level of elementary particles, atoms and molecules to the world of macroscopic and even cosmic phenomena; on the other hand, researchers have not been able, in more than eight decades, to reach a consensus on its interpretation. There is not even an agreement over the status and significance of such strange, uniquely quantum features as incommensurability, indeterminacy, indeterminism, and non-locality. Nor is it considered established whether the so-called quantum measurement problem or the classical limit problem are actually conceptual problems or are instead artifacts of some particular choices of interpretation…
Busch, P. & Jaeger, G. (2010). Unsharp Quantum Reality. Found Phys 40: 1341–1367

Blah blah blah. IS QM supported by the evidence? Yes. Does it withstand testing? yes. Now, do you want to show me a valid scientific source that says that QM is NOT a scientific theory?

String theory, on the other hand, is not a scientific theory (Maybe it should be "string hypothesis?). It is not supported by evidence, and there is no way to test it at present.

Do you see the difference?

One can sort of divide those in the cognitive sciences into 2 camps, but both camps have lots of theories that overlap within that camp's framework, and there is overlap between the two camps. Also, both are already picking among a set of theories and rejecting another. For every scientist, then, the "evidence" consists of interpretations of certain experiments such that some subset informs the scientist's theoretical framework and another subset which is rejected, so having a lot of evidence means using interpretations of experiments and theories as a framework to evaluate future studies, theories, etc.

I will ask again. In what way is Quantum Mechanics not a valid scientific theory?

Climate science is actually filled with different sciences. Which means that global warming/AGM/climate change involves literally hundreds of systems and even more subsystems and that's without getting into actually constructing temperature records of predictive models. The link I gave you was on the modelling problems. The point is that there is no theory that is independent from many others, and thus every theory is both tested against observations and supporting theories in ways that ensure sorting out theories is doomed from the start. You can categorize them in any number of ways, and the literature does this.

Maybe you should tell the scientists this so they'll know they've been doing it wrong the whole time.

Honestly, do you think that they haven't thought of this and developed some mechanism to prevent this circular logic?

No I meant the measurement problem:
“Recall that a quantum measurement is an irreversible process that transforms quantum information to classical information and that there is a strong coupling between the system being measured and the measuring system. The measurements postulate tells us that the outcome of a measurement of an observable, A, of a quantum system is an eigenvalue of the self-adjoint operator, A, associated with the measurement of the observable...
In classical physics there is an unambiguous distinction between a system and the measuring instrument. Also, a description of the system developed as a result of measurements does not depend on a measurement of the system in the same state at a later point in time; thus, we have reasons to believe that the description of a classical system is objective.
From the inception of quantum mechanics, the concept of “measurement” and the relationship between the outcome of the measurement and our knowledge of the state of the quantum system prior, during, and after the measurement proved to be intensely controversial.” P. 134
Marinescu, D. C. & Marinescu, G. M. (2012) Classical and Quantum Information. Amsterdam: Academic Press.

Again, you better tell the scientists. I bet they'll all be saying, "Well, gee, he's right, I guess that puts us out of a job. After all, why should we work at something when we can't measure the results?"

1) Einstein didn't really have a theory of gravity. He had a theory of general relativity and space curvature. Gravitation is curvature.

If Einstein had a theory about space curvature and curvature is gravity, then Einstein had a theory about gravity.

2) Relativistic physics are a serious problem because there is no consensus on how to incorporate it into quantum physics.

Both are supported by evidence. Both are able to withstand testing.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yeah, I'm not going to go trawling through all of that.

You said "citations needed". I had a lot more but as my posts tend to go over the limit I had to trim. The rest were monographs or volumes on epistemology and the scientific method. What is the point of asking for a citation if, when given only 1 that is the size of a single journal article, your reaction is not to go through it?

Also, as long as we're dealing with things you won't go through, consider the 2nd law of thermodynamics and this study from a peer-reviewed journal:
D'Abramo, G. (2012).The peculiar status of the second law of thermodynamics and the quest for its violation Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 43 (4) pp. 226-235

This is a study about a law in physics, yet we find:

"we still do not have any fully cogent argument (known fundamental physical laws) to exclude macroscopic violation of the second law of thermodynamics in its classical formulation (Kelvin–Planck and Clausius postulates). Even Landauer's information-theoretic principle seems to fall short of the initial expectations of being the fundamental ‘physical’ reason of all Maxwell's demons failure. We also described two experimental challenges which have been proposed in recent years and the physics behind them.
However, without unambiguous experimental results (which are currently lacking) it is difficult to say whether these experiments actually challenge or violate the thermodynamic second law, though the theory behind them appears to be sound and as yet unchallenged."

So we have a law of physics, which has been challenged through experiments, and although the theory behind the experiments appears to be sound, it's "difficult to say" whether the experiments do what it is said that they do.

How do we have a law that is challenged by sound theory behind experiments yet nobody knows whether the experiments (and therefore necessarily the theory) show that the law is challenged? How does this fit into your "it's easy" to distinguish theory and hypothesis when we have a theory that challenges a law of physics that but the experiments ambiguous despite the theory being sound? And where is the hypothesis? And why are we would a law be challenged by theory? And why would experiments have a theory behind them rather than a hypothesis?

And there is a tremendous amount of evidence for them being almost, but not quite accurate.

One makes the other wrong, yet there is more evidence behind the wrong one, and it wasn't at all immediately apparent that there was a contradiction. And as shown above, we can have a law that is assumed despite experimental challenges (which rest on what "appears to be" sound theory). All without any hypotheses. Where does "evidence factor into a law existing that has been challenged empirically by theory that seems to be solid yet nobody knows whether they really challenge it?

Blah blah blah. IS QM supported by the evidence? Yes. Does it withstand testing? yes. Now, do you want to show me a valid scientific source that says that QM is NOT a scientific theory?

1) That was a valid scientific source. It's a peer-reviewed physics journal. In case you didn't know, there are in general only a few types of scientific sources, and the requirement they all share is a form of peer-review as determined by an editorial board. For the most part, that's conference proceedings, monographs, volumes, & reference literature. studies are almost always in journals, but assessments of the field that require a very detailed treatment of a lot of studies are usually published in book-length forms.
2) In that quote, QM is described as a theory, but "researchers have not been able, in more than eight decades, to reach a consensus on its interpretation." What does it say about a theory if after 80 years the scientific community doesn't agree what the theory means?
3) Assuming you won't accept anything as a "valid scientific source" if it isn't in a peer-reviewed journal, I'll stick to those:

Laloë, F. (2001) Do we really understand quantum mechanics? Strange correlations, paradoxes, and theorems. American Journal of Physics 69(6)

Or there's this nifty opening "In the framework of the special theory of relativity (STR), recent theoretical and experimental evidencies of superluminal motions necessarily lead to unacceptable causal loop paradoxes."
from Russo, G. (2005). Conditions for the Generation of Causal Paradoxes from Superluminal Signals EJTP 8

This one doesn't need you to go beyond the first line of the abstract:
Einstein, Incompleteness, and the Epistemic View of Quantum States

When a peer-reviewed physics study asks whether the state of a quantum system represents reality or not, what does that tell you about theory and hypothesis?

String theory, on the other hand, is not a scientific theory (Maybe it should be "string hypothesis?). It is not supported by evidence, and there is no way to test it at present.

Do you see the difference?

Yes. I see someone who doesn't read research claiming things about this research that conflict with it. Now "string theory" isn't a theory because the physics community doesn't understand enough about science compared to you.

I will ask again. In what way is Quantum Mechanics not a valid scientific theory?

At this point, you've already said that physicists don't know the difference between theory and hypothesis. Physicists deal with QM. So I suppose you should tell them whether it is or why, like you did with "string theory".

Maybe you should tell the scientists this so they'll know they've been doing it wrong the whole time.

Honestly, do you think that they haven't thought of this and developed some mechanism to prevent this circular logic?

I know they have. The method was abandoning the naïve view you express. It's reflected throughout scientific literature across fields. The difference between theories and postulates and models are usually meaningless. Most "theories" aren't ever referred to as such because most of the things we call theories are
1) things we know are wrong (like the theory of gravity)
2) things that are fields of study (graph theory, number theory, computability theory, information theory, etc.)
3) Things that are so intrinsic to so many fields there are actually fields founded upon them, e.g.,"the theory of evolution" and evolutionary psychology. If evolution is a theory, what was the hypothesis? Why do we have a scientific field based on a theory, which means that any hypothesis requires assuming that this theory is true?
4) Theories that relate to scientific study but general descriptions of things that tend to happen (the theory of unintended consequences)

Again, you better tell the scientists. I bet they'll all be saying

..."what makes some guy using grade school scientific methods think that he can tell the entire physics community that they shouldn't have called string theory a theory as it's really a hypothesis? What scientific field does he work in?"

"Well, gee, he's right, I guess that puts us out of a job. After all, why should we work at something when we can't measure the results?"

Let's look at this logically. I quote a scientific source. You tell me I should tell scientists about it. So, we have some possible scenarios.
1) Your definitions are hopelessly inaccurate and your understanding of scientific research is so fundamentally flawed that you've concluded, based on this flawed understanding, that the state of quantum physics research I described means that QM is not science.
2) The physicists, the ones who need to be told the difference between theory and hypothesis by you (so that they can call it "string hypothesis"), aren't scientists.
3) I'm completely wrong because you've demonstrated...? What have you demonstrated?

If Einstein had a theory about space curvature and curvature is gravity, then Einstein had a theory about gravity.

It's a "theory about gravity" now? It's a tensor, actually, and is included in Einstein's field equations (it's actually pretty central to them) as such. Only there isn't a gravitational theory so much as several ways in which Einstein's GR is extended from that in empty space to how it explains the dynamics in various systems. and as the "force" of gravity is spacetime curvature, it isn't really a force at all. As Wheeler put: "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve"

Both are supported by evidence. Both are able to withstand testing.

No they aren't. There are several current attempts to unify relativistic physics and QM, because the two cannot as currently held both be correct, and so far there is no agreement as to what might unite them.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I really started the threads below just to show I could use wiki?
Galileo and the Origin of Science
The best sources to understand cosmology and physics
Human thought is culture-specific

And all these posts in threads I didn't start were from wiki too?

Quite possibly. If you are incapable of finding information quickly and efficiently then you aren't fit for debate. You only need a baseline of knowledge and then go from there. The reason I accused you of Wiki usage wasn't an insult to your information but rather you are regurgitating the information but you aren't grasping it. That or you aren't grasping what I am saying. Either or. Its obvious now that your more interested in a ******* contest than the debate itself but I'll respond anyway.

Then explain the 4 classes of the use of theory I gave.

What specifically do you want to know?

Sure. In 1st grade science.

2+2=4. Also true in first grade. We learn more and more that adds onto that but it doesn't stop being true. You are suffering from a comprehensive error not a factual one. Except with telling me I am wrong when there is obvious clear cut differences between hypothesis and Theory. Perhaps if I explain it again....

Hypothesis- A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
In simpler words its a local and specific educated guess of an outcome or prediction of what evidence will show.

Theory- A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be
The second one is all about the general. It is a broad reaching and focuses on explaining why something happens on a bigger scale.

Do you know what a definite article is? What about grammatical number?

If you have a point please make it. This obviously has nothing to do with science and as I passed 5th grade English I should know what definite article is as well as grammatical number. So I'll bite.

Another thread I started: Einstein and "spooky actions"

That is so great for you. I still fail to see how this is relevant.

And because you know nothing about science you have to defend evolution with an outdated definitions. Try actually learning about the science and you might find that more productive.

I am not even sure how to respond to this. I feel like telling you to go to a corner and think about your attitude but despite how your acting I"m assuming your not a small child stamping his feet when he can't find the articulate skills to respond? I know this is excessively rude but wow how wrong you are.

Right. Just like the don't understand how the "law of gravity" works into this mess you're trying to backtrack out of.

You mistake your misunderstandings for my words and my correction of said misunderstanding as me backing out of my previous point?

To be clear I back everything I have said. I was attempting to teach you the difference between a law and a theory and why a theory will never become a law.