What is a 'theory' ?

[Iasion]

Thanks Copernicus
I see your 538th birthday is in a few weeks

Pay particular attention to senses 5 (explanation sense) and 6 (conjecture sense):

5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture

Yes.

The two broad meanings of theory are :

• a scientific explanation
• speculation / hypothesis / conjecture

Like I said


Iasion

 

[Copernicus]

Iasion, you deleted sense 6c, and I think that you were correct to do so. Lexicographers (people who write definitions) and lexicologists (linguists who study words) are always criticizing dictionaries for making too many word sense distinctions or too few. I'm sure that the folks who approved that definition had some reason for grouping the mathematical sense under 6, but I'm not sure what it was. If you compare the number of word sense definitions for "theory" across many dictionaries, I think you'll find that they vary. However, the two senses that you identified--scientifically accepted "explanation" versus "untested hypothesis" or "conjecture"--exist in most of the definitions that I've checked.

 

[Thief]

Gday,



What a bizarre comment.
I am not attempting to over-rule Webster's.
No-one else here is trying that either - at least I don't think so - but some odd things have been said

It's an attempt to explain and clarify the various meanings of a word - a word found in Webster's, and other dictionaries.

Webster's agrees with me.
The word 'theory' has two (main) meanings - like I said.




I didn't say anything about 'proof'. Science deals with evidence, not 'proof' - please pay attention in future.
This is a bizarre mish-mash of random words. If there is a point there, I can't see it.


Iasion

Then get off the fence.
Declare your belief in evolution...without proof.... and go on with your life.

 

[andys]

Iasion,
I don't know which is more tedious, your persistent name-calling or your inability to process a valid, logical argument.

To avoid future insults (that I am a liar), I will use your words to argue for me.

On page 8 you introduce the two established meanings of the word "theory":

THEORY has 2 meanings

It is all too common for people to confuse the two meanings of the word "theory", it happens here quite a bit with creationists.

In popular terms, "theory" means a guess, or speculation.
Thus the common phrase "just a theory" meaning "just SPECULATION".
[my caps]

But,
in scientific terms, there is another, different, meaning to the word "theory" - it means an EXPLANATION.
Iasion

That is correct. What you are acknowledging is, in other words, that "theory" means two opposite things: Speculation (an unsupported explanation) VS Explanation (a fully supported explanation).

So, the defining characteristic for both meanings is EVIDENCE:
(1) Speculation lacks conclusive evidence, while (2) Explanation has conclusive evidence. The two meanings, Speculation and Explanation are OPPOSITES.

Read this last sentence over and over again. It's sure to sink in...eventually.

Now read your words below and spot the contradiction you are proposing:

...sometimes a theory can even have both meanings - by being a speculative explanation... "Iasion

Got it now? Well, don't feel stupid, as someone recently said "It is all too common for people to confuse the two meanings".

 

[Copernicus]

andys, I endorse your feeling that we should avoid personal insults in this forum. There is no need for anyone to call anyone else stupid or a liar here. I think we are all sincere in our opinions, and both you and iasion strike me as well-educated and intelligent.

What I do not have a good handle on is what your point is in the discussion. Are you arguing that the word "theory" does not have at least those two somewhat contradictory senses? Are you disagreeing with the general point in the OP that creationists have equivocated on the word "theory" in order to cast doubt on the claim that evolution is a scientific fact? I'm just asking for a clarification.

 

[rudeofallreligion]

Theory is just an opinion.

-------------
rudeofallreligion.com

 

[Tristesse]

Theory is just an opinion.

-------------
rudeofallreligion.com

A SCIENTIFIC theory is something completely different.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Theory is just an opinion.

This is a common view among those whose theories are always wrong.

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

Theory is just an opinion.

Such as, say :

Einstein's Theory of Gravity ?
Gravity is just an opinion ?

Or :
Maxwell's Electromagentic Theory?
Electricity is just as opinion ?

Or what about :
The Germ Theory of Disease ?
Are germs just an opinion ?

Ever studied Music Theory?
You think music is just an opinion?


Like Kilgore said - this is a common claim of people whose OWN theories are usually wrong, and who want to discredit the correct theories of science.


Creationists love to claim that EVERYTHING is speculation and uncertain, that we can't know for sure, really.

Therefore :
everything science says IS wrong,
therefore - God.


Iasion

 

[tumbleweed41]

Theory is just an opinion

 

[andys]

Copernicus,
I appreciate your confusion about the ongoing little battle between Iasion and me. I may seem guilty of splitting hairs, but I think it is important to demonstrate that Iasion is wrong to contend that a so-called "theory" about Demons causing disease, can be considered a "speculative explanation".

I'll try to condense our dispute for you.

First, let me present the established meaning of "theory", as I understand it.

THEORY (two accepted meanings):
(1) a mere speculation lacking empirical evidence, (which, therefore, explains nothing)
VS
(2) a hypothesis replete with empirical evidence, (which explains everything it sets out to explain).

Iasion suggests that these two extremely distinct meanings should be allowed to unite or overlap somehow. This is tantamount to introducing yet a third meaning of "theory", one Iasion calls a "speculative explanation".

In so doing, Iasion has created a false hierarchy of three meanings of "theory", which would appear in descending order (as I will show).

He does not bother to define this new meaning, but I suppose it might look something like (2), shown below which I have inserted between the two established meanings of "theory" shown above.

THEORY (Liaion's new meaning inserted between (1) and (3):
(1) a mere speculation lacking empirical evidence, (which, therefore, explains nothing)

(2) a speculation lacking empirical evidence, (which possibly explains something/everything, it sets out to explain).

(3) a hypothesis replete with empirical evidence, (which explains everything i,t sets out to explain).

With the addition of meaning (2), Liasion has (unwittingly) promoted creationism/intelligent design, and any other nonsensical speculation, to a much higher rank, from laughable speculative nonsense, to respectable "speculative explanation".

More damning, is this:

Iasion is forgetting that a true hypothesis must be empirically falsifiable (even if only in principle). Creationism (like a Demon "theory") is a metaphysical "hypothesis" which is not empirically verifiable. Therefore, neither speculation has any "explanatory" power.

I wish Iasion and I could wrap up this little feud, because I think he is doing his best to argue against the creationist viewpoint, and I would rather join forces with him that oppose him.

 

[Copernicus]

Thanks for the clarification, andys. That does help me to sort out what the dispute is all about. I have spent my life studying the nature of word meanings, and I understand the nature of terminological disputes about as well as anyone does. It intrigues me that so much of our discourse is really metalinguistic--i.e. negotiation over how to use words and expressions. In general, word meanings are much more flexible than people admit.

I do think that you and iasion are on the same side. That is, I think you accept his basic premise as laid out in the OP, but you disagree over the expression "speculative theory", which, by substitution, transforms into "speculative explanation". From my perspective, we are looking at opposite ends of the same scale. Hypotheses are, in principle, testable claims. They make predictions that can be tested. Scientific theories are hypotheses that that have been tested and accepted to the extent that scientists no longer believe they will be overturned. But we still often use the word "theory" to stand for something in between "untested hypothesis" and "tested-and-accepted hypothesis". There is a sense in which both are "explanations" on a scale of "acceptance", so perhaps iasion's word "explanation" to define one of the senses was not the best choice. We could probably go on endlessly trying to express the difference in more acceptable terms, but I do think that we all understand and agree on the two different senses.

My first post in this thread mentioned Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth precisely because he did such a good job at the beginning of his book in describing the two senses of theory that have given rise to this misleading "only a theory" shibboleth of creationists. Dawkins, of course, does a much better job than most of us could in very eloquently exploring the nature of the two types of theories and how scientific hypotheses gradually migrate from their more speculative sense to the "scientific fact" sense. There are stages in between, and that was certainly true of Darwin's theory of evolution. In his time, of course, lots of people believed in common descent, but it was Darwin who really convinced the scientific community that natural selection could serve as a satisfactory "explanation". It just took decades for evolution to really take hold and push out the religious (more speculative) "explanation" of special creation.

 

[andys]

Copernicus,
How right you are that, so often, alleged debates may only be squabbles over definitions, or differing interpretations of a key word's meaning.

Such is not the case regarding my disagreement with Iasion.

I certainly appreciate your point that, as a scientific hypothesis gains increasing evidence to support it, so our confidence in its explanatory power grows as well.
Dare I concede, in such instances, the phrase "speculative explanation" can reasonably be applied.

But what Iasion is proposing is a whole different kettle of fish. He is mistakenly assigning this phrase to hypotheses (if we can truly call them that) which are metaphysical and are - by definition - not subject to empirical testing. Such nonscientific speculations can neither be falsified nor verified. Without the possibility to test for and obtain evidence to support this category of speculations, they are ipso facto unable to provide explanations to support their hypotheses.

To reiterate: whether it is speculation about the existence of gods and their creations, or deadly diseases attributed to demons from hell, there is no possible way to test for, or obtain the slightest empirical evidence to support such "hypotheses". Metaphysical speculations are beyond the scope of science.

Metaphysical speculations can not be "speculative explanations" because they are, by virtue of their meta physical status, devoid of explanatory power of the physical world.

In plain, unambiguous, non metalinguistic English, they are pure nonsense.

 

[David M]

The human version of FOXP2 BTW is dated to 5,000ya.

Source?

For about the tenth time I will point out that the Neandertal version of FOXP2 is identical to the H. sapiens version.

fox2p gene : definition of fox2p gene and synonym of fox2p gene (English)
The derived FOXP2 variant of modern humans was sha... [Curr Biol. 2007] - PubMed result

Considering that Neandertals went extinct more than 5,000 years ago and that previous estimates (Pääbo) put the age of modern human FOXP2 at 200,000 years I am pretty confident that you are making that number up.

Provide a source for this blatant misrepresentation of the facts or cease repeating it.

 

[Copernicus]

To reiterate: whether it is speculation about the existence of gods and their creations, or deadly diseases attributed to demons from hell, there is no possible way to test for, or obtain the slightest empirical evidence to support such "hypotheses". Metaphysical speculations are beyond the scope of science.

Well, this is a bit of a different argument, and I don't quite agree with you about that. To the extent that these "metaphysical speculations" have consequences in the real world, they can be examined on an empirical basis. Do you subscribe to Stephen Jay Gould's claim of Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA)? I do not.

Metaphysical speculations can not be "speculative explanations" because they are, by virtue of their meta physical status, devoid of explanatory power of the physical world.

Again, I believe just the opposite. Their only value is to explain real physical events in the real world. They are "about physics".

In plain, unambiguous, non metalinguistic English, they are pure nonsense.

Metaphysics is not nonsense, and English is neither plain nor unambigous. In fact, every word in a natural language is ambiguous.

 

[andys]

Copernicus,
I have an early flight in the morning so I'm turning in. All I have time to say until I return on Monday, is that you do not seem to understand the term "metaphysical", at least as it used in routine philosophical discourse. Although I believe have alluded to its basic meaning sufficiently.

You may be familiar with the views of the famous Vienna Circle, whose esteemed members include A. J. Ayer, Rudolf Carnap and Herbert Feigl, who demonstrated that metaphysical assertions are quite meaningless. Obviously, I agree wholeheartedly. Your contention, to the contrary, that
"Their only value is to explain real physical events in the real world. They are "about physics" is something I look forward to having you explain.

Good night! Talk to you Monday...

 

[Copernicus]

Copernicus,
I have an early flight in the morning so I'm turning in. All I have time to say until I return on Monday, is that you do not seem to understand the term "metaphysical", at least as it used in routine philosophical discourse. Although I believe have alluded to its basic meaning sufficiently.

Andys, I'm not sure that you have yet grasped my fundamental point about word meanings. Just as there are several word senses for "theory", there are also several word senses for "metaphysical". But we can have that debate later. You have said very little of substance about it yet. I stand by my point that anything which has physical effects is subject to empirical investigation, no matter what word you use to describe it.

You may be familiar with the views of the famous Vienna Circle, whose esteemed members include A. J. Ayer, Rudolf Carnap and Herbert Feigl, who demonstrated that metaphysical assertions are quite meaningless. Obviously, I agree wholeheartedly. Your contention, to the contrary, that
"Their only value is to explain real physical events in the real world. They are "about physics" is something I look forward to having you explain.

I am indeed quite familiar with that somewhat dated branch of linguistic philosophy, and I do hope that you are not intending to throw your lot in with logical positivism. But be my guest, if you think you are going to say anything meaningful about meaning. All those words they talked about were less meaningless than they thought.

 

[andys]

Copernicus,
You state:

Just as there are several word senses for "theory", there are also several word senses for "metaphysical"... You have said very little of substance about it yet.

Surely, you are aware that, for very good reason, this entire thread has been devoted specifically to two, very confused, meanings of the word "theory". One, as used by the layman, the other, as used by the scientist.

As for your contention that I have said very little of substance about it, on the contrary, I have explained repeatedly what "theory" means in nearly every post. As recently as the same page on which you asked me for clarification, (p. 12) I replied:

"First, let me present the established meaning of "theory", as I understand it.
THEORY (two accepted meanings):
(1) a mere speculation lacking empirical evidence, (which, therefore, explains nothing)
VS
(2) a hypothesis replete with empirical evidence, (which explains everything it sets out to explain)."


As for "metaphysical", I explained this term a few posts above your most recent reply:

"[Iasion] is mistakenly assigning this phrase to hypotheses (if we can truly call them that) which are metaphysical and are - by definition - not subject to empirical testing.
Such nonscientific speculations can neither be falsified nor verified. Without the possibility to test for and obtain evidence to support this category of speculations, they are ipso facto unable to provide explanations to support their hypotheses.
To reiterate: whether it is speculation about the existence of gods and their creations, or deadly diseases attributed to demons from hell, there is no possible way to test for, or obtain the slightest empirical evidence to support such "hypotheses". Metaphysical speculations are beyond the scope of science.

Metaphysical speculations can not be "speculative explanations" because they are, by virtue of their metaphysical status, devoid of explanatory power of the physical world."


If this is still not clear enough for you, I will gladly be more specific. But, I think, to state that I have offered "very little of substance" regarding the meaning of these two words is unwarranted.

You, on the other hand, offer this curious remark, which I am only guessing alludes to your understanding of the word "metaphysical":

I stand by my point that anything which has physical effects is subject to empirical investigation, no matter what word you use to describe it.

You are just plain wrong if you believe that metaphysical statements are "subject to empirical investigation". And you and Iasion are both wrong if you believe that speculations about demons, gods, and creationism are actually meaningful explanations (albeit false ones). The nonphysical realm of the metaphysical can NOT be tested empirically (physically), for that is why it is labelled "meta" i.e.,"beyond" physical, in the first place.

Metaphysical speculations/hypotheses are, by virtue of their intended meaning, beyond the realm of the physical; as such, they are beyond the reach of empirical physical investigation and verification (i.e., explanation). For all intents and purposes, speculations about demons, gods and creationsm are scientifically meaningless. Period.

Let's (please) move on.


(Copernicus, I couldn't resist pointing out that your attempt to discredit Logical Positivism backfired, since you (a linguist, tsk!) used the dreaded double negative.) You meant to say "more meaningless" rather than "less meaningless"."

... I do hope that you are not intending to throw your lot in with logical positivism. All those words they talked about were less meaningless than they thought.

 

[outhouse]

Provide a source for this blatant misrepresentation of the facts or cease repeating it.

David its ok if you just come out and say newhope lied again.

we have all caught her at it many many times.

her post are not worth rebuttle since its usually plagiarized, copied and pasted.

 

[David M]

David its ok if you just come out and say newhope lied again.

we have all caught her at it many many times.

her post are not worth rebuttle since its usually plagiarized, copied and pasted.

According to the rules (apparently) you are not allowed to say that a person has lied.

So Newhope is not lying, just completely unable to provide any source for what she has asserted even when asked more than once to do so.

So the 5,000 year age for human FOXP2 is just something that she made up and now repeats without evidence. Just as I will keep pointing out that this is what she is doing.