What is a 'theory' ?

[Thief]

I wish theists and literal creationists would learn what scientific theory is. Till they do, they would remain pig-headed ignorant in what theory really means in science. Using a dictionary doesn't really explain the true meaning in science.

The "theory" that creationists and theists tend to use, is actually hypothesis.

Hypothesis are explanation, speculation or prediction that have not being verified or tested. Those hypotheses that contradicted by the number of independent evidences available are discarded. Those hypotheses supported by evidences, have chance to developed into fully scientific theory.

In science, theory is explanation that used to explain the nature of the science, explain the evidences that have been found to correlate with theory and the theory's predictions, it explain the laws and the mathematical equations.

Without theory, it would be difficult for people to explain anything involved in science.

And science is a prove all or nothing frame of mind?

Try Webster's....again....

 

[PolyHedral]

You are then the sum of your chemistry.

When it fails...you fail.

Dust you are made of.....dust you will be.

...And?

 

[Copernicus]

You are then the sum of your chemistry.

That is like saying that a jigsaw puzzle is just the sum of its pieces. It represents something different when it is assembled from when it is not. Metaphorically speaking, our bodies are very complex jigsaw puzzles that are something vastly different assembled than when broken down into component constituents.

 

[Thief]

That is like saying that a jigsaw puzzle is just the sum of its pieces. It represents something different when it is assembled from when it is not. Metaphorically speaking, our bodies are very complex jigsaw puzzles that are something vastly different assembled than when broken down into component constituents.

That description doesn't work.....
You left out the living portion....your spirit.

 

[Copernicus]

That description doesn't work.....
You left out the living portion....your spirit.

All analogies break down, but there is no reason to believe that the "spirit"--a mind, actually--can exist independently of the physical brain that seems to give rise to it.

 

[gnostic]

And science is a prove all or nothing frame of mind?

Try Webster's....again....

Try being smarter.

Try finding the definition in science books. the Webster dictionary is extremely limited. If you were smart you would come to realize that.

 

[Thief]

Try being smarter.

Try finding the definition in science books. the Webster dictionary is extremely limited. If you were smart you would come to realize that.

And if you were smart you would realize the label 'theory'
sticks until proof is rendered.

Not all things can be proven.

The definition by Webster's is sufficient.

Prefixing the word science unto it...proves nothing.

 

[outhouse]

Prefixing the word science unto it...proves nothing.

only to those who are severly uneducated

due to their minds being closed by a myth

 

[tumbleweed41]

theory (thēˈə-rē, thîrˈ&#275
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2010

 

[Thief]

From another thread moments ago....


"And this is good example of discussion I'm trying to point out.

Did you notice the word...explain....

All a theory can do is offer an explanation....an observation....conjecture...speculation...

Predictable results of a science experiment are all fine and good.

But some participants here wave these results as the end all...proven....discussion.


Far from.....proper thought.

And as most forms of discipline go.....math and science have their limits.
There are circumstances where such disciplines cannot go.

For the singularity to be truly singular....no secondary point can be there.
Therefore no geometry....no dimensional space....no time....no gravity...
no light...no shadow....no voice ....no echo...
Only the void.

Math cannot go there.
No science experiment will follow.

And yet natural events are all around us.

Care to start yet another thread?.....Genesis?

 

[Copernicus]

theory (thēˈə-rē, thîrˈ&#275
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2010

Right, but the point is that "theory" has two distinct senses. The scientific sense of "theory" is that it is virtually synonymous with the expression "scientific fact" when the scientific discipline as a whole regards it as "accepted". For example, there is so much evidence in favor of continental drift theory now, that scientists so not challenge its factual correctness. The same is true of evolution, which has been established as factual for many decades now (unlike continental drift theory, which has only been considered "established" since the latter half of the 20th century).

Nevertheless, when people use "theory" in casual expressions such as "I have a theory that..." or "it's only a theory", they are using the word in a completely different sense--to express a conjecture or hypothesis. These two senses are clearly delineated in some dictionaries, but not all of them. What creationists have done is equivocated on the word "theory".

 

[Thief]

Right, but the point is that "theory" has two distinct senses. The scientific sense of "theory" is that it is virtually synonymous with the expression "scientific fact" when the scientific discipline as a whole regards it as "accepted". For example, there is so much evidence in favor of continental drift theory now, that scientists so not challenge its factual correctness. The same is true of evolution, which has been established as factual for many decades now (unlike continental drift theory, which has only been considered "established" since the latter half of the 20th century).

Nevertheless, when people use "theory" in casual expressions such as "I have a theory that..." or "it's only a theory", they are using the word in a completely different sense--to express a conjecture or hypothesis. These two senses are clearly delineated in some dictionaries, but not all of them. What creationists have done is equivocated on the word "theory".

So....placing the word 'science' in front of the word 'theory'....
takes away the words.... explanation...speculation...and conjecture....

And elevates 'theory' to the status of 'proven'?

I see a distinct difference between 'accepted' as compared to 'proven'.

That you are willing to accept an idea is one thing.
And a large heap of experiments another.
Fine.....

But to offer any theory as an absolute?....never.

 

[Copernicus]

So....placing the word 'science' in front of the word 'theory'....
takes away the words.... explanation...speculation...and conjecture....

No. It has nothing to do with modifiers. Different senses of words are determined by context of usage. When a scientist calls something a "theory", he or she could be using either sense, depending on context. When the context is purely scientific, however, that word takes on its more specialized meaning.

And elevates 'theory' to the status of 'proven'?

That is correct, but scientific proof needs to be distinguished from mathematical or logical proof. Scientific proof relies on tests that differentiate competing hypotheses. Evolution has been so thoroughly proven by so many different types of evidence that it is no longer any doubt of its factual correctness. Just the same, scientists are continuously retesting theories and trying to come up with improvements.

I see a distinct difference between 'accepted' as compared to 'proven'.

That depends on perspective. Are you talking about 'prove' in an empirical inductive sense or mathematical (logical) in a deductive sense? There are two types of proof, you know.

That you are willing to accept an idea is one thing.
And a large heap of experiments another.
Fine.....

But to offer any theory as an absolute?....never.

Empirical proofs are never taken as absolute. Mathematical and logical ones are, although people often quibble over whether inductive proofs ought to be considered "logical".

 

[tumbleweed41]

Right, but the point is that "theory" has two distinct senses. The scientific sense of "theory" is that it is virtually synonymous with the expression "scientific fact" when the scientific discipline as a whole regards it as "accepted". For example, there is so much evidence in favor of continental drift theory now, that scientists so not challenge its factual correctness. The same is true of evolution, which has been established as factual for many decades now (unlike continental drift theory, which has only been considered "established" since the latter half of the 20th century).

Nevertheless, when people use "theory" in casual expressions such as "I have a theory that..." or "it's only a theory", they are using the word in a completely different sense--to express a conjecture or hypothesis. These two senses are clearly delineated in some dictionaries, but not all of them. What creationists have done is equivocated on the word "theory".

Agreed. It seems that some on this thread are still stuck with the colloquial Websters use of theory.
A scientific theory is usually backed by such a preponderance of empirical evidence that it can indeed be considered a scientific fact.

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

"And this is good example of discussion I'm trying to point out.

Did you notice the word... explain ....

All a theory can do is offer an explanation....an observation....conjecture...speculation...

There's your problem -
Like I pointed out in the OP - you have confused two different 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".

In popular terms, "theory" means a guess, or speculation. Thus the common phrase "just a theory" meaning "just speculation".

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


Theories EXPLAIN facts

Theories explain the facts we observe :

Gravity is a fact, we observe its effects.
Gravitational Theory describes how gravity works.

Electricity is a fact, we use it everyday.
Electromagnetic Theory explains the details of how it operates.

Germs are a fact.
Germ Theory explains how they cause disease.

Evolution is a fact, it is observed.
The Theory of Evolution explains how it works.



the ToE is an EXPLANATION, NOT speculation

The Theory of Evolution is NOT "speculation about evolution" - that is NOT what the phrase means at all.

Rather -
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION for how evolution works, it models the behaviour of the FACTS of evolution, and allows predictions to be made.

Just as Electromagnetic Theory is the explanation or model of how electricity works.
Would one say "electricity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Gravitational Theory is the explanation or model of how gravity works.
Would one say "gravity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Germ Theory is the explanation or model of how germs cause disease.
Would one say "germs are just a theory" ?
Of course not.


Yet
some people say
"evolution is (just) a theory"

as if it means
"evolution is merely untested speculation" (false)


EVOLUTION = FACT & THEORY

Evolution is a FACT.

We observe evolution.
And,
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION, or model, for the observed facts of evolution.


Creationists, however, will never admit this - they have a fundamental faithful belief that evolution is merely "speculation" and will repeat this nonsense every chance they get.


Iasion

 

[tumbleweed41]

From another thread moments ago....


"And this is good example of discussion I'm trying to point out.

Did you notice the word...explain....

All a theory can do is offer an explanation....an observation....conjecture...speculation...

Predictable results of a science experiment are all fine and good.

But some participants here wave these results as the end all...proven....discussion.


Far from.....proper thought.

A conclusion is not speculation or conjecture.
Speculation and conjecture are not based on empirical evidence.

From your beloved Websters...

Speculate

a : to meditate on or ponder a subject : reflect b : to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively
2
: to assume a business risk in hope of gain; especially : to buy or sell in expectation of profiting from market fluctuations

transitive verb
1
: to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence : theorize

2
: to be curious or doubtful about : wonder <speculates whether it will rain all vacation>



Conjecture

1
obsolete a : interpretation of omens b : supposition

2
a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved



Conclusion
1
a : a reasoned judgment : inference b : the necessary consequence of two or more propositions taken as premises; especially : the inferred proposition of a syllogism
2
: the last part of something: as a : result, outcome b plural : trial of strength or skill —used in the phrase try conclusions c : a final summation d : the final decision in a law case e : the final part of a pleading in law



Let's not get our words confused with their actual meanings.
(And please, do not jump on the colloquial use of theorize in the above definition to heart.)

 

[Thief]

A conclusion is not speculation or conjecture.
Speculation and conjecture are not based on empirical evidence.

From your beloved Websters...

Speculate

a : to meditate on or ponder a subject : reflect b : to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively
2
: to assume a business risk in hope of gain; especially : to buy or sell in expectation of profiting from market fluctuations

transitive verb
1
: to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence : theorize

2
: to be curious or doubtful about : wonder <speculates whether it will rain all vacation>



Conjecture

1
obsolete a : interpretation of omens b : supposition

2
a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved

This is theory...correct.

Conclusion
1
a : a reasoned judgment : inference b : the necessary consequence of two or more propositions taken as premises; especially : the inferred proposition of a syllogism
2
: the last part of something: as a : result, outcome b plural : trial of strength or skill —used in the phrase try conclusions c : a final summation d : the final decision in a law case e : the final part of a pleading in law



Let's not get our words confused with their actual meanings.
(And please, do not jump on the colloquial use of theorize in the above definition to heart.)

And conclusion based on theory is what?

 

[tumbleweed41]

And conclusion based on theory is what?

A scientific theory is a conclusion.
Unless or until objective empirical evidence changes or adjusts that conclusion.
Dogmatism has no place in the scientific method.

 

[Thief]

A scientific theory is a conclusion.

Nay...conclusions are dropped over and over.
Such is science.
As you now concede..........

Unless or until objective empirical evidence changes or adjusts that conclusion.
Dogmatism has no place in the scientific method.

And science as a rebuttal to theology?

There are many participants here who make such practice.

 

[PolyHedral]

Only when theology makes claims that are wrong.