Discussion Forums > The Lounge
An individual who screws up the term, "Theory"... / "Proof"?
Proin Drakenzol:
A Scientific Theory requires a fairly substantial amount of evidence. A Scientific Law is (as was stated) a Theory that has proven resilient to being disproven.
The Big Bang Theory is still a theory. There's evidence for it, but not enough to make it a law. Especially now that we realise that in order for the Big Bang Theory to work there had to have been points in time where matter was able to travel faster than the speed of light (and/or through alternate dimensions). This doesn't disprove the Big Bang but it does call into question its overall validity.
"String Theory" is not a theory. It's a WAG that's internally consistent and has no real, external supporting evidence.
G-d's existence can be neither proven nor disproven. It's like suing the government, it only works if they decide to let you.
relic2279:
--- Quote from: Proin Drakenzol on April 21, 2010, 01:30:26 AM ---
The Big Bang Theory is still a theory. There's evidence for it, but not enough to make it a law.
--- End quote ---
A theory can never become a law. A theory always stays a theory.
--- Quote ---"String Theory" is not a theory. It's a WAG that's internally consistent and has no real, external supporting evidence.
--- End quote ---
It's a mathematical attempt at a 'theory of everything'. It remains a theory because it doesn't have any evidence to disprove it. It's the math itself that is evidence enough to make it a theory. Some of it works out, some they can't work out yet. But none if it has proven false yet.
Proin Drakenzol:
--- Quote from: relic2279 on April 21, 2010, 01:47:23 AM ---
--- Quote from: Proin Drakenzol on April 21, 2010, 01:30:26 AM ---
The Big Bang Theory is still a theory. There's evidence for it, but not enough to make it a law.
--- End quote ---
A theory can never become a law. A theory always stays a theory.
--- End quote ---
A theory becomes a law when it proves resilient to disproof. Otherwise we'd have no laws, only theories.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---"String Theory" is not a theory. It's a WAG that's internally consistent and has no real, external supporting evidence.
--- End quote ---
It's a mathematical attempt at a 'theory of everything'. It remains a theory because it doesn't have any evidence to disprove it. It's the math itself that is evidence enough to make it a theory. Some of it works out, some they can't work out yet. But none if it has proven false yet.
--- End quote ---
Nor has there been any evidence to prove it true. Mathematical concepts are not theories, they are internally consistent hypothesis.
--- Quote from: Wiki's String Theory Article ---"For more than a generation, physicists have been chasing a will-o’-the-wisp called string theory. The beginning of this chase marked the end of what had been three-quarters of a century of progress. Dozens of string-theory conferences have been held, hundreds of new Ph.D.s have been minted, and thousands of papers have been written. Yet, for all this activity, not a single new testable prediction has been made, not a single theoretical puzzle has been solved. In fact, there is no theory so far—just a set of hunches and calculations suggesting that a theory might exist. And, even if it does, this theory will come in such a bewildering number of versions that it will be of no practical use: a Theory of Nothing." -- Jim Holt.
--- End quote ---
There are many physicists skeptical of String Theory, or at least unimpressed by its lack of real-world results. There are also competing hypothesis of everything that are also internally consistent and preclude the veracity of string theory.
relic2279:
--- Quote from: Proin Drakenzol on April 21, 2010, 02:03:17 AM ---A theory becomes a law when it proves resilient to disproof. Otherwise we'd have no laws, only theories.
--- End quote ---
/facepalm
"Scientific laws and theories are two very different things and, despite what it may seem, one never becomes the other."
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Scientific_theory#Theories_are_different_from_laws
http://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/4/sc09_046_05_52
http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/36066585/Q-How-does-a-scientific-theory-become-a-scientific-law
A theory never becomes a law. A theory always stays a theory.
Ixarku:
--- Quote from: relic2279 on April 21, 2010, 02:21:00 AM ---"Scientific laws and theories are two very different things and, despite what it may seem, one never becomes the other."
A theory never becomes a law. A theory always stays a theory.
--- End quote ---
Interesting... and definitely NOT what I was taught in school. Granted, for me, high school was ~20 years ago, college was 15 years ago, and FL is not known as a bastion of education.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version