An individual who screws up the term, "Theory"... / "Proof"?

[mizore]

Yes, such as the law of angular momentum is not inapplicable in any known instance.  The only possible sense I can make of you rolling your eyes to laws being indisputable would be under an entirely new set of physics we have yet to discover... which has no impact on the relevancy and truth of the law in our known universe.

Perhaps you could explain why you think this way?

[JoonasTo]

I think you guys are misunderstanding me somewhere along the way because I agree with your definition of law and theory.

[relic2279]

People often mix up the definition of a theory and the scientific definition of theory.

Theories will always stay theories. They never become laws. A theory remains a theory until there is any evidence against it.

[fohfoh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory ...

Quote


According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.


As far as I am concerned, The Theory of The Big Bang and The Theory Evolution fall into this definition. A Scientific Theory does not require proof because there is overwhelming evidence that is consistent with the postulates of the theory. An hypothesis on the other hand need to be tested and proven. And notice that even for Tunguska event, there are not scientific theories that explain the event, there are simply "speculative hypotheses". Saying that "That's what makes a [scientific] theory a [everyday] theory" is just a fallacy.

That not all the details of the Big Bang Theory have been worked out doesn't undermine the validity of the theory. Is there a possibility that the theory is wrong? There is, but it is not remotely near to the uncertainty that you imply it to be.

Lastly, I am not sure what do you mean by "what you are trying to pass off as true is essentially false". If by THAT you mean the Theory of Evolution or The Big Bang Theory, I think they are very true... more true than the existence of God, Creationism, the Bible or any supernatural religious claim.

Wait wtf? Did someone pull another "pluto" issue here?

Really going to need your guy's help on this one. My brain is too tired to think properly.


Wait wait wait... I think this guy is fucking up the lines between proof as in evidence to support the "statement" and proof as in details regarding the theory. But even then... WTF? Fucker threw a money wrench into the gears of the machine!

* fohfoh brain clicks a few times and dies

[Ixarku]

Maybe I'm off-base here, but I always thought that, by definition, a scientific theory makes testable predictions.... and if those predictions are shown to be true, that's the scientifically accepted "proof" that the theory is valid.

Or, to put it another way, just because you can't reproduce something in a laboratory under controlled conditions does NOT mean that evidence supporting a theory's validity does not exist.  Seems to me that the quoted person is getting hung up on the word "proof".

[fohfoh]

Thanks Ixarku. That's what I thought as well. After a while, my brain clicked on for a moment and I was like... wait... why is he getting all tied up about "proof"? Then I realized that there were 2 lines of thought and usage for the word "proof" and he was mixing them together.

Now I figured out where he went off the trail. And now I can figure out wtf to an extent he is babbling about.

[Ixarku]

    As soon as I read "...The Theory of The Big Bang and The Theory Evolution fall into this definition. A Scientific Theory does not require proof because ..." I immediately had a visual of a guy in a lab coat mixing test tubes filled with miniature stars and galaxies, in an attempt to recreate the Big Bang.  That was when I had my "wtf is this person thinking" moment.

[fohfoh]

Wouldn't it be more like... not recreating the big bang because it doesn't need to be proven?

[Ixarku]

LOL, touche.

I think I need to go watch that episode of Futurama where Professor Farnsworth creates a box containing a parallel universe now.  ("You can be crummy Universe A, and we'll be Universe 1.")

[relic2279]

Maybe he means disproof. A theory is valid until it is proven false. That there is no evidence to disprove it, or rather, theories are only waiting for disproof. This fact alone can make a theory stronger than a law. Depending on the field of study anyways.

I personally don't believe in the theory of gravity.


* Relic2279 flies away.

[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]

The Big Bang Theory is still a theory. There's evidence for it, but not enough to make it a law.

A theory can never become a law. A theory always stays a theory.

"String Theory" is not a theory. It's a WAG that's internally consistent and has no real, external supporting evidence.

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]

The Big Bang Theory is still a theory. There's evidence for it, but not enough to make it a law.

A theory can never become a law. A theory always stays a theory.

A theory becomes a law when it proves resilient to disproof. Otherwise we'd have no laws, only theories.

"String Theory" is not a theory. It's a WAG that's internally consistent and has no real, external supporting evidence.

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.

Nor has there been any evidence to prove it true. Mathematical concepts are not theories, they are internally consistent hypothesis.

"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.

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]

A theory becomes a law when it proves resilient to disproof. Otherwise we'd have no laws, only theories.

/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]

"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.

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.

[fohfoh]

"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.

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.

Yeah I know. Some of the sites stuff I was reading... I was like... "DAMN YOU BILL NYE! DAMN YOU!"

[mizore]

A law in science is the same as a mathematic definition. Basically, a base formula or constant extrapolation accepted as a given.

Theories are vastly more complex than a simple law.  As I stated before, they can venture into the realm of science fact with ample supporting evidence of validity. Sometimes, they can even bring about new constants/definitions/laws that comprise some of the component principles of the theory.

[fohfoh]

That's what I thought. But this weirdo jumps into the forum yelling at us as if we had though that 1+1=3 was correct.

[Proin Drakenzol]

A theory becomes a law when it proves resilient to disproof. Otherwise we'd have no laws, only theories.

/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.

Huh, oops, my bad. You're still wrong about the rest of it, though.

[mgz]

IMO you should take this in another direction, start providing evidence for creationism just to be an ass. And bring up other theories that are fairly popular in the creation of the universe.