Prove a Scientific theory ?

[AV1611VET]

Well, I assume the "your" was communal and not just MINE. I mean, what if I haven't studied the area of expertise? Why should my opinion count at ALL?

Let's try this then:

A theory is something anticipating change while supported by evidence that is expected to be believed until such change is made.

That way, if anyone hasn't studied it yet, that's fine, since it will be expected that, if and when he does, he will be expected to believe it.

 

[Yttrium]

Did I go too far when I said it's something you believe?

Yes.

 

[Yttrium]

Let's try this then:

A theory is something anticipating change while supported by evidence that is expected to be believed until such change is made.

No.

 

[rambot]

Let's try this then:

A theory is something anticipating change while supported by evidence that is expected to be believed until such change is made.

That way, if anyone hasn't studied it yet, that's fine, since it will be expected that, if and when he does, he will be expected to believe it.

How does an idea "anticipate change"? It's an idea, it can't anticipate anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

No.

Wow.

So let's break it down:

1. No one anticipates a theory will change? Theories are immutable?
2. A theory is not supported by evidence? Even I know better than that.
3. The evidence isn't expected to be believed? Straight A's on finals are automatic?
4. The information taught in class isn't temporal? The sun circles the earth, does it?

 

[AV1611VET]

How does an idea "anticipate change"?

It doesn't.

The people believing it do.

How many times have I heard: "I just can't wait until new information obsoletes an old theory."

I believe you guys call that "progress."

It's an idea, it can't anticipate anything.

Theories are much stronger than ideas.

They are beliefs that are taught in our highest colleges and expected to be learned, else the students will fail.

They are beliefs that are justified (or supported) by the interpretation of evidence accumulated by sweat equity from scientists out in their respective fields, and nowadays run through computers and peer reviews and the such and so forth.

Then they look forward to another discovery that will pwn it all.

 

[rambot]

Wow.

So let's break it down:

1. No one anticipates a theory will change? Theories are immutable?
2. A theory is not supported by evidence? Even I know better than that.
3. The evidence isn't expected to be believed? Straight A's on finals are automatic?
4. The information taught in class isn't temporal? The sun circles the earth, does it?

Do you believe that all evidence for something should be given equal consideration?

 

[rambot]

It doesn't.
The people believing it do.
How many times have I heard: "I just can't wait until new information obsoletes an old theory."
I believe you guys call that "progress."

Gotta tell you I have LITERALLY never heard a single scientist say anything like that...at ALL. That sounds more like people on the wrong side of science being bitter because there has been no quality evidence to support their points..

Theories are much stronger than ideas.

They are beliefs that are taught in our highest colleges and expected to be learned, else the students will fail.

But they are not beliefs.

They are beliefs that are justified (or supported) by the interpretation of evidence accumulated by sweat equity from scientists out in their respective fields, and nowadays run through computers and peer reviews and the such and so forth.

This sentence is getting DANGEROUSLY close to an appropriate definition of theory but not quite. It's the evidence itself and not necessarily the interpretation of the evidence (because that makes it arbitrary and subjective).

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you believe that all evidence for something should be given equal consideration?

Yes.

And I believe it should get what it deserves.

 

[AV1611VET]

Gotta tell you I have LITERALLY never heard a single scientist say anything like that...at ALL.

So did scientists dance in the streets when geocentrism gave way to heliocentrism?

When alchemy gave way to chemistry?

When the Capture theory gave way to the Impact theory?

When et gave way to cetera?

 

[AV1611VET]

But they are not beliefs.

You don't believe we came from pond scum?

You seem to me to have a strange idea of the science you're wanting me to accept.

 

[AV1611VET]

This sentence is getting DANGEROUSLY close to an appropriate definition of theory but not quite. It's the evidence itself and not necessarily the interpretation of the evidence (because that makes it arbitrary and subjective).

I'll be honest.

I'm beginning to get the impression you don't know how to properly define a theory.

 

[sjastro]

This thread demands an encore of "The Dunning Kruger Song" performed at the Ig Nobel prize ceremony.

 

[Yttrium]

Wow.

So let's break it down:

1. No one anticipates a theory will change? Theories are immutable?

It would be better to say that a theory is subject to change as new evidence becomes available. We anticipate that things could change, not that they will change.

1. A theory is not supported by evidence? Even I know better than that.

You're looking at it a little backwards. A theory is an explanation that fits the evidence. We don't come up with an assertion and then look for evidence to support it. We look at the evidence, find something that needs to be explained about it, then come up with an explanation.

1. The evidence isn't expected to be believed? Straight A's on finals are automatic?

Nothing in science is expected to be believed. Evidence can be faked. Everything should be treated with skepticism. Our tests aren't meant to prove the theories, they're meant to falsify them. If we fail to falsify them, they live for another day.

1. The information taught in class isn't temporal? The sun circles the earth, does it?

The information taught does change over time, as our understanding improves.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're looking at it a little backwards. A theory is an explanation that fits the evidence. We don't come up with an assertion and then look for evidence to support it. We look at the evidence, find something that needs to be explained about it, then come up with an explanation.

Look how you worded that:

"Theory" then "explanation" then "evidence".

But when you reversed the order, you said:

"Evidence" then "discovery" then "explanation".

You subtly changed "theory" to "explanation".

Let's just let it go right here.

You don't want to vote, so don't.

But don't make it look like it's my fault.

 

[Yttrium]

You subtly changed "theory" to "explanation".

I wasn't subtle about it, I directly stated it.

You don't want to vote, so don't.

But don't make it look like it's my fault.

Didn't want to vote on what? If you're talking about your "My Theory Challenge Poll", I was the first one to vote on it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I wasn't subtle about it, I directly stated it.

Didn't want to vote on what? If you're talking about your "My Theory Challenge Poll", I was the first one to vote on it.

Oops! My apologies! I'm getting threads mixed up.

Sorry!

 

[tampasteve]

ADMIN HAT ON
This thread is now closed at the request of the OP.
ADMIN HAT OFF