Reply to Re: SkeleTony
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
AGAIN, theories do not EVER 'become facts'. This is an all too common misunderstanding of science by laypersons. A theory is an entirely different ani9mal than a fact. Theories EXPLAIN facts. Without the pre-existent facts, there is no need for a theory. If there were no computers then a manual on computer engineering would be a book of gibberish talking about silicon chips, terrabytes, processors etc.
Aye, I stated that wrong. Theories indeed never become facts, they're completely different. Actually that was the entire point of my post. You can have a theory about something everyday, proving something does not make a theory a fact. This is exactly why I feel you can still talk about the 'theory of evolution'.
What I was trying to say is that a the fact that the apple falls is a confirmation of my hypothesis that the apple would fall if I released it. This hypothesis comes from the theory that objects with a weight have a tendency to be attracted to other objects with a weight. This obviously has an even more complex theory behind it, but this theory is already a theory. The computer handbook you are referring to does not explain exactly how a transistor works, just how the software/hardware you want to use works. This means a part of a larger theory can also be a theory.
So, my theory 'apples will fall to the ground when released' is a valid theory. I don't need the entire theory of general relativity to explain why an apple falls. Just like a computer software manual does not need to explain how a transistor works.
You are right that my original statement that "I may have the theory that it will fall when I release it." is more a hypothesis then a theory. This is caused by my own feeling that theories need to be able to predict things to have any meaningful value. (So a theory should be able to produce a hypothesis.)
Still though, I can have the theory that apples warp themselves to the ground. That's not a hypothesis if it isn't specifically refering to that specific apple. I agree that you were right on my original statement about me mixing up the words hypothesis and theory.
You are mostly correct here but I would point out that there is no "theory of evolution". There are SEVERAL theories(re: Natural Selection, Punctuated Equilibrium etc.) that explain the FACT of evolution. Evolution itself is a fact. Natural selection is the primary THEORY explaining how it(evolution/bio-diversity) works.
Well, in the same way you can have the theory that apples fall to the ground and not to the sky you can have the theory that life as we know it has come to be through evolution rather than through a single event. That's what I call the theory of evolution, and I think that's a valid theory. Obviously this theory has many sub-theories, but that does not transform the main theory in a fact. So talking about the theory of evolution is good use of language if you ask me. (Obviously it is misused often to give the impression that evidence for evolution is rather unsubstantial...)
None of those are theories though. The "gravity" and "animals" ones come closest but as you have stated it it is merely a groundless assertion with no explanatory power at all. A "theory" goes into great detail explaining exactly HOW these things occur and work. Theories CAN be overturned adn are constantly revised with the influx of new data but this does not change the facts they explain anymore than the discovery that the earth is elliptical caused our planet to become a cube or a giant marshmallow.
These statements were no groundless assertions with no explanatory power, they explain a lot of things. For example every car that I see has round wheels, not hexagonal ones. This theory helps to explain why (although there's more to it, obviously). A theory does not have to go into great detail to explain something. What the theories I posted are missing is the detail to go back to a statement we all feel is right, or to build upon experimental evidence. So, if I would say that hexagonal wheels are less efficient than round ones and I take the laws of thermodynamics to explain this it would be a great theory. Or if I take the statement that 'Animals have evolved from single celled organisms.' and explain it using experimental evidence it would make a great theory.
But again, you don't need to explain everything in one statement to have a theory. If a scientist who works on cell-biology would need to name everything that is known on cell-biology in a theory he proposes he would have to write a pretty fat article. You just need to go back to a basis that is acceptable within a certain community. So the theory 'God only does good things because we can see this from the bible.' can be an acceptable theory in christian circles, but to convince a non-christian you'll need other evidence. So within christian circles this is a theory, outside of it it is an unfounded statement.
Just realize that what makes a good theory can be different in different circles.
In any case my issue was with Krisknox's gross mis-definition of "theory". I am not even sure you and I disagree all that much as the more I re-read your post the more I am thinking we are getting tangled in semantics.
Indeed, I fully support your your correction of that 'mis-definition'. The main reason I posted my post is because of the last paragraph in which you said:
We have the FACT of gravitation and the THEORY of special relativity AND the theory of gravitation to explain the force of gravity. We have the FACT of evolution and the THEORY of Natural Selection and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium that explains HOW organisms evolve and diversify.
I wanted to explain that you can have the theory of evolution and the theory of gravity as well (if you explain well enough what they are that is). Just to be complete.
And yes, I don't think we disagree much on this.
Aye, I stated that wrong. Theories indeed never become facts, they're completely different. Actually that was the entire point of my post. You can have a theory about something everyday, proving something does not make a theory a fact. This is exactly why I feel you can still talk about the 'theory of evolution'.
What I was trying to say is that a the fact that the apple falls is a confirmation of my hypothesis that the apple would fall if I released it. This hypothesis comes from the theory that objects with a weight have a tendency to be attracted to other objects with a weight. This obviously has an even more complex theory behind it, but this theory is already a theory. The computer handbook you are referring to does not explain exactly how a transistor works, just how the software/hardware you want to use works. This means a part of a larger theory can also be a theory.
So, my theory 'apples will fall to the ground when released' is a valid theory. I don't need the entire theory of general relativity to explain why an apple falls. Just like a computer software manual does not need to explain how a transistor works.
You are right that my original statement that "I may have the theory that it will fall when I release it." is more a hypothesis then a theory. This is caused by my own feeling that theories need to be able to predict things to have any meaningful value. (So a theory should be able to produce a hypothesis.)
Still though, I can have the theory that apples warp themselves to the ground. That's not a hypothesis if it isn't specifically refering to that specific apple. I agree that you were right on my original statement about me mixing up the words hypothesis and theory.
You are mostly correct here but I would point out that there is no "theory of evolution". There are SEVERAL theories(re: Natural Selection, Punctuated Equilibrium etc.) that explain the FACT of evolution. Evolution itself is a fact. Natural selection is the primary THEORY explaining how it(evolution/bio-diversity) works.
Well, in the same way you can have the theory that apples fall to the ground and not to the sky you can have the theory that life as we know it has come to be through evolution rather than through a single event. That's what I call the theory of evolution, and I think that's a valid theory. Obviously this theory has many sub-theories, but that does not transform the main theory in a fact. So talking about the theory of evolution is good use of language if you ask me. (Obviously it is misused often to give the impression that evidence for evolution is rather unsubstantial...)
None of those are theories though. The "gravity" and "animals" ones come closest but as you have stated it it is merely a groundless assertion with no explanatory power at all. A "theory" goes into great detail explaining exactly HOW these things occur and work. Theories CAN be overturned adn are constantly revised with the influx of new data but this does not change the facts they explain anymore than the discovery that the earth is elliptical caused our planet to become a cube or a giant marshmallow.
These statements were no groundless assertions with no explanatory power, they explain a lot of things. For example every car that I see has round wheels, not hexagonal ones. This theory helps to explain why (although there's more to it, obviously). A theory does not have to go into great detail to explain something. What the theories I posted are missing is the detail to go back to a statement we all feel is right, or to build upon experimental evidence. So, if I would say that hexagonal wheels are less efficient than round ones and I take the laws of thermodynamics to explain this it would be a great theory. Or if I take the statement that 'Animals have evolved from single celled organisms.' and explain it using experimental evidence it would make a great theory.
But again, you don't need to explain everything in one statement to have a theory. If a scientist who works on cell-biology would need to name everything that is known on cell-biology in a theory he proposes he would have to write a pretty fat article. You just need to go back to a basis that is acceptable within a certain community. So the theory 'God only does good things because we can see this from the bible.' can be an acceptable theory in christian circles, but to convince a non-christian you'll need other evidence. So within christian circles this is a theory, outside of it it is an unfounded statement.
Just realize that what makes a good theory can be different in different circles.
In any case my issue was with Krisknox's gross mis-definition of "theory". I am not even sure you and I disagree all that much as the more I re-read your post the more I am thinking we are getting tangled in semantics.
Indeed, I fully support your your correction of that 'mis-definition'. The main reason I posted my post is because of the last paragraph in which you said:
We have the FACT of gravitation and the THEORY of special relativity AND the theory of gravitation to explain the force of gravity. We have the FACT of evolution and the THEORY of Natural Selection and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium that explains HOW organisms evolve and diversify.
I wanted to explain that you can have the theory of evolution and the theory of gravity as well (if you explain well enough what they are that is). Just to be complete.
And yes, I don't think we disagree much on this.
