Talk:Theory/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Idealogue

Is there any conceivable reason why "Idealogue" redirects to this page? I fail to see what one has to do with the other. Someone with more time on your hands than I have: here's a problem worth fixing. --Potosino (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Terminology...Evolution is a "Law", not a "Theory"

Should evolution be publicly described as a "Scientific Law" or a "Scientific Theory"? I think that both are accurate, but "Scientific Law" would be understood by the general population as a way of communicating what is actually meant by the level of confidence that the current scientific understanding of Evolution is. This is based on an article I read in wired magazine. The link is as follows: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-11/st_thompson -Alex.rosenheim 13:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It would only serve as a semantic argument to someone who was scientifically illiterate. Ironically, if you were to create a Law of Evolution, it would contain less scientific data than the Theory of Evolution, since the theory of evolution both describes and explains evolution, while a scientific law merely describes it. ScienceApe (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Darwin thought of his theory as including laws. In those terms, MET can be said to include laws of genetics which to Darwin were an unsolved mystery. . . dave souza, talk 06:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There's Theory of Evolution, Fact of Evolution, and, probably, multiple laws of evolution - just like there are multiple laws of physics - and they all address different things by their definition. --Draco 2k (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Audio and etymology

that's the audio ()

of the greek word from which the english "theory" derives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greek_words_with_English_derivatives CuteHappyBrute (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone's comment

Moved from article. Merzul (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Defining the word theory is tricky. Scientists use it one way, the average Joe another.

In casual parlance, a theory is basically an idea or thought. It probably has no carefully collected data to back it up, let alone any rigorous hypothesis testing or experiments. In the world of science, however, a theory is a broad explanation of a phenomenon or phenomena that is testable, falsifiable and has multiple lines of evidence.

“Genuinely successful theories interconnect information from previously disparate areas of experience,” said Adolf Grünbaum, the Andrew Mellon Professor of Philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh. For example, fossil records, DNA evidence and biogeography are connected under the theory of evolution.

A theory differs from a hypothesis in its scope. For example, I can have a hypothesis that if I throw a penny off the Empire State Building it will fall to the ground. But the theory of gravity goes vastly beyond throwing objects off a building. The theory of gravity also explains the motion of planetary bodies and orbiting satellites. So, a hypothesis is like a mini-theory. It attempts to explain an event, and is testable and falsifiable like a theory is, but on a more narrow scale.

Hypotheses and theories are part of the scientific method — the process of asking and answering questions by experimentation. The method exists to ensure that science is as accurate as possible in explaining the world and that arguments rely on observable evidence. The main components of the scientific method are that experiments should be repeatable, so other scientists can verify or nullify the results; data should be collected by observation and experimentation; and experiments should be documented and shared.

Theories are formed after numerous hypotheses are vetted using the scientific method. Hypotheses are tested, data is collected, and the results are documented, shared and retested. Then a theory that explains the data and predicts the outcomes of future experiments is formed. Typically, researchers in different fields of study tend to rely on different methods—ones deemed the best suited for their subjects or objects of study.

One component of a theory that can frustrate scientists and non-scientists alike is that a theory is never proven and can always be revised. Experiments testing a theory either corroborate it or falsify it. Even Isaac Newton’s laws of gravity were revised after 200 years, when Albert Einstein found flaws and devised his theory of relativity.

In general, a law is said to be without exception, such as the second law of thermodynamics, which says isolated systems that are not in equilibrium move from more ordered to less ordered states (or less energy available to do work). Very few theories become laws. Michael Weisberg, associate professor of philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania, said in the future even fewer theories are likely to become laws, since theories and laws are so frequently revised.

“We can accumulate incredible amounts of evidence and say this is unlikely to be untrue, but we can never give a proof,” Weisberg said.

On the other hand though, scientists do not look fondly upon those who pooh-pooh scientific theories such as evolution as being just a theory. “It is skullduggery,” said Grünbaum. Yes, evolution is a theory, but a theory supported by an enormous body of evidence.

“Ultimately, to say something is a theory in science is an honorific,” Weisberg said, meaning it commands esteem or respect based on the many tests it has withstood.Superjova (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

List of notable theories

Music theory isn't a distinct single notable theory, it's a branch of knowledge. The same could be said for film theory, anatomy in the context of visual art, etc...

Should this list be renamed "list of notable scientific theories" (and expanded, it's hopelessly incomplete right now) and all of the disciplines moved to the Theory disambiguation page? Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact".

This is simply not true. A theory is something that cannot be absolutely proven. A fact is something that can. What is meant is that calling something a theory does not imply that it is not true. But even that is not so because theories are only models that take explain a subset of facts. Invariably when more facts are taken into account the fundamental tenets of the theory are shown to be wrong.--Ezra Wax (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not quite true. Fact is an objective and verifiable observation, and Theories are models used to explain said observations. Neither can or needs to be "absolutely" proven to be employed as part of the scientific method.

They are not direct synonyms or antonyms as they're used to define two fundamentally different phenomena. --Draco 2k (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Even facts aren't completely provable, because you have to have a theory about what the fact is. e.g. 'Things fall down' is fact because you can try it out endlessly. Of course at sufficient altitude with enough kinetic energy to escape the Earth, things don't fall down any more. So is it a fact or not? Really, a fact is just a very well established theory.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Example: Special Theory of Relativity

I think that this section could do with some improvement, it is not quite clear to me what it is trying to say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Theories

I have proposed this category for deletion here. In its current state it seems to fit WP:OCAT#Unrelated subjects with shared names. Perhaps the problem can be solved by finding more appropriate inclusion criteria than "has the word 'theory' in the title". --Hans Adler (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced Authors

Under "Differences Between Theory and Model", who are Reese, Overton, Lerner, and Teti? They may be known by some but for WP all mentioned authors should be referenced. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)