"Just a theory" - Page 2 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives

Mad_Michael · #11 08-08-2005, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I think the logic would be comparable to me going to the doctor, having him feel my forehead and telling me, "You're quite cool." I then go to my friends and say, "Dude, I'm so cool! The doctor told me so - and he's a doctor, so you know it's true."

But that is just your theory! .

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Also, for those of you who feel a need for scientific theories to be proven, how about an excercise in the nature of proof. Here's a simple "theory" - see if you can "prove" it.

Theory: The sun exists.

Proof:___________________

Does the name David Hume mean anything to you?

Freeman · #12 08-08-2005, 11:45 AM

There is a theory of gravity because we do not know what makes it work. Gravity itself is a fundamental force in the universe. Its existance is not theororetical.

Mad_Michael · #13 08-08-2005, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freeman

There is a theory of gravity because we do not know what makes it work. Gravity itself is a fundamental force in the universe. Its existance is not theororetical.

Even if we did know EXACTLY how gravity works, it would still be just a theory.

drgoodtrips · #14 08-08-2005, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freeman

There is a theory of gravity because we do not know what makes it work.

Okay...

Quote:

Gravity itself is a fundamental force in the universe.

And the notion that there are four and only four fundamental forces in nature, and that those forces were at one point part of a "Grand Unified Force" is not a theory? (Hint, this is called the "Grand Unified Theory").

Quote:

Its existance is not theororetical.

We can exhaustively prove that all possible force vectors in existence result from one of four qualitative sources? Amazing!

drgoodtrips · #15 08-08-2005, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

Does the name David Hume mean anything to you?

Hmmm.....

I'm no philosophy expert, but I do remember that he had some interesting things to say about perception, causation, and 'rational' behavior. I also remember (as a math guy) that Hume did not believe in the validity of induction or strong induction as instruments of proof (a concept with which I do not agree, at least in the mathematical sense).

Thane · #16 08-08-2005, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I think the logic would be comparable to me going to the doctor, having him feel my forehead and telling me, "You're quite cool." I then go to my friends and say, "Dude, I'm so cool! The doctor told me so - and he's a doctor, so you know it's true."

Also, for those of you who feel a need for scientific theories to be proven, how about an excercise in the nature of proof. Here's a simple "theory" - see if you can "prove" it.

Theory: The sun exists.

Proof:___________________

I can see the Sun was there eight ( I think it's eight, maybe four) minutes ago from the LIGHT that went from IT to here. Can only prove it was there eight (or four) minutes ago

I forget the distance.

drgoodtrips · #17 08-08-2005, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thane

I can see the Sun was there eight ( I think it's eight, maybe four) minutes ago from the LIGHT that went from IT to here. Can only prove it was there eight (or four) minutes ago

I forget the distance.

You can also "see" your face in the water when you look at a clear lake, but that does not prove that you are in the lake. The point of the excercise is that it is quite impossible to prove that the sun exists.

That is what is exasperating - people conflate scientific terms and layman's terms and then use this bastardized half-breed vocabulary to reach nonsensical conclusions. I have no problem with people believing whatever they want to believe, but I do have a problem when certain people capitalize on semantics, misunderstanding, and unreasonable doubt to manipulate others into buying into things that don't make sense.

This was my original intention with this thread - to lay out the difference between "theory" in science and "theory" in common speech. If scientists were speaking as laypeople, and not subject to rigorous scientific definition, they would say "the fact of gravity", "the fact of relativity", and "the fact of evolution". They only call them "theories" because a scientific "theory" is much different from its co-opted cousin in day to day language. It irritates me when people misuse this discrepancy to make what they incorrectly believe to be a point.

Thane · #18 08-08-2005, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

You can also "see" your face in the water when you look at a clear lake, but that does not prove that you are in the lake. The point of the excercise is that it is quite impossible to prove that the sun exists.

That is what is exasperating - people conflate scientific terms and layman's terms and then use this bastardized half-breed vocabulary to reach nonsensical conclusions. I have no problem with people believing whatever they want to believe, but I do have a problem when certain people capitalize on semantics, misunderstanding, and unreasonable doubt to manipulate others into buying into things that don't make sense.

This was my original intention with this thread - to lay out the difference between "theory" in science and "theory" in common speech. If scientists were speaking as laypeople, and not subject to rigorous scientific definition, they would say "the fact of gravity", "the fact of relativity", and "the fact of evolution". They only call them "theories" because a scientific "theory" is much different from its co-opted cousin in day to day language. It irritates me when people misuse this discrepancy to make what they incorrectly believe to be a point.

LMAO.

YOU must be one ultra-irritated fellow then

That is mostly what is done here (what you describe). You still have any hair on your head ?

Speakeasy · #19 08-08-2005, 12:29 PM

Even a quick dictionary search will list the two different uses of the word:

Quote:

the·o·ry ( P ) (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Source

Speakeasy · #20 08-08-2005, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thane

LMAO.

YOU must be one ultra-irritated fellow then

That is mostly what is done here (what you describe). You still have any hair on your head ?

Ooo, a Drgoodtrips hair theory.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode