Talk:Scientific theory

From RationalWiki

I have changed the title "Theories cannot be wrong" to "Theories can be presently falsified or unfalsified" which is less elegant, but, I think, more accurate.--Bob^{bing up and down} 15:33, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Contents 1 Definition of theory 2 Misconceptions section 3 Cover Story (plz don't archive kthx) 4 Are falsified theories still theories? 5 Theories are different from Laws

[edit] Definition of theory

In the Dover trail when Michael Behe was presented with the definition of "theory" from US National Academy of Sciences: “Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”, he insisted on a broader definition. I am not sure how close our own definition is to that of the US National Academy of Sciences:. Do we need to review this?--Bob^{bing up} 07:05, 17 November 2007 (EST)

I've tried to broaden the topic by making a distinction between "small" theories that deal with relatively limited portions of a scientific field and "large" theories that serve to combine many small theories and laws into a body of evidence and laws into a viewpoint (paradigm) that unites and guides understanding and research within an entire scientific field. PoorEd 13:29, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Eh, PoorEd, I believe it's just called a "hypothesis" then. To quote some scientist I can't find on Google:

"The difference between a hypothesis and a theory is a hypothesis is a lake and a theory is an ocean. But in my time I've seen some mighty big lakes and some awfully small oceans."

--_Essayist RA ^{Talk to me} _ 13:35, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Sorry RA, you're out of you're depth here. There are accepted theories that are used to understand limited portions of a field, and larger, all-encompassing theories that unite an entire field. Do a bit of reading in the philosophy of science. PoorEd 13:44, 25 February 2008 (EST)

I accept that. No need to be so snooty about it. --_Essayist RA ^{Talk to me} _ 13:46, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Yeah, play nice kids. What's that template that says "someone's about to mention Hitler"?-αmεσ (soldier) 13:49, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Sorry, RA, I didn't mean to sound snooty. BTW, while I was typing this AmesG jumped in and conflicted me right out of the picture. Damn Hitler-loving fascist!PoorEd 13:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Heh. That's okay. The phrases "out of your depth" and "do a bit of reading" rubbed me the wrong way—I am quite aware of my limited understanding of most scientific subjects, but it felt like you were brushing me off as beneath you. That probably wasn't your intention, but that's what it felt like. --_Essayist RA ^{Talk to me} _ 13:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)

To give you an idea of the complexity of the meaning of the word "theory" in science, I seem to remember that one critic found that T. Kuhn used the term something like 17 different ways. PoorEd 13:53, 25 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] Misconceptions section

We need to decide whether the headers in that section should reflect the (mistaken) misconceptions that we then debunk, or the (correct) response to those misconceptions. It looks as thought that's been flip-flopping over the history of the article. Since the section is titled "Misconceptions" I was trying to implement the former option. But as long as we're consistent it probably doesn't matter.--Bayes_yikes 14:22, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Good point. I suggest we use headers that are statements of fact or subject rather than of misconceptions (which is, I think, misleading). PoorEd 14:25, 25 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] Cover Story (plz don't archive kthx)

This is short but I think it's an important article to have in the rotation. Also, it's really good so far, and only getting better.-αmεσ (decider) 13:44, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Yes, it is indeed brief, but it's solid. DogP 21:23, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

I'd still suggest taking out the idea that falsified theories are neverthless considered scientific theories. Part of the problem is that the word "theory" has different meanings even among scientists, depending on the context. Falsified theories are only theories in a historical sesnse, not in the sense of a "working" theory that is still useful within a particular scientific field. Rational Ed^faith 13:52, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

And what exactly does "even falsified theories remain theories of the first variety listed above" refer to? "A well-substantiated explanation for a series of facts and observations"? If so, that is incorrect. Falsified theories have been demoted to the status of "just a theory". Rational Ed^faith 13:56, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

I think the "Falsified theories" bit confuses the meaning of "scientific theory" with the common usage of "hunch" or "speculation".--Bob^{bing up} 14:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

As there hasn't been much progress, I've removed the nomination for now. It could certainly do with some work. ArmondikoV^{...I'll reward your gas tank!} 13:34, 2 December 2008 (EST)

[edit] Are falsified theories still theories?

The article has been going back and forth on this. I'd suggest that a falsified theory is no longer a scientific theory. It used to be. It can be referred to as the "such and such" theory when speaking of the history of science, but as far as the scientific community is concerned, it is no longer a valid theory. I had an argument with R Schlafly about this on CP's Geocentric Theory talk page (under "Both Theories Correct?) where he insisted that scientists still use the geocentric theory whenever they calculate a rocket trajectory using the Earth as the relative center of reference. I don't believe a scientist today would refer to a geocentric theory unless they were talking about the history of science. PoorEd 18:25, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

I'd say they're still theories in a certain sense, just not very useful ones - just like a dead elephant is still an elephant in most respects, but not good for much of anything (unless you happen to like elephant steak). Perhaps it would be most correct to say that a refuted theory is indeed changed from a "scientific theory" to a "historic theory" or something like that. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:34, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Right. Just need a better word for it I guess.PoorEd 21:53, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

We initially define "theory" thusly:

• A well-substantiated explanation for a series of facts and observations. Theories are the main goal in science and no explanation can achieve a higher "rank."
• A complex suite of theories (see above) and scientific laws (see below) built up over time that unify the scientific community's view and approach to a particular scientific field. Biology has the theory of evolution, Geology has plate tectonic theory and Cosmology has the Big Bang.

Does a "Falsified Theory" fit either of these descriptions? If it does then there is no problem. If it does not, then we either need to amend the initial definition or change the phrase: "Falsified theories are still theories."--Bob^{bing up} 12:53, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Ok, I'll edit the article to cover this point.--Bob^{bing up} 05:41, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. Rational Ed^evidence

[edit] Theories are different from Laws

Sure these two paragraphs now condradict each other. The first saying that it's a misconception that a theory can turn into a law, while the second says "In reality, laws are merely theories which are ranked superb", implying that in fact, a theory can change into a law. Unless of course, there is no difference between theory and law, which certainly isn't implied by either the theory or the law articles. ArmondikoV^{...I'll detect your ripple!} 15:04, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes, the is certainly a contradiction: We have:Scientific laws and theories are two very different things and one never becomes the other. Scientific laws are factual observations usually derived from mathematical modeling. and we also have: In reality, laws are merely theories which are ranked superb in a hierarchy which includes useful and tentative theories. Something has to give.--Bob^{bing up} 16:27, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, in my experience there's certainly a difference between a law and a theory. A law is closer to a (almost?) perfectly true mathematical expression, like Kepler's laws of planetary motion, while theories are more descriptive of why the laws work like that. Surely, the second paragraph is probably meant to address the "evolution as fact" concept, but in this context it makes little to no sense. ArmondikoV^{...I'll reward your vomit!} 16:32, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Ah, I see it's been altered to make a little more sense now. Much, much, much better. ArmondikoV^{...I'll golf your tennis racket!} 16:33, 28 September 2008 (EDT)