"Theory" vs. "Scientific Theory" (Huge Difference)

[Yerda]

Nope. Currently it hasn't been confirmed with sufficient experimentation/observation to graduate to the level of a "scientific theory". It is merely a hypothesis, I believe.

I think most physicists would argue that string theory is scientific though there are definitely some who would say not. I think most philosophers of science would argue that string theory is scientific. It can be directly tested in principle but only at really high energy levels which we aren't technologically capable of managing yet - other than that I'd be very surprised if there weren't some predictions that fall out of the models that can't be tested now.

 

[leibowde84]

I think most physicists would argue that string theory is scientific though there are definitely some who would say not. I think most philosophers of science would argue that string theory is scientific. It can be directly tested in principle but only at really high energy levels which we aren't technologically capable of managing yet - other than that I'd be very surprised if there weren't some predictions that fall out of the models that can't be tested now.

Until it is confirmed through repeated experimentation and observation, it doesn't graduate to the level of being a "scientific theory". It is a scientific hypothesis for sure, and no one is arguing that it isn't scientific in nature. It's just that the term "scientific theory" has a high burden.

 

[Yerda]

Until it is confirmed through repeated experimentation and observation, it doesn't graduate to the level of being a "scientific theory". It is a scientific hypothesis for sure, and no one is arguing that it isn't scientific in nature. It's just that the term "scientific theory" has a high burden.

I'm quite happy to go with the physicists on this one, no disrespect intended.

 

[Thief]

Nope. Having to repeat myself shows either the person never read what I posted or is so incompetent they do not understand my comment.



Get an education son. My comments were correct but since you are ignorant you have no idea what you are talking about. I not the one that doesn't understand the difference between a hypothesis, which is an educated guess, and a theory, which is verified and not falsified.

same to you...and you likely did not read the item I pulled from wiki...
a theory is sound until it is disproven and it CAN be.....

proven items.....known cause and it's known effect are no longer theories
they become fact

 

[Thief]

Until it is confirmed through repeated experimentation and observation, it doesn't graduate to the level of being a "scientific theory". It is a scientific hypothesis for sure, and no one is arguing that it isn't scientific in nature. It's just that the term "scientific theory" has a high burden.

and we still call Einstein's work....theory
we did from the beginning....
and still do....
even though the proof has been sufficient

 

[Thief]

Can you at least explain why he is wrong without using your failed "spirit vs. substance" wish-wash?

your frame of mind is not the gold standard.
my laundry isn't dirty

 

[Shad]

same to you...and you likely did not read the item I pulled from wiki...

Nope the wiki supports my views.

I already know this so you provided nothing I didn't already know.

a theory is sound until it is disproven and it CAN be.....

Yes, so what?

proven items.....known cause and it's known effect are no longer theories they become fact

Scientific fact which includes the parameters of falsification.

 

[Thief]

Nope the wiki supports my views.

I already know this so you provided nothing I didn't already know.



Yes, so what?



Scientific fact which includes the parameters of falsification.

so my portion of this discussion IS supported by wiki
and I think it was posted in this thread.

 

[leibowde84]

and we still call Einstein's work....theory
we did from the beginning....
and still do....
even though the proof has been sufficient

Exactly! The term "scientific theory" demands that the "theory" in question be confirmed through repeated experimentation and observation. Einstein's theories are a great example.

 

[leibowde84]

your frame of mind is not the gold standard.
my laundry isn't dirty

Right back at ya, slick.

 

[Thief]

I have a theory about language habits.....

 

[leibowde84]

I have a theory about language habits.....

What's your theory?

 

[Thief]

the catch phrase is like the nose on the face of the person using it.
it's too close too see....
but they can't help but use it.

theory is just explanation.
it stays that way.
as said in wiki....a theory is always a theory.....law is always a law.

once the experiment is dealt
when the known cause is given to the known result
the days of theory are over

but then there's that facial problem

 

[leibowde84]

the catch phrase is like the nose on the face of the person using it.
it's too close too see....
but they can't help but use it.

theory is just explanation.
it stays that way.
as said in wiki....a theory is always a theory.....law is always a law.

once the experiment is dealt
when the known cause is given to the known result
the days of theory are over

but then there's that facial problem

Sure, that's true about the term "theory" in common usage. Problem is the term "scientific theory" is a different term with a different meaning. The term "theory" in common usage is not at question. The term "scientific theory", which has a different meaning, however, is. Thus, wiki articles on the term "theory" are irrelevant. Otoh, a wiki article on the term "scientific theory" would be very relevant. Get it? Not sure why you are having so much trouble understanding this fact?

 

[Thief]

Sure, that's true about the term "theory" in common usage. Problem is the term "scientific theory" is a different term with a different meaning. The term "theory" in common usage is not at question. The term "scientific theory", which has a different meaning, however, is. Thus, wiki articles on the term "theory" are irrelevant. Otoh, a wiki article on the term "scientific theory" would be very relevant. Get it? Not sure why you are having so much trouble understanding this fact?

and for decades we have called Einstein's work....theory.
but it's been proven....
and we never put the word 'scientific' in front of it....

double/double standard for your convenient argument?

I say again.....it's proven....
it's no longer theory.

a lot of people just can't help themselves......it's a nose thing

 

[metis]

and for decades we have called Einstein's work....theory.
but it's been proven....
and we never put the word 'scientific' in front of it....

That depends on whom we are talking to. If it's a fellow scientist or someone obviously familiar with scientific methodology, I don't need to put "scientific" in front of "theory". We tend to have our own vocabulary, much like my sister who is in medicine, has her own vocabulary relative to that profession, which sometimes differs in definition with more common usage amongst the general public. For example, the word "flu" versus "cold".

 

[leibowde84]

and for decades we have called Einstein's work....theory.
but it's been proven....
and we never put the word 'scientific' in front of it....

double/double standard for your convenient argument?

I say again.....it's proven....
it's no longer theory.

a lot of people just can't help themselves......it's a nose thing

Not a nose problem, it's an issue with ignorance and stubbornness on your part. You still don't quite understand what the term "scientific theory" actually means. Remember, not "theory" but "scientific theory". And, Einstein's theories are often referred to as "scientific theories".

"Relativity is one of the most famous scientific theories of the 20th century, but how well does it explain the things we see in our daily lives?

Formulated by Albert Einstein in 1905, the theory of relativity is the notion that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. The theory explains the behavior of objects in space and time, and it can be used to predict everything from the existence of black holes, to light bending due to gravity, to the behavior of the planet Mercury in its orbit." (http://www.livescience.com/48922-theory-of-relativity-in-real-life.html)

And, they are all still scientific theories, as, like you said, theories stay theories no matter how much they are confirmed as being accurate. Even if proven to be accurate, they remain as theories. So, when you repeatedly claim that "once proven, they are no longer theories", it unambiguously shows your ignorance as to what the term "scientific theory" actually means. I would suggest simply looking up the term (I know you have trouble with this part, so I'll remind you ... not "theory", but "scientific theory". This can be easily seen with the scientific theory of relativity, which is still referred to as a "scientific theory".

 

[Shad]

so my portion of this discussion IS supported by wiki
and I think it was posted in this thread.

No since you confuse hypothesis with a theory, treat theoretical theories as theories then treat all theories using the common English definition. If you actually read the wiki you linked it you would have learned this rather than make the mistakes you have.

 

[Thief]

No since you confuse hypothesis with a theory, treat theoretical theories as theories then treat all theories using the common English definition. If you actually read the wiki you linked it you would have learned this rather than make the mistakes you have.

I read it....and posted the item in this thread.....
no error here

 

[Shad]

I read it....and posted the item in this thread.....
no error here

That is why you confused a hypothesis with a theory..... right...