Difference between revisions of "Talk:Scientific theory"
Bwilliston (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
That's not necessarily true. Scientific "hunches" are known as hyopotheses, and most hypotheses are disporved. Theories have corroborating evidence to suggest that they are accurate. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 13:34, 10 March 2007 (EST) | That's not necessarily true. Scientific "hunches" are known as hyopotheses, and most hypotheses are disporved. Theories have corroborating evidence to suggest that they are accurate. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 13:34, 10 March 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Theory v Scientific Theory== | ||
| + | |||
| + | The [[Theory]] page seems to overlap with [[Scientific theory]] at least in intent, but the former takes a very different position on what the word "theory" means. In fact, it takes a position that makes other uses of the word here problematic. I made a note about that on [[Talk:Theory]]. Perhaps Theory could just redirect to this one? And it would be nice to see something here about how personal bias can lead to the word "theory" being attached to something that isn't really a theory at all (not falsifiable, for example, or having many inconsistencies that are overlooked because they contradict personal bias). Just because the word "theory" gets attached to something in common usage doesn't make it a theory. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 14:05, 10 March 2007 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 19:05, March 10, 2007
"Why are scientists pushy about their theories (opinions)." So hilariously bad, that it must be vandalism. Oh, and you forgot a question mark. --WOVcenter 03:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)
Yes, vandalism, or some sort of joke. "Everyone had a thermometer that measured differently, which is why we have two temperature scales; fahrenheit and celcius." Ha ha. Please revert. RSchlafly 03:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)
Theory v hunch
This article is still in bad shape. It is not true that there is any big difference between scientific and non-scientific usage of the word "theory". Scientists use the word to describe a hunch as much as non-scientists do. RSchlafly 12:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)
That's not necessarily true. Scientific "hunches" are known as hyopotheses, and most hypotheses are disporved. Theories have corroborating evidence to suggest that they are accurate. --WOVcenter 13:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)
Theory v Scientific Theory
The Theory page seems to overlap with Scientific theory at least in intent, but the former takes a very different position on what the word "theory" means. In fact, it takes a position that makes other uses of the word here problematic. I made a note about that on Talk:Theory. Perhaps Theory could just redirect to this one? And it would be nice to see something here about how personal bias can lead to the word "theory" being attached to something that isn't really a theory at all (not falsifiable, for example, or having many inconsistencies that are overlooked because they contradict personal bias). Just because the word "theory" gets attached to something in common usage doesn't make it a theory. Bwilliston 14:05, 10 March 2007 (EST)
