1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 71:
Line 71: + +
→String theory: need cites?
I was considering adding a paragraph on how evolution proselytizers are trying to promote a definition of "theory" that differs from common usage, but has not yet caught on. Krauss would be an example. In the current version of the article, I was just trying to describe how the term is used, not how it ought to be used. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:04, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
I was considering adding a paragraph on how evolution proselytizers are trying to promote a definition of "theory" that differs from common usage, but has not yet caught on. Krauss would be an example. In the current version of the article, I was just trying to describe how the term is used, not how it ought to be used. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:04, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
I am also wondering about Letusratiocinate's comment, "Opinions and conjectures, not supported by definitions, shared understanding or usage". I tried to be consistent with dictionary definitions, such as [http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=theory], and with common usage. I can find citations as requested, but it would help if someone would explain here what is doubtful and need documentation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)