Changes

For many philosophers of science, a theory must be ''[[falsifiable]]'' to be considered [[science|scientific]].

For many philosophers of science, a theory must be ''[[falsifiable]]'' to be considered [[science|scientific]].

This means that there must be some way to do experiments that could counter the theory's predictions, thus disproving the current theory.

This means that there must be some way to do experiments that could counter the theory's predictions, thus disproving the current theory.  

 

<ref>"A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a [[theory]] is true. Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected." [http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution/theory.php] </ref>

<ref>"A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a [[theory]] is true. Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected." [http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution/theory.php] </ref>

:''In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.''

:''In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.''

One common way the term 'theory' is misused in scientific literature is in the field of speculative physics, which proposes something commonly deemed 'String Theory'. At it's most basic level, string theory states that the entirety of the universe is made up of tiny, multi-dimensional strings. However, this proposal cannot currently be verified or refuted by modern science - that is, scientists cannot determine if this is right or wrong. Since String Theory makes no verfiable predictions about the universe, either, scientists can say nothing more about String Theory than that it may or may not fit the facts we currently know. However, this would disqualify String Theory as a scientific theory, which must both be evidenced by facts and must make correct, verifiable predictions about the future.

One common way the term 'theory' is misused in scientific literature is in the field of speculative physics, which proposes something commonly deemed 'String Theory'. At it's most basic level, string theory states that the entirety of the universe is made up of tiny, multi-dimensional strings. However, this proposal cannot currently be verified or refuted by modern science - that is, scientists cannot determine if this is right or wrong. Since String Theory makes no verfiable predictions about the universe, either, scientists can say nothing more about String Theory than that it may or may not fit the facts we currently know. However, this would disqualify String Theory as a scientific theory, which must both be evidenced by facts and must make correct, verifiable predictions about the future. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/science/07stri.html?ei=5090&en=fd15a74e2dca3af0&ex=1260075600&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all&position=] used the word "theory" 70 times without any suggestion that ideas must be well-substantiated before they qualify as a theory. Physicist Lawrence Krauss used the term "string theory" even though the theory has "yet to have any real successes in explaining or predicting anything measurable". [http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/08essay.html] A month later, he argued that it should really be called the "string enterprise" because using the word "theory" causes problems with intelligent design advocates and those who say that evolution is "just a theory". [http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/newscieditorial.html]</ref>

 

 

 

 

<ref>For example, this 2004 NY Times article on the pros and cons of string theory [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/science/07stri.html?ei=5090&en=fd15a74e2dca3af0&ex=1260075600&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all&position=] used the word "theory" 70 times without any suggestion that ideas must be well-substantiated before they qualify as a theory. Physicist Lawrence Krauss used the term "string theory" even though the theory has "yet to have any real successes in explaining or predicting anything measurable". [http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/08essay.html] A month later, he argued that it should really be called the "string enterprise" because using the word "theory" causes problems with intelligent design advocates and those who say that evolution is "just a theory". [http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/newscieditorial.html]</ref>

Atomic Theory - the current understanding of the basic makeup of living and nonliving things. <ref> [http://library.thinkquest.org/27948/bohr.html] </ref>

== See also ==

== See also ==