Difference between revisions of "Scientific theory"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Reverted edits by Jewdom (Talk); changed back to last version by Positive Natural Selection)
(Okay, I honestly think that this is more accurate. If you would like to debate that, then instead of just blocking someone debate it. Open-mindedness.)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see [[scientific method]]). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.
+
A theory is what a bunch of drunken liberals come up with after a hard day's night. Jesus comes down and makes laws.  
  
−
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
 
  
−
This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.
 
  
−
Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.
+
Stupid white scientists make theories. This is an example of a logical fallacy. Do not use them.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Jesus wept.  
 +
 
 +
and then passed on some laws.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Jesus does not, as many believe, think negatively about gays. Jesus, as ultimately powerful omnibenevolent, sees all people as possible sexual prey. This is an example of a theory. Jesus will smite me, which is a law.

Revision as of 00:40, March 21, 2007

A theory is what a bunch of drunken liberals come up with after a hard day's night. Jesus comes down and makes laws.


Stupid white scientists make theories. This is an example of a logical fallacy. Do not use them.


Jesus wept.

and then passed on some laws.


Jesus does not, as many believe, think negatively about gays. Jesus, as ultimately powerful omnibenevolent, sees all people as possible sexual prey. This is an example of a theory. Jesus will smite me, which is a law.

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_theory&oldid=52974"