22
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 88:
Line 88: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Scientific theory (view source)
Revision as of 01:27, December 11, 2009
, 01:27, December 11, 2009→Regarding my edits...
:Ed, this doesn't sound familiar to me. Can you point me to something where I can find those 3 arguments, or a portion of them, being used? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:25, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, this doesn't sound familiar to me. Can you point me to something where I can find those 3 arguments, or a portion of them, being used? Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:25, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::Ed - As far as I can see, the opening sentence of the article has it about right, and I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. In science a '''law''' ''describes what (always) happens'', while a '''theory''' ''proposes an explanation of why it happens''. It's nothing to do with whether it's "thoroughly proven" and "universally accepted". A theory never becomes a law; it's a completely different kind of thing. The law of gravity says (roughly!) that an apple will always fall to the ground, but does not explain why. Phlogiston theory was an attempt at an explanation of observed phenomena; evolution theory is another attempt to explain a set of observations. Whether they are true or not, and whether you (or "many scientists") accept them or not, has nothing to do with it. Theories are not "second-class" laws, and they do not (as it were) aspire to become laws. Nobody is saying "Since it's a theory, it must be true" - so I don't see where your line of reasoning comes from, or where it is leading. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 16:36, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
== Scientific Lexicon ==
Should it be added that, in the scientific community, a theory is the highest "rank", for lack of a better word, a scientist could hope for a hypothesis to achieve? Should we also differentiate String theory, so called because it's a hypothesis in the branch of theoretical physics, and the theory of evolution, so called because it's a scientific theory? Should we say that theories, under no circumstances, can become laws, but are rather an explanation of how laws interact with each other? I'm afraid that this article appears to liken theories to what most scientists call "hypotheses". I'm not sure if it was intentional, but it is incorrect to say the least. [[User:MykalOfDefiance|MykalOfDefiance]] 21:52, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
: I don't think that it is true that theories have highest rank. Some theories are better than others. Some have not been validated at all. Some theories are indeed hypothetical. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:07, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
== Regarding my edits... ==
I would like to be given an explanation for why my edits - which are, to the best of my knowledge, in line with the current scientific understanding - were undone. Is the idea that String Theory is not necessarily a theory offensive to somebody? Or was it the section about other theories, such as Cell Theory, Atomic Theory, etc? [[User:JPope|JPope]] 20:13, 10 December 2009 (EST)
:Your string theory contributions remain in the article. But your claim that evolution is true has been reverted. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:16, 10 December 2009 (EST)
::I apologize for being so outright about that. I edited the article again - removing the direct assertion regarding Evolution - but maintaining my section about examples of scientific theories, and changing that pesky grammar edit. Also, I added appropriate citations.[[User:JPope|JPope]] 20:27, 10 December 2009 (EST)