22
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 96:
Line 96: + + + + + +
Talk:Scientific theory (view source)
Revision as of 01:27, December 11, 2009
, 01:27, December 11, 2009→Regarding my edits...
: 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)
: 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)