Formulas do not explain how something works. They merely predict the workings. For example, you can drive a car, knowing that the controls to operate it are reliable. But you need not understand the concepts of [[internal combustion]] or [[centripetal force]] to get a driver's license. You don't even have to know the basic formulas about [[momentum]], [[inertia]] and [[force]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:26, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
==Usage of the term==
We need to examine the implications of applying the word ''theory'' to an idea. In contrast to [[scientific law]]s such as the [[law of gravity]] - which are universally accepted by scientists - theories are not considered quite as thoroughly proven. Some theories have been retained in the face of contrary evidence or put forth despite the lack of any favorable evidence; see [[phlogiston theory]].
The political debate over the [[theory of evolution]] exploits the connotations of the word ''theory''. But this uses a [[circular argument]]:
#Since it's a theory, it must be true.
#It qualifies as a "theory" because many scientists believe it.
#Schoolchildren should believe it because it's a "theory".
This is tantamount to a confession that "we believe it because we believe it", i.e. we support it for reasons other than its explanatory power and its consistency with observations. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:09, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:09, 21 March 2008 (EDT)