Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 12/04/23 11:34
Newbie Questions
by AndrewAMD. 12/04/23 11:14
Square root rule
by Smallz. 12/02/23 09:15
RTest not found error
by TipmyPip. 12/01/23 21:43
neural function for Python to [Train]
by TipmyPip. 12/01/23 14:47
Xor Memory Problem.
by TipmyPip. 11/28/23 14:23
Training with command line parameters
by TipmyPip. 11/26/23 08:42
Combine USD & BTC Pairs In Asset Loop
by TipmyPip. 11/26/23 08:30
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Tactics of World War I
Who's Online Now
2 registered members (TipmyPip, izorro), 556 guests, and 2 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
fairtrader, hus, Vurtis, Harry5, KelvinC
19019 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
What are the standards of a theory? #110152
01/31/07 15:28
01/31/07 15:28
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer Offline OP
Senior Expert
Pappenheimer  Offline OP
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
What are the standards of a theory?

Within the discussions on evolution versus intelligent design there have been statements that evolution is only a theory, and that intelligent design is at least a theory. too.

What is wrong from my knowledge of science and theory.

Matt claimed that evolution is a fact, but I think one could say there are collected facts which allows to develop a theory about their connections.
To claim something complex like the evolution theories as a fact is just a matter of power, while a theory is something to convince others from its reasonability.

Intelligent design is IMO _no_ theory because it lacks the standards of a theory. One standard is that an element of a theory has restricted properties, means it can't do anything and works within certain laws.

As far as I understood the discussions in this forum, intelligent design replaces chance (which has simple laws of probability) by an intelligence (which has no restrictions at all, which has no laws of its behaviour at all).
If one would say that this intelligence is a certain pattern different than patterns of chance, and he describes the laws of this pattern, one could treat it as theory, but an allmighty intelligence can not be part of a theory.

I had read the articles of the wikipedia, where the german article fits with my memories from study, but the english relates to much on Popper only. But my memories are 15 years old.

So, again:

What are the requirements of a theory?

(Please try to stay with the theme! We already got a lot of e versus c. Let's keep to theory, whether something is one or not, and why!)

Re: What are the standards of a theory? [Re: Pappenheimer] #110153
01/31/07 17:10
01/31/07 17:10
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,967
Frankfurt
jcl Offline

Chief Engineer
jcl  Offline

Chief Engineer

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,967
Frankfurt
Well, there is no law against calling everything you want a theory, but in science there are usually four requirements for a scientific theory.

Inner consistency - the theory must not contradict itself.
Outer consistency - the theory can be integrated in nature science, i.e. it must not contain assumptions that are incompatible with our observations.
Falsifiability - the theory produces predictions that are, at least in principle, observable, and can be used to falsify the theory. For instance, a prediction of evolution theory is that on the large time scale simple organisms precede more complex ones. If you would find the opposite order in the fossil record, evolution theory were falsified.
Explaining power - the theory explains observations that are not yet explained by other theories.

http://www.unendliches.net/german/naturgesetz.htm

Often, Ockham's razor is seen as a fifth requirement. The theory must not be based on more complicated assumptions than another theory that explains the same observations.

The confusion with evolution is that it's both a theory and a fact. It's a fact that evolution happens; it's a theory that evolution is the cause for our existence.

Re: What are the standards of a theory? [Re: jcl] #110154
01/31/07 17:29
01/31/07 17:29
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,771
Bay City, MI
lostclimate Offline
Expert
lostclimate  Offline
Expert

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,771
Bay City, MI
well technically every idea is theory, as there could always be a variable/factor that we dont see, but most things are thought to be fact if we are like 99.9999% sure about them like gravity.

Re: What are the standards of a theory? [Re: lostclimate] #110155
01/31/07 18:06
01/31/07 18:06
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
I think the 'yeah but if you drop a pencil you can't be 100% sure it won't fall up instead of down'-argument is silly...

If the pencil does happen to fall up than it has a different reason, for example other forces influencing gravity. A magnet or something alike. Having said that gravity is not absolute, but it is a fact,

Quote:

well technically every idea is theory, as there could always be a variable/factor that we dont see




If the effect of a force like gravity can be experienced, witnessed and measured then it's a fact eventhough we may not know of all that influences it. Perhaps our Earth's gravity get's influenced by the rotations of Pluto, perhaps not, having knowledge about this yes or no does not change the fact that the force of gravity is real and thus a fact. There's a difference between knowing something exists and knowing how to accurately describe and indicate something,

Cheers


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: What are the standards of a theory? [Re: lostclimate] #110156
01/31/07 18:47
01/31/07 18:47
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer Offline OP
Senior Expert
Pappenheimer  Offline OP
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Quote:

Well, there is no law against calling everything you want a theory, but in science there are usually four requirements for a scientific theory.




But, calling something a theory, while it doesn't reach the requirements of the scientific community makes no sense. I insist here, because of the following statement.

Quote:

well technically every idea is theory




Which is wrong! At least, if we talk about theory in a common non-metaphorical sense. To use the word 'theory' in this way is the same way as you speak about one's own philosophy as one's own view of the world, but that meaning is not the core meaning of philosophy. The core meaning of the word philosophy is talking within the context of the thoughts of what already has been said or written about general views on reality.

'Theory' in its main meaning is a form of making conclusions within science, theory is not every idea.

I can agree, if you said:

Quote:

well technically every idea is theory...




... as long as it doesn't proclaim any rights to be taught in university and schools.

Re: What are the standards of a theory? [Re: Pappenheimer] #110157
01/31/07 20:20
01/31/07 20:20
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Quote:

Matt claimed that evolution is a fact,


Matt is right about evolution being a fact, and he is merely echoing the statements made by current biologists. Of course, evolution itself is not something I disagree with, evolution is perfectly observable. I dont agree with the microbe-to-man evolutionary theory, which is a completely different thing, otherwise known as macro-evolution.

Also I think it is confusing to call the entire body of science which encompasses evolution as a fact. I always think of a "fact" as something singular, like a fact about the weather or a fact about history. The use of the term "fact" to describe the multitude of things which this subject covers seems to be out of place. But the Talk Origins refers to it as a fact probably from the references of Stephen JAy Gould.

Also note that there is a difference between the ordinary American vernacular of the words "fact" and "theory" as you can read in the SJG link.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

Re: What are the standards of a theory? [Re: NITRO777] #110158
01/31/07 22:19
01/31/07 22:19
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer Offline OP
Senior Expert
Pappenheimer  Offline OP
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Thanks for the links!
It is interesting to read about historical events of the debate, and to see another differenciation of 'fact' and 'theory'.

Re: What are the standards of a theory? [Re: NITRO777] #110159
01/31/07 23:42
01/31/07 23:42
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Quote:

I dont agree with the microbe-to-man evolutionary theory, which is a completely different thing, otherwise known as macro-evolution.




Dinosaurs with feathers, prehistoric sea lions, amphibious creatures and rudimentary bonestructures across different species are good hints though (and I'm sure I've missed a whole list of other arguments in favor of macro-evolution).

Anyways, it's true the macro-evolution is a theory eventhough there's evidence in favor of it. The microbe-to-man idea may sound incredible and it is, but we must not forget that mankind as we know it today only started to show up in the fossilrecord from about 4 million years ago. Microbes compared to mankind had a huge time to develop (through micro-evolution and thus macro-evolution). There must have been a gazillion steps inbetween microbe and man. However this is a shady part of the evolution theory since it also deals with things that we do not know that much about. For example, we know we probably have a common ancestor with certain ape species, but our knowledge only goes so far and although the scientific experts usually have a good idea how a certain species must have looked like, sometimes this is very very difficult when all we find are pieces of a broken skull. Hence going further and further back into our evolutionary past is quite problematic. The problem is not the basic idea of macro-evolution though most scientists believe that it makes perfect sense, but when it comes to the details opinions may vary a bit, especially about the early days of life (no scientist will really question 'an ancestral link' between elephants and rhinoceros or zebras and horses though),

Cheers


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: What are the standards of a theory? [Re: Pappenheimer] #110160
02/01/07 00:52
02/01/07 00:52
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Quote:

It is interesting to read about historical events of the debate, and to see another differenciation of 'fact' and 'theory'



Yes, this debate is deeply entrenched in history. Having it all said before takes the fun out of it. But if you were to ask me what the definition of a theory was without having access to all of previous research papers and textbooks I would just tell you plainly that a fact was something I could see and test while a theory was something I was more or less guessing. This would put both evolution(macro) and creation right out of the domain of science. But having evolution(macro) and creation out of science' domain would make both the evolutionists and creationists cry Because they both love to think that their theories are provable. But are they really? Here is my opinion: To make creation provable we need something simple: Example, God to show up on earth. To make evolution(macro) provable we need something a little less simple.

1) Life to be created in the labratory would be a good start, not just some amino acid chains, but life although because science has no idea what constitutes life(or they have greyed the definition so far that it is unrecognizable)

2)On the cellular level, to show these processes of mutation causing protein building new organelles.

I have always believed that for evolution to be shown on the grand level in which they suppose they must show how it happens in the small world.

Re: What are the standards of a theory? [Re: jcl] #110161
02/01/07 08:27
02/01/07 08:27
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011
South Africa
capanno Offline
Serious User
capanno  Offline
Serious User

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011
South Africa
Quote:

Inner consistency - the theory must not contradict itself.




It does, unfortunately.

Quote:

Outer consistency - the theory can be integrated in nature science, i.e. it must not contain assumptions that are incompatible with our observations.




ROFL! Can anyone else also smell the irony here?

Quote:

Falsifiability - the theory produces predictions that are, at least in principle, observable, and can be used to falsify the theory. For instance, a prediction of evolution theory is that on the large time scale simple organisms precede more complex ones. If you would find the opposite order in the fossil record, evolution theory were falsified.




It seems like you don't understand evolution yourself. evolution theory only accommodates what can be observed, and must constantly be reshaped to fit new discoveries. Evolution doesn't predict anything.

Quote:

Explaining power - the theory explains observations that are not yet explained by other theories.




I would love it if you could elaborate on this.

Quote:

The confusion with evolution is that it's both a theory and a fact. It's a fact that evolution happens; it's a theory that evolution is the cause for our existence.




Its a fact that species adapt. Its not a fact that they can produce something that is not their kind.

Quote:

Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended hereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. ...The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake in science."

-I.L. Cohen




Last edited by Capanno; 02/01/07 08:30.
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes W�rterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite


Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1