In article <48455450$1@news.povray.org>, m.n### [at] ieeeorg says...
> Warp wrote:
> > Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> >>>>         And, AFAIK, that's the best explanation there is.
> >>>   Except that it's not an explanation at all. It's simply stating the
> >>> result of the experiment.
> > 
> >>         Isn't that what a theory is?
> > 
> >   No. A theory is a suggested explanation for a phenomenon, not just a
> > description of the phenomenon.
> 
> 	I'm not seeing a difference here. If a theory purports to explain what
 
> is going on, then an experiment has to be performed to verify that 
> mechanism (not the original experiment). And thus theories are 
> equivalent to predicting the results of experiments.
> 
> 	We have Newton's theory of gravitation. It didn't explain how gravity
 
> worked.
> 
> 	Einstein's special theory of relativity didn't explain much either - i
t 
> was just a framework that could duplicate some weird experimental 
> results - and predicted some more weird results. It didn't explain why 
> the speed of light is constant w.r.t. any observer, why it didn't need a
 
> medium to travel, and why you have length contraction as you go faster.
> 
> 	The difference between a good theory and just any theory is that last
 
> bit - not only can it match the result of known experiments, but it 
> suggests new experiments and predicts their results.
> 
> >>         Your claim that it passes through both slits is untestable. We
 can 
> >> never detect that it is doing this.
> > 
> >   There are many theories which are untestable in practice. For example
> > the existence of the so-called cosmic horizon is, by definition, untest
able.
> > (If we could go and see if the cosmic horizon indeed exists, it would n
ot
> > be a cosmic horizon anymore, by the very definition of cosmic horizon.)
> > That doesn't make the theory any less of a theory.
> 
> 	Many scientists think it does. Wikipedia definition (emphasis mine):
> 
> "In science a theory is a *testable* model of the manner of interaction
 
> of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences
 
> or observations of the same kind, and capable of being *tested* through
 
> experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. "
> 
> 
Not to quibble too much, but Warp is talking "Hypothesis", not "Theory", 
and you are not really helping. A Theory has to be "supported by 
evidence", a hypothesis is merely a possible explanation, whether 
testable or not. Something doesn't become a "theory" until its not just 
been tested, but provisionally passed such a test. Its still only a 
hypothesis *until* you test it, and receive results that confirm that it 
*can be* called a theory. That is why gravity gets the pass, in that you 
can test "if" it exists and what it does, even if you don't have a 
theory that really says "why" it does so, while, "I have invisible pink 
unicorns  in my garden", can't go past being a hypothesis, there being 
no way to prove they exist, that they "do" anything, never mind why they 
are there.

Its a distinction that gets rehashed about once a month on 
scienceblogs.com when dealing with lay people and various alternate 
reality wackos that equate "theory" with "hypothesis", and both with 
"wild guess". If you want to talk the talk, lets not confuse the rubes 
(or embolden the loonies), by using their sloppy definitions. ;)

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message