Definitions of ...

[cwes99_03]

I thought this would be the appropriate subforum for a discussion of many different defiitions that can then be linked and maybe discussed, but hopefully briefly.

 

Definitions are the basis of scientific work. Just recently they redefined the planets. Definitions have at times been argued on posts, and this will not end with this thread, however, certain definitions should be fairly easy to come to a conclusion on and perhaps they can be stated here for easy reference.

 

1) theory - an idea that is in the testing stages of the scientific process, while a hypothesis may seem to be observationally true, it is still theory until results can be repeated on a regular basis, or until the hypothesis is disproved

 

any comments on this?

[LJP07]

Definition of Planet:

 

RESOLUTION 5A

The IAU therefore resolves that "planets" and other bodies in our Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

 

(1) A "planet"1 is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (:hihi: has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and © has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

 

(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (:lol: has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape2 , © has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.

 

(3) All other objects3 except satellites orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar-System Bodies".

 

1The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

2An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either dwarf planet and other categories.

3These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies.

[pgrmdave]

But a Theory can also be something that has withstood the test of time - the Theory of Relativity, Newton's Theory of Gravity, Cell Theory, Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, the Theory of Evolution. Unfortunately, the word 'theory' has very different meanings - one being an untested potential truth, the other being a well tested, accepted truth.

[InfiniteNow]

Perhaps a distinction could be made between theory and hypothesis...

[cwes99_03]

I don't think that is necessary. Instead, people need to stop referring to some things as theory. For instance, Newton's theory of gravity was only a theory until he tested and reproduced results. After that it was no longer a theory, it was a defined part of our universe.

 

So long as no one has reproduce results according to a theory's hypothesis, then it remains a theory.

If someone could travel out into space and come back 10 years later having aged only 1 day, then SR would no longer be a theory but a reality. Until that day, or until some other part of SR can be verified through actual experimentation it would remain a theory. There is evidence and reproducable results for parts of the theory, and these may be determined as fact and defined, however not all parts have been. Thus the overall is still a theory, but parts of the theory may be considered fact and should be grouped separately from the overall theory.

 

When refering to Evolution as a whole, it is still a theory. Mutation (sometimes referred to as micro-evolution) is known fact. However, to call it micro-evolution is in my mind attempting to tie it to macro-evolution, which is still a theory as we cannot cause macro-evolution, nor can we positively identify it in situ.

[Tormod]

Definitions of theory:

 

theory

 

You can create links like this yourself:

 

[noparse][dictionary]theory[/dictionary][/noparse]

[Tormod]

I don't think that is necessary. Instead, people need to stop referring to some things as theory. For instance, Newton's theory of gravity was only a theory until he tested and reproduced results. After that it was no longer a theory, it was a defined part of our universe.

 

The way science is constructed means that nothing passes beyond theory. There are no absolute facts.

 

We know that Newton's theory of gravity is incomplete, because it does not take into consideration things like relativity, and it assumes an absolute time. Thus it is very much a theory.

[Raskolnikov]

I think a distinction between "theory" and "hypothesis" is what's already consistently done in scientific circles. Unless there's something inaqequate about the way these words are already being used in science, I don't see why they should be redefined. What exactly is the purpose of doing so?

 

So long as no one has reproduce results according to a theory's hypothesis, then it remains a theory.

If someone could travel out into space and come back 10 years later having aged only 1 day, then SR would no longer be a theory but a reality. Until that day, or until some other part of SR can be verified through actual experimentation it would remain a theory. There is evidence and reproducable results for parts of the theory, and these may be determined as fact and defined, however not all parts have been. Thus the overall is still a theory, but parts of the theory may be considered fact and should be grouped separately from the overall theory.

SR has been verified experimentally. In fact, it makes more accurate predictions about motion than does Newtonian mechanics, so it's experimentally superior to Newtonian physics. There's nothing controversial about any part of SR.

When refering to Evolution as a whole, it is still a theory. Mutation (sometimes referred to as micro-evolution) is known fact. However, to call it micro-evolution is in my mind attempting to tie it to macro-evolution, which is still a theory as we cannot cause macro-evolution, nor can we positively identify it in situ.

The Theory of Evolution is on firmer experimental ground than Newtonian mechanics, too. Once again, all of its numerous predictions have been born out by observation, so I don't see how it's controversial except in that certain people hold incorrect faith-based beliefs that don't jive with it.

[pgrmdave]

There are many words in english that have multiple meanings, just think of they myriad of ways to use run.

[Turtle]

There are many words in english that have multiple meanings, just think of they myriad of ways to use run.

 

Not to mention the indefinite number of dictionaries defining run:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/run

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=run

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/run

.

.

.

 

Then there is the consideration of old definitions lost as Archaic and new definitions gained from vernacular.

 

So many words, so little time. - Roger Thelonious George

[cwes99_03]

I disagree whole heartedly that nothing can be accepted as absolute fact.

 

I tell you it is absolute fact that you can not jump into the air and fly into outer space. Newtonian gravity tells us that.

 

I tell you it is absolute fact that man cannot cause an evolution in species (not even a mutation), thus evolution is still a theory. By this same definition you can call intelligent design a theory, because it's results cannot be reproduced by men.

 

As I said, parts of SR are well supported by observation, and some by reproduceable experimentation. Those parts are not in question. However, to say that "SR has been verified experimentally" is a lie. The whole of Einstein's thought experiments have not been verified experimentally, because they cannot. Until they can, it is simply describing an observation.

 

Thus the theory that the earth was at the center of the universe was a theory because it described the observation of the stars at night rising in the east and setting in the west. It wasn't until someone observed retrograde motion that this theory became defunct, since it did not correctly describe the situation.

 

Newtonian physics is correct, and to a very high precision, for ranges of data. Thus it is not defunct, nor is it a theory. To get higher precision, or to describe data outside of those limits, you must use other laws, however, these laws do not make Newtonian physics false or bad.

 

A hypothesis is a statement that is as of yet unverified, it is the opening part of a theory. However, a theory may be made up of one or more hypotheses.

[cwes99_03]

Perhaps this article will help.

 

http://psychology.about.com/od/researchmethods/ss/expdesintro_2.htm

 

It says,

A theory predicts events in general terms, while a hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a specified set of circumstances.

 

I think this is a good beginning, but like many of you the author goes on to state,

A theory is has been extensively tested and is generally accepted, while a hypothesis is a speculative guess that has yet to be tested.

 

Now, if one were to take the whole of that, then the "generally accepted" part is all anything hinges on.

 

It may be generally accepted (as it possibly was at one time) that I am female. However, just because it was generally accepted by people on this thread, does not mean that it was true. Certain observations were made of my posts and several members came to the conclusion that I did not fit into the mold they had created for men, thus I must be a woman. (Their theory was and is wrong, and had they bothered to ask, or check all of the posts I had made they would have known.)

[cwes99_03]

Here is another good site (IMHO):

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

 

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

 

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

 

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

 

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

 

Again the author goes on to say that:

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt.

 

This I again disagree with, just like I disagree with anyone who says that the Theory of Global Warming is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This simply is not true, no matter how many people want to say it is.

[cwes99_03]

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node7.html

Is another, and I like it a bit more.

 

In popular usage, a theory is just a vague and fuzzy sort of fact and a hypothesis is often used as a fancy synonym to `guess'. But to a scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones...

A hypothesis is a working assumption. Typically, a scientist devises a hypothesis and then sees if it ``holds water'' by testing it against available data (obtained from previous experiments and observations). If the hypothesis does hold water, the scientist declares it to be a theory.

[cwes99_03]

Perhaps this is the best yet.

 

http://servercc.oakton.edu/~billtong/eas100/scientificmethod.htm

 

It includes the following as well:

A successful scientific inquiry may culminate in a well-tested, well-documented explanation (theory) that is supported overwhelmingly by valid data, and often has the power to predict the outcome of certain scenarios, which may be tested by future experiments. There are rare examples of scientific theories that have successfully survived all known attacks for a very long time, and are called scientific laws, such as Newton's Law of Gravity.

[cwes99_03]

To support Tormod's earlier statement

The way science is constructed means that nothing passes beyond theory. There are no absolute facts.

we have

http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/theory_vs__hypothesis_vs__law

Science just can't commit all the way to absolute - otherwise it wouldn't be science, it would be faith.

I find this author however says that if you question this then you must be a non-scientist.

 

However he adds on at the end the following which will require some pondering and response from the gallery.

 

The line between theory and hypothesis can become blurry when it comes to very active and new areas of science. For instance, M-theory, an extension of string theory, is a body of knowledge that attempts to define how everything in the universe works, explaining quantum phenomena along with cosmological and everything in between. Unfortunately, M-theory is largely unproven. It makes a lot of sense (as far as descriptions of the quantum world make sense), but hasn't really been tested yet. M-theory can be more precisely be described as a hypothetical theory.

[Turtle]

This I again disagree with, just like I disagree with anyone who says that the Theory of Global Warming is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This simply is not true, no matter how many people want to say it is.

 

Dude! You're gonna bust a vein!:D Do you fail to see the irony in the bolded statement?:hihi: :phones: