DIYbanter - View Single Post

J. Clarke[_2_]

In article ,
says...

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:40:18 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

Since when did the word theory become virtually a fact? Unless you
have a new defintion of terms, the word theory has never been
accpeted as any kind of a fact.

Well ....

the reference Swingman gave defines theory as:

"A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a
substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of
observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation."

I'd say that places it a lot closer to a fact than to an opinion or
belief. Those are often not supported by much of anything :-).

I'll certainly relinquish the use of the word "belief" (perhaps a poorly
chosen word earlier...), but even Swing's text above does not make a
theory virtually a fact - regardless of how close it may appear to be.

--

-Mike-

Mike,
I agree with you that Swingman's text above does not make a theory virtually
a fact. A theory is not virtually a fact, it is as Swingman stated.

It's close enough to "fact" to be used for engineering design,
interplanetary navigation, and other such purposes.

In science, the word "hypothesis" is used to describe what in ordinary
conversation is called "theory". And "theory" is used to described a
model that has passed every test anyone has been able to concieve for
it. Physics doesn't use "law" anymore, however it's been grandfathered
for things like Newtonian mechanics. And there is a different usage in
mathematics, where "theory" is an internally consistent system which may
or may not have anything at all to do with reality.

The trouble with climatology is that a lot of people are treating
climatological hypotheses like they are theory.