I feel as if I have died and fallen into hell. There are some really poor descriptions of science in this thread. There's too many for me to respond to all of them but most have been perpetrated by xepherys so I'll respond to some of his claims...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xepherys
Definition of theory as listed on the same:
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
|
Why do you insist on running to a dictionary as an authority on meaning? Admittedly, I do the same when engaged in colloquial language but it's not a good idea to do so when talking about specific fields, like science. Every organized endeavor has its own jargon and science is no exception. Compare the dictionary meaning of
displacement with the
physical definition, for an example...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xepherys
Also, a theory is "just a theory" in light of it not being fact. The theory is generally built on existing facts or other strong theories. A great example of that is string theory which is a sidestep of quantum theory. Both are important, both have a lot of work being done on them (well, not so much string theory these days), but both are "just theories". They are not fact. There is little or no proven data supporting that majority of the claims of either. Theory < Fact... arguing otherwise seems rather ridiculous.
|
Quote:
|
Theory IS a model based on observation, but it is not yet fact. Theory graduates to fact once it has been widely established as such.
|
Quote:
|
Since quantum theory is just that, a theory, and the laws of motions are... wait for it... laws, I think it's too early to say that the Laws of Motion have been superseded by quantum theory.
|
Are you a creationist now?!
First of all, theories will never ever "graduate" to fact. That's not how the term is used. Do you think we doubt that atoms exist? If not then why is it still called the
atomic theory? Theories don't even "graduate" to laws. Do you really think that we ever referred to Newton's theories of motion? ...or the theories of thermodynamics? That's not how the term is used...
This leads to my second point, which is that scientific "laws" aren't really any different than scientific "theories." Like in English, synonyms exist in science and that's what these two words are. The use of the term "law" in science came into vogue at a time when science (particularly physics) was starting to mature rapidly but wasn't, itself, well studied. Back then, scientists had romantic notions of "unlocking the secrets of the Universe!" They felt that they were discovering absolute and final truths about how the Universe worked and so some principles seemed to warrant the title of law.
Of course, science has matured quite a bit since then and is now a little more formalized. The
three laws of thermodynamics didn't really make sense without the
zeroeth law,
Newton's second law of motion isn't true in the general sense and the first law of thermodynamics,
conservation of energy, can be temporarily violated. Hell, the
first law of thermodynamics is just a special case of conservation of energy so how is it really so fundamental?
Scientific laws tend to be more axiomatic and descriptive than scientific theories but what is labelled a "law" or a "theory" is mostly aesthetic. They are both tentative descriptions of how we think the Universe works and they are really no different from each other.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xepherys
HOWEVER, some things are, in fact, fact. We know that gravitation exists. We know not the cause of the effect, but we can verify the effect time and time again. Gravity is a fact. When a mathematical principle is created to stand it up, this becomes scientific law. It is both universally provable, and mathematically describable. You can have something that is mathematically describable, but NOT universally provable (say relativity) and hence a theory is born.
Why is the Theory of Relativity still a theory? Well, let's take it apart. You have general and special relativity, yes? Inside of general relativity, you have time dilation (or a form of it, I think there are more than one) that has been experimentally proven. You also have Rotational Frame Dragging, which has NOT been proven, and experiments run today to study it such as Gravity Probe B. Since it remains unproven in reality, though "proven" mathematically, it is not a fact or law but a theory. |
In science, "fact" is synonymous with "observation."
Again, theories will never be "graduated" to "laws" or "facts", regardless of how much evidence or apparent truth is behind them. The terms are simply not used that way. By the way, there is no part of
special relativity that hasn't been demonstrable. In every way, it appears to be true...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xepherys
As for metaphysics, well... now you're burning yourself. The word metaphysical translates to afterlife or directly to after physical, as in after or beyond our physical selves. It was generally construed as beginning as a way to think about our ties to the universe and the ultimate "why are we here" questions.
|
Actually, the word "metaphysics" translates literally to "after physics," denoting Aristotle's work that came
after his work on
physics. The word is currently used as you describe it but your etymology was simply wrong...
Actually, I'm surprised I didn't have more to say. There's probably much more to comment on but this thread was so painful to read that I don't think I can bear to read it over again...