Theory != Guess

[Knyro]

Think hypothesis testing and then you'll see that ultimately it boils down to bernoulli random variables.

From there you can then see that a guess and a theory are ultimately the same thing, just that a theory usually has a much higher probability of being true because it has more data/thought in it (called research) than a guess (usually thought on by one person). Theory = collective guess.

A theory isn't someone pulling something out of their arse then conducting tests to see if it's true. In fact it is the other way around. A good example of this is cell theory. Cells were directly observed for centuries under microscopes, scientists examined their behaviour and collected data. An explanation tying all of this information together was eventually formed. This explanation of the properties and behaviour of cells is known as cell THEORY, the explanation tying all of the true observations together.

Note that there was absolutely no guesswork whatsoever in this process, it is 100% true, yet it is known as a theory. The main confusion comes from the general public bastardising the word and using it in the wrong context. An easy way to think of it is to imagine 100 random parabolas, this is your observable data, you then deduce by inference and logic, not guessing, the general equation for these graphs. This is your theory, from which you can determine other parabolas that were not in your original data, the more correct parabolas your equation produces, the more acceptance your theory gains.

A theory isn't a guess at the truth, the truth is already there, it is an explanation of the truth. Another example is gravity, a theory isn't "hmm, I say if a person jumps off the building they'll fall and break their spine, John, go jump off and so I can see if I'm right, bloody agent".

A theory would be "Hmm, John fell off the building and broke his spine, I think I'll go chuck 1000 rocks off the building to see if everything falls. What do you know every thing that goes over the side of the building will fall. I'll call this phenomenon, the Law of Gravity. Now I'll go gather more data then using logic, explain why this happens, this will be the THEORY of gravity."

So you see a theory isn't a crap shoot postulation that something is true. It is an examination of the truth to determine WHY something is true. Now to see if your explanation is true you collect more data (which is true), and using inference and logic, not guessing, you go from one piece of data to the next, until you have adequately explained the phenomenon. This way, by going from one piece of truth to the next, you make sure random variable X = 1 at all times.

 

[BigAl-sa]

Words missing from all arguments so far: induction, deduction and abduction

 

[Palimino]

Yes, I don't necessary disagree with what you are saying, I was just pointing out that at the end of the day, A THEORY IS A GUESS(hypothesis) because the outcome for both is really never CONSTANT(no matter the evidence).

A scientific LAW is also just another form of a guess or an "educated" supportive-statement...because in the scientific world you might argue nothing is fact because these "laws" are always changing.

I guess we are both just stating the obvious!

I think you’ve got it right. Go to the head of the class.

 

[Palimino]

Not a physicist myself, but I am of the understanding that Newton's second law is at odds with the law of relativity. They can't both be right at the same time surely?But they are both laws.

Me neither [a physicist]. I have noticed that quantum mechanics (super small), Newtonian worlds (what we inhabit) and relativity (super big) are governed by, often contradictory, radically different sets of laws.

So, ‘real’ reality comprises more than Newtonian physics. That is only an approximation of the (narrow) slice of reality we inhabit – and it works well. The different sets of physical laws we have identified (so far) are:

#1 Newtonian physics – useful because it works on most stuff in our slice of reality.

#2 Einsteinian physics – useful in faster-than-light reality. Matter or motion does not behave the same as in the Newtonian world and other dimensions come into play.

#3 Quantum physics – still being defined. Einstein got jittery here and exited with his famous quote concerning quantum physics “God does not play dice with the Universe”. We are still defining a framework for quantum physics (it is peculiar). This issue can get complicated. Time is a problem as well. Popular opinion doesn’t know what time is (the jury is still out) but it is generally accepted that the linear nature (past – present – future) and everything about it that you learnt at school is WRONG. See Prigogine and the French physicist, Benard.

A quote from the attributes of self-organizing systems in the primer “Introducing Chaos” by Ziauddin Sardar and Iwona Abrams (ISBN 1-84046-078-4) is:

These systems also run contrary to the Second Law of thermodynamics which states...

In the 1980’s (which is when I faded) two new fledgling theories came along – Complexity theory and Chaotics. They would have matured by now and there are probably even more recent theories. If you are not a physicist, it’s all too much (infodump). Postulating a mechanistic view of reality using only Newtonian physics is, IMO, not accurate.

Trivia: According to Roger Lewin (a science journalist), Complexity theory approaches closest to a Theory of Everything (TOE).

 

[smokey]

That may be true, but there are still many that don't, so in that regard the thread served its educational purpose, even in this section. Maybe the views here will filter into the PD section where relevant.

Mebbe, doubt it though...

 

[smokey]

#3 Quantum physics – still being defined. Einstein got jittery here and exited with his famous quote concerning quantum physics “God does not play dice with the Universe”. We are still defining a framework for quantum physics (it is peculiar). This issue can get complicated. Time is a problem as well. Popular opinion doesn’t know what time is (the jury is still out) but it is generally accepted that the linear nature (past – present – future) and everything about it that you learnt at school is WRONG. See Prigogine and the French physicist, Benard.

Duh! Everyone knows that time is pretzel-shaped.

 

[Palimino]

Duh! Everyone knows that time is pretzel-shaped.

Not everyone. There is a school of thought which is pushing for doughnut shaped time. The pretzel shapers are misinformed.

This is the key. Newtonian physics is good enough to consider time (as we have always done) for language and day-to-day intercourse. But if (for e.g.) we wanted to build a time machine. A true scientific understanding of the nature of time is imperative.

 

[Palimino]

There is a school of thought which is pushing for doughnut shaped time. The pretzel shapers are misinformed.

Naturally, the doughnuts and the pretzels both laugh at a fringe group who liken time to a cupcake. The doughnuts laugh longest because they know the pretzels are also wrong.