Just another way of saying that a theory is just a belief system. Doesn't matter how you arrive at your conclusions it's a theory. A belief based ultimately on the unknowable, and as information is accumulated and disproved what was once taken as "law", is replaced by another speculative "theory" to explain it.

In the study of the universe a known, known suddenly becomes a known unknown because a simple observation of a phenomenon not expected around a black hole or other event doesn't meet the expected results.

The theory of evolution has undergone numerous corrections in the years since it was first purposed. Arguments still abound. All based on a belief system, each scientist confident that their "theory" is correct.

The "laws" of nature change routinely as "science" explores the cosmos and discovers what once was "believed" to be a trueism doesn't apply in a particular instance and "science" can't agree. 

Most science contradicts itself the more you study the cosmos.

Simple question, can matter/energy be destroyed?

See Hawkins paradox.

There is more in the universe we don't understand than things we do yet many will eliminate the possibility of a higher intelligence, because it's not yet an observable event.

I will state again, I'm a science kind of guy, but at least I understand that even science doesn't really understand the universe, it only develops more "theories" to explain what is currently observable.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 03/23/2008 12:21:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]

In the scientific world, it's the other way around.  The scientific method, without which there can be no science, is pretty clear about this.  Sure, in the layman's world, "theory" means the same as "hypothesis", but lay people don't have to be as precise as scientists.

The scientific method is a very specific logical procedure used for learning what is true and what is not.  Some science is based on empirical evidence.  Other science is based on logical proofs.  There are many other types of evidence that can be used to support a theory, but theories are developed by testing hypotheses.

If a hypothesis is shown to be false in all circumstances then a truth has been discovered that may be used to develop a related theory or prove a fact.  If the hypotheses proves to be true in one or some circumstances but is unproven and not disproven in all other circumstances, then it's a theory.  If it can be proven true in all circumstances, then it's considered to be a fact.  Other test results are usually judged to be inconclusive.

In any case, whether a hypothesis are proven true or false, the tests can be said to have been successful if any result is obtained.

In addition, "theories" and "laws" are different.  A "law" is true in all circumstances in a given universe.  A theory does not yet have that distinction.

Rigorous empirical studies and experiments show that evolution occurs.  Scientists argue about some of its exact mechanisms, but not about its existence.

Only religionists, who are not scientists and who are not qualified to judge scientific matters and who in fact eschew all logic, argue against the existence of evolution.

by EveningStarNM on 03/23/2008 02:07:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]