Let's go.........RANDOM!
- Siсiliаn Ноundd
- level5
- Posts: 1440
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 1:32 am
- shinygerbil
- level5
- Posts: 4667
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:14 pm
- Location: Out, finding my own food. Also, doing the shinyBonsai Manoeuvre(tm)
- Contact:
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:48 am
- Location: North of the Wall
- Contact:
So there's a massively referenced-to definition of "scientific theory" on National Academy of Sciences' website:
What would you say "well-substantiated" means in this context? Is it a synonym of thoroughly tested? Do they imply that not only hypothesis that theory incorporates should be tested, but also a theory as a whole, i.e. the logic that connects them?
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
What would you say "well-substantiated" means in this context? Is it a synonym of thoroughly tested? Do they imply that not only hypothesis that theory incorporates should be tested, but also a theory as a whole, i.e. the logic that connects them?
rus|Mike wrote:What would you say "well-substantiated" means in this context? Is it a synonym of thoroughly tested?
Sort of. I'm not quite sure I like the way they defined it (mostly because it's fairly vague and ambiguous), but I would described it more as "supported by all known (reliable) evidence" than "thoroughly tested", though there's certainly a lot of that going on.
Not quite sure what you mean about your second point. Generally speaking, if multiple hypothesis within a theory aren't consistent with each other, then either some of your hypothesis are wrong, or your theory is.
Well, they say that sc. theory is an explanation <...> that incorporates tested hypothesis and so on. Which makes me think of it as of logical glue that ties multiple tested hypothesis/facts/laws/etc together and creates an "explanation" itself. What I wanted to know is if you have to firstly test that explanation to call the whole thing "scientific theory" or is the fact that explanation is based on already tested hypothesis is good enough.
For example, I have a bunch of well-tested hypothesis. I came up with a way to logically tie them together into a scientific "explanation" of something. Do I already have a scientific theory or should I firstly test my explanation?
For example, I have a bunch of well-tested hypothesis. I came up with a way to logically tie them together into a scientific "explanation" of something. Do I already have a scientific theory or should I firstly test my explanation?
Well, if we go back a bit to the Hypothesis definition:
So, in a way, you are correct, but I REALLY do not like the way that they put it, mostly because they treat hypothesis, laws, and theories as distinct things.
See, the way I was taught the idea was that you started with an hypothesis, once you accumulated enough evidence it became a theory, and once it became completely proven, it became a law.
Even if we treat this as the oversimplification that it is, it kind of shows the problem I have with their explanation and your interpretation of it.
So:
Both can be correct, depending of where you started.
If you came up with your "theory" after testing the hypotheses, then you don't have a theory, you have a new hypothesis, which you must then test.
If the hypotheses were logical extensions of a previous hypothesis (i.e. you came up with an hypothesis, and then created new hypotheses to explore the ramifications and consequences of the first hypothesis) then the original hypothesis, possibly after some fine-tuning to account for the results of testing, becomes a theory.
Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
So, in a way, you are correct, but I REALLY do not like the way that they put it, mostly because they treat hypothesis, laws, and theories as distinct things.
See, the way I was taught the idea was that you started with an hypothesis, once you accumulated enough evidence it became a theory, and once it became completely proven, it became a law.
Even if we treat this as the oversimplification that it is, it kind of shows the problem I have with their explanation and your interpretation of it.
So:
rus|Mike wrote:Do I already have a scientific theory or should I firstly test my explanation?
Both can be correct, depending of where you started.
If you came up with your "theory" after testing the hypotheses, then you don't have a theory, you have a new hypothesis, which you must then test.
If the hypotheses were logical extensions of a previous hypothesis (i.e. you came up with an hypothesis, and then created new hypotheses to explore the ramifications and consequences of the first hypothesis) then the original hypothesis, possibly after some fine-tuning to account for the results of testing, becomes a theory.
- Ghost Division
- level2
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:53 pm
- Location: La la land.
It is fun to search for clues in suburban panoramas - side of road driving, flora, company labels on sattelite dishes and whatever you pay attention to. 18283
-
- level5
- Posts: 1187
- Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:37 pm
- Contact:
20,533! I was pretty lucky to get "big plaza with Taiwanese flags", that lead me to Tapei and 2km out; "mediterranean but with Eastern European road signs" to Croatia; as well as a huge sign declaring "Great Ocean Road" with signs to Melbourne.
Edit 0330UTC 12 May: 21351! A lucky duplicate, and a sign with "Trafalgar" helped immensely.
Last edited by microchip08 on Sun May 12, 2013 4:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests