Re: Theories are NEVER hypotheses

From: AllYou! (idaman_at_conversent.net)
Date: 02/04/05 

Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 14:16:42 -0500

<reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:1107541931.239772.270770@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> AllYou! wrote:
> > <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:1107532015.194962.84930@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > robert j. kolker wrote:
> > > > reany@asu.edu wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Theories are NEVER hypotheses.
> > > >
> > > > Theories and hypothesis or both posits. I.E. suppositions. A
> theory
> > > is
> > > > just more complicated and structured than a single hypothesis.
> Both
> > > are
> > > > obtained by a combination of induction and abduction.
> > >
> > > A theory is an explanation in the form of a deductive system
> > > (collection of hypotheses/axioms from which deductions are made).
> >
> > A theory explains nothing, it simply predicts what an observation
> will be. As such, it's
> > specualtion The explanation is also speculation, but with no theory
> attached.
>
> A theory is an invented explanation.
>
> Give us an example of an explanation in physics, then. How about why a
> conductor heats up when current is in it?
>
> How crappy science education really is!

And you're the perfect example of that. Anyway, what you're missing is that it's all a
big chain. A theory leads to an explanation which leads to a theory which leads
to...............and so on. You just gave a perfect example of both.

The theory is that the conductor will heat up when a current is *in it*. We test the
theory, and sure enough, it's validated to some extent. So then we guess at an
explanation (e.g., the potential across the conductor is in excess of what the conductor
can accommodate, and so the energy which cannot pass through the conductor excites the
molecules which produces heat). The explanation then leads to other theories which can be
tested and, if found to have sufficient reliability, will lead to other theories. And so
goes science.

IOW, the theory predicts *what* will happen, experiments validate that it *will* (to some
degree of reliability) happen, people guess at an explanation of *why* and *how* it
happened, which leads to a new theory of that new guess.

This is pretty simple stuff. Why do you find it so hard to grasp?

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Theories are NEVER hypotheses
    ... >> Give us an example of an explanation in physics, ... >> How crappy science education really is! ... A theory leads to an explanation which leads to a theory ... > The theory is that the conductor will heat up when a current is *in ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: LET is on shaky ground - continued
    ... >> that leads to SR. ... starting of course with the Lorentz ... > must be literally millions of physics graduates in the world. ... > philosophy of what constitutes a good 'explanation'. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Didnt Get IT!
    ... The explanation for the world around us is lost in some sort of ... The first possibility leads to scientific advancement, ... variations of these. ... illusion is that there is no way *in *principle of telling them apart. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Antenna Theory Question
    ... your explanation is very good and convincing. ... I believe that most of us would read with interest some further remarks on what happens in the case of a shorted element, ... An AC current flowing on a conductor creates a field regardless of how that current is produced. ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
  • Re: Theories are NEVER hypotheses
    ... A theory leads to an explanation which leads to a theory ... >> tested and, if found to have sufficient reliability, will lead to ... > How crappy science education really is! ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)