Re: Theories are NEVER hypotheses
reany_at_asu.edu
Date: 02/05/05
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv FOR IQ's OVER 150"
- Previous message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Problems of four-velocity"
- In reply to: AllYou!: "Re: Theories are NEVER hypotheses"
- Next in thread: Daniel Weston: "Re: Theories are NEVER hypotheses (well hardly ever)"
- Reply: Daniel Weston: "Re: Theories are NEVER hypotheses (well hardly ever)"
- Reply: AllYou!: "Re: Theories are NEVER hypotheses"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 5 Feb 2005 02:41:25 -0800
AllYou! wrote:
> <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*.
No. That is either a hypothesis or a law.
> 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).
I don't know where you got that "explanation." I prefer the explanation
based on the kinetic theory of charged particles. In either case, the
theory IS the explanation. The above hypothesis is a prediction of the
theory.
> 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?
How crappy science education really is!
Define for us the five terms as you believe they are used in physics:
Theory
Law
Hypothesis
Model
Explanation
Patrick
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv FOR IQ's OVER 150"
- Previous message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Problems of four-velocity"
- In reply to: AllYou!: "Re: Theories are NEVER hypotheses"
- Next in thread: Daniel Weston: "Re: Theories are NEVER hypotheses (well hardly ever)"
- Reply: Daniel Weston: "Re: Theories are NEVER hypotheses (well hardly ever)"
- Reply: AllYou!: "Re: Theories are NEVER hypotheses"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|