Theory(s) in the Natural Sciences

[Resha Caner]

Could you expound on that? We are ruling out the possibility of definitively claiming success, I agree, but rather than good enough, we are calling it best so far. I feel like I may be missing a broader point though

Maybe we crossed wires. Once you brought in 1+1=2 it seemed you were trying to go beyond "best so far" to "can't be improved".

 

[[serious]]

Maybe we crossed wires. Once you brought in 1+1=2 it seemed you were trying to go beyond "best so far" to "can't be improved".

I think I see the miscommunication now.

I said:

But is every theory a model? Let's say I have a theory that 1+1=2. Until we have some deviation from that in experimentation, we can't very well say that there is some more accurate value for the equation 1+1.​

It was more to illustrate that being unable to determine is something can't be improved is not the same as determining that somethings can be improved. We can't say there IS a better formulation of 1+1. We could continue to say, "we can't rule out future discoveries indicating that a better formulation exists."

Clearer? I was just illustrating the "is" vs "may" I was previously discussing.

 

[Resha Caner]

Clearer? I was just illustrating the "is" vs "may" I was previously discussing.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I think the illustration is better without 1+1=2 because I would say that is a model (or closer yet, a definition), not a theory ... unless you're getting into the philosophy of mathematics with "What is a number?" kinds of issues.

 

[mzungu]

Maybe we crossed wires. Once you brought in 1+1=2 it seemed you were trying to go beyond "best so far" to "can't be improved".

Some theories may not be replaceable but they can sure become more accurate as we gain more knowledge. The Atomic theory, The theory of Gravity, The theory of Evolution are some examples of theories that pretty much have sound foundations and are not going to be easily replaced but they definitely will become more accurate.

 

[Resha Caner]

Some theories may not be replaceable but they can sure become more accurate as we gain more knowledge. The Atomic theory, The theory of Gravity, The theory of Evolution are some examples of theories that pretty much have sound foundations and are not going to be easily replaced but they definitely will become more accurate.

I would agree those theories will not be easily replaced. When speaking of accuracy, a distinction needs to be made between improved measurement and augmenting the theory itself. I'm not sure which you meant.

Whether or not they have "sound foundations" seems more a philosophical statement, but it does point to one of my pet peeves. "Gravity" is a phenomena that is narrowly focused enough that even when one theory replaces another it seems legitimate to still call it a theory of gravity. In that case we're talking about something fairly specific.

In the case of evolution, though, it has become so broad that to me it seems more appropriate to call it a field of study than a theory. It would be hard to say that some new "theory" would replace everything talked about under the umbrella of evolution. Evolution just seems to absorb whatever discoveries come along without a thought to whether the discovery is a new theory or an augmented theory.

It's like calling biology, chemistry, or physics a "theory".

 

[Loudmouth]

In the case of evolution, though, it has become so broad that to me it seems more appropriate to call it a field of study than a theory.

How is the production of biodiversity on a single planet "too broad"? The theory is focused on the processes that cause populations to change and to diverge from one another.

It would be hard to say that some new "theory" would replace everything talked about under the umbrella of evolution. Evolution just seems to absorb whatever discoveries come along without a thought to whether the discovery is a new theory or an augmented theory.

Can you give examples of discoveries that you think should not be absorbed so easily?

It's like calling biology, chemistry, or physics a "theory".

How so? Biology includes several theories, such as Germ Theory, Cell Theory, and Evolution. Evolution has the same relationship to biology that gravity does to physics.

 

[DaisyDay]

Can a theory exist that is unknown? I don't think it exists until it is formulated and thus known.

 

[Strathos]

Can a theory exist that is unknown? I don't think it exists until it is formulated and thus known.

No, but the mechanisms and facts that theory is based on would still exist, for example all of the factors that are involved in relativity existed before Einstein figured it out.