Prove a Scientific theory ?

[Ophiolite]

Hmm .. I think I'd personally prefer the 'color science' link for supporting science's take on any 'color theory', there(?)

The wikipedia article referenced by @Warden_of_the_Storm seems to be more a collection of observations about colour. Its within the science of optics and quantum mechanics that the "behaviour" of colour falls out and provides an explanation for that behaviour. I suggest that while we have a theoretical explanation for colour, that is different from having a distinct theory of colour - it's just covered elsewhere.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The wikipedia article referenced by @Warden_of_the_Storm seems to be more a collection of observations about colour. Its within the science of optics and quantum mechanics that the "behaviour" of colour falls out and provides an explanation for that behaviour. I suggest that while we have a theoretical explanation for colour, that is different from having a distinct theory of colour - it's just covered elsewhere.

I was just pointing out that there is something called colour theory.

 

[SelfSim]

I was just pointing out that there is something called colour theory.

All good .. haven't seen it or the color science links before .. so: thanks!
Lots of interesting information to consume there.
Cheers

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

All good .. haven't seen it or the color science links before .. so: thanks!
Lots of interesting information to consume there.
Cheers

It helps when you're an artist, or in my case, a guy who likes to paint models.

 

[SelfSim]

The wikipedia article referenced by @Warden_of_the_Storm seems to be more a collection of observations about colour. Its within the science of optics and quantum mechanics that the "behaviour" of colour falls out and provides an explanation for that behaviour. I suggest that while we have a theoretical explanation for colour, that is different from having a distinct theory of colour - it's just covered elsewhere.

I'm not so sure there is a difference between a theoretical explanation for colour and a scientific theory of colour ..(?)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What's your working hypothesis as to
why the creationist squad remains clueless
about even dictionary definition
level understanding of basic science?

I'd guess that a few know the definition but like to troll; most don't want to know, being resistant to knowledge outside their comfort zone.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm not so sure there is a difference between a theoretical explanation for colour and a scientific theory of colour ..(?)

I think it's a grey area.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm not so sure there is a difference between a theoretical explanation for colour and a scientific theory of colour ..(?)

I think it's just semantics - the theoretical explanation is, in principle, a scientific theory, but it doesn't seem to be explicitly distinguished as such in colour science. Traditional colour theory (behaviour of colours, colour mixing, etc) is a more subjective subset of colour science - as the Wikipedia article indicates.

 

[SelfSim]

I think it's just semantics - the theoretical explanation is, in principle, a scientific theory, but it doesn't seem to be explicitly distinguished as such in colour science. Traditional colour theory (behaviour of colours, colour mixing, etc) is a more subjective subset of colour science - as the Wikipedia article indicates.

What caught my eye in the Color Science page, was the reference to 'Psychophysics' as being part of colour science:

Psychophysics quantitatively investigates the relationship between physical stimuli and the sensations and perceptions they produce. Psychophysics has been described as "the scientific study of the relation between stimulus and sensation" or, more completely, as "the analysis of perceptual processes by studying the effect on a subject's experience or behaviour of systematically varying the properties of a stimulus along one or more physical dimensions".

Psychophysics also refers to a general class of methods that can be applied to study a perceptual system. Modern applications rely heavily on threshold measurement, ideal observer analysis, and signal detection theory.

.. Interesting .. Sort of a sensitivity analysis technique for objectively probing into the subjective experience(?)
Cheers

 

[Astrid]

I'd guess that a few know the definition but like to troll; most don't want to know, being resistant to knowledge outside their comfort zone.

Perhaps one of them could offer
another explanation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps one of them could offer another explanation.

A theory is a temporary belief awaiting override.

 

[Yttrium]

A theory is a temporary belief awaiting override.

That's a rough approach to theories that you have. I mean, just calling it a theory means there's room for doubt in it, which means taking a firm belief in it is unwise. I suggest you approach theories with a more open-minded approach rather than jumping into a belief in them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What caught my eye in the Color Science page, was the reference to 'Psychophysics' as being part of colour science:

.. Interesting .. Sort of a sensitivity analysis technique for objectively probing into the subjective experience(?)
Cheers

Sounds like the complement to phenomenology in philosophy...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Perhaps one of them could offer
another explanation.

Perhaps ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A theory is a temporary belief awaiting override.

That's sometimes true in practice - scientists are human too. But a scientific theory is generally accepted as the best explanation we currently have, and the excitement aroused by the possibility of a new discovery overturning an existing theory contradicts the idea that it's a belief.

 

[Astrid]

That's sometimes true in practice - scientists are human too. But a scientific theory is generally accepted as the best explanation we currently have, and the excitement aroused by the possibility of a new discovery overturning an existing theory contradicts the idea that it's a belief.

So that siilly equivocation
raises its moldy snout yet again.

Was there something about its cousin "faith" too?
That's another perennial fav for trying to
disparage science.

Displaying first their incomprehension of
anything about science then belittling the
noble nature of Faith they show they
know nothing of either.

A person would think someone who centers his life
around religious faith / belief would some day
thInk long and deep enough to notice something
as obvious as that there's a huge, qualitative
difference between believing that the
car will start, and belief in salvation.

Back to the actual topic of the thread, proof of theory,
we'd suggest that our friends who are so confused
should first figure out the meaning of faith / belief
in their lives, then go on to the small effort needed to
learn what a scientific theory is.

THEN, they might be up to the task of sensible
discussion of proof / disproof/ falsification, rather than
displaying shallowness and ignorance
with inane quips .

 

[Astrid]

Perhaps ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In theory, yes.
But also in theory, no.

 

[AV1611VET]

... then go on to the small effort needed to learn what a scientific theory is.

A scientific theory is a temporary scientific belief awaiting override.

You want examples?

Geocentrism, Phlogiston theory, spontaneous generation, alchemy, how we got our moon, static universe, Lamarckism, maternal impression, Recapitulation theory, scientific racism, Caloric theory, Aryan supremacy.

Just to name a few.

 

[AV1611VET]

In theory, yes.
But also in theory, no.

That theory has long been overridden.

 

[AV1611VET]

Quick answer: impossible even if theory is correct.

You said a mouthful there.

"Even in theory is correct."

I don't know, but I would assume a theory is deemed "correct" if it passes (or fails) all the tests that are set up to make it pass (or fail).

If it passes the tests that are set up to make it pass, while at the same time failing to pass the tests that are set up to make it fail, then it gets the good stamp of approval and released for general use.

Eventually it gets pwned.

Often leaving behind a history of death, destruction, and disfigurement.