My Theory Challenge Poll

AV1611VET said:

I guess you can't argue against a system that builds a house, then blows it to smithereens and calls it "progress."

Click to expand...

Physics is about how nature works -- for example, the theories called Newton's laws are a great classic example -- and the the aim and goal of physics isn't to build a 'house' exactly, but instead the main goal continues to be to figure out how nature is constructed/works.

The goal is discovery of what already exists.

What is nature's deep design? That's what physics seeks to discover.

To understand nature better. To find out how nature works more fully, until maybe someday we might have the most fundamental design begin to appear.

So, any theory is then both a step but also possibly a wrong step or a step that leaves us without a clue where to go next, and so the continuing process is to continue to find new ways to test still surviving theories (that haven't yet been shown wrong), aiming to find where existing theory fails in a very precise way, using any technique/observations we can -- to get that key direction for the next step: to find the precise limit or exact situation where a strong existing theory fails. (the precise exact situation where a theory fails is an invaluable clue of why it failed and a helpful guide to devise new theories that could possibly work in that situation/area/domain, which will then need to be tested as possible in any way physicists can figure out)

AV1611VET said:

I guess you can't argue against a system that builds a house, then blows it to smithereens and calls it "progress."

Click to expand...

When the house is improved upon, that is progress.

AV1611VET said:

Is the theory of evolution a valid theory?

Click to expand...

It will be until somebody works out an alternative theory that gives a better explanation of the observed facts. The creation stories in Genesis do not give a better explanation.

AV1611VET said:

Was Phlogiston theory a valid theory at one time?

Click to expand...

Yes, to the extent that it explained the observed facts. As scientists collected more data, it became clear that the phlogiston theory could not explain all the observations and that it was therefore invalid.