A theory is not a guess.

[ranunculus]

And since a theory has not been proven yet (if it were proven, it would be a law not a theory) it would still be a guess.

No, it wouldn't.

 

[Non sequitur]

"rational thinking" or "well-substantiated explanation" or "confirmed body of knowledge"

In other words, educated.

"rational thinking" and "confirmed body of knowledge" were not in the definitions I gave. Why did you put them in quotes?

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

And since a theory has not been proven yet (if it were proven, it would be a law not a theory) it would still be a guess. An educated guess, mind you, but still a guess.

Nope.

You are basically asking how perfectly do you have to build a house so that it will become a single brick?

A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science.

A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation.

Scientific theories are broader in scope, and give overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. Theories are supported by evidence from many different sources, and may contain one or several laws.

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law.

Are you purposefully misrepresenting definitions?

 

[Aconba]

...

 

[Non sequitur]

No, what we have here is an epistemological derivation.

"Demonstrable" and "empirical" are words that you cannot really apply epistemology to. The definitions and explanations I have given are the universally accepted definitions.

You have 2 choices:

1) If you want to redefine words, then ok. It might help if you so noted that.
2) If you want to play the "who really knows" card, then ok. However, there is no point in you having any opinion or input, because all your answers are the same. We arrive at ? as your responses.

So, which direction are you going?

 

[rjw]

I don't mean to rain on your parade, particular as it relates to EV theory, but actually, in many cases, a theory is in fact nothing more than a "guess". At the macroscopic level M(String)-theory comes to mind. At the low end of the spectrum, SUSY theory comes to mind. Is there *really* evidence of extra dimensions?

While I take your point, I'd hate to call those "theories", "guesses" - as in "wild ideas".

I'd consider them more like hypotheses - ideas that are formulated on some kind of basis that, if true, would resolve problems, but are essentially untested.

 

[rjw]

A theory is an educated guess.

"Educated" being a relative term.

If you think a theory is nothing more than a guess then I think a theory is a well tested guess, such that the guess shows that it's quite a viable one and actually explains some aspect of reality.

 

[rjw]

I suspect one of the reasons why the Cyclic Model of the Universe is not so well accepted is partly because many scientists do not wish to face the probability that intelligence would almost certainly originate in fundamental energy....not in a biological form confined to four dimensions of space-time??!!


Mellen-Thomas Benedict - near-death experiences

(Mellen Benedict)

Well that might be, but an impression I get is that scientists either accept or reject ideas based on how they interpret the evidence that comes from various experiments.

That there might be some kind of other wishes behind this, is always hard to demonstrate.


It never makes much sense to me to say that folk behave in such and such a manner because of some feelings I assert they have, which I cannot demonstrate, but simply assert it because they do not think the same as I do.

 

[Michael]

While I take your point, I'd hate to call those "theories", "guesses" - as in "wild ideas".

Outside of astronomy circles at least, the concept of multiple "extra dimensions" is a pretty "wild idea".

In this case the "guesses" happen to come with some math, but so far that hasn't helped SUSY theory, in fact it's helped to falsify some SUSY theories outright.

I'd consider them more like hypotheses - ideas that are formulated on some kind of basis that, if true, would resolve problems, but are essentially untested.

In the case of SUSY theory at least it has been tested and it's come up lacking any support at the moment.

Pretty much every extension to standard particle physics theory at this point in time is actually a "guess" at best case.

 

[rjw]

Pretty much every extension to standard particle physics theory at this point in time is actually a "guess" at best case.

Well yes, but then "guess" covers a multitude of things, ranging from a "wild idea I came up with while totally drunk" to "an idea I came up with that seems plausible to myself and several other folk I've asked."

 

[Michael]

Well yes, but then "guess" covers a multitude of things, ranging from a "wild idea I came up with while totally drunk" to "an idea I came up with that seems plausible to myself and several other folk I've asked."

In terms of how that applies to "dark matter" theory, and specifically SUSY theory, all the "plausible" concepts that they actually wrote about prior to LHC, were all falsified at LHC. Were definitely into the "wild idea I came with while totally drunk" concepts.

 

[AECellini]

if it were proven, it would be a law not a theory

theories and laws are two different things. theories can propose laws, but they never become them.