Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
A second theory is adopted as temporarily true if it explains the facts better, but it is not necessary to disprove the first theory. Falsification allows you to disprove a theory with out offering a better explaination (I could disprove that F=ma, but not provide an alternative).I don't agree--at bare minimum, you need a competing explanation, if even a vacuous one. If your explanation is "stuff only arises from like stuff", that's still a competing theory with more evidence.
But no, it doesn't need to be a well-developed theory if there's no support at all for its antithesis.
You can't falsify work.So Pasteur's work wouldn't be flasified if we observe spontaneous generation?
Eep. First, "F = ma" is a definition, not a theory. Newton's "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is the theory, and finding a case where it appears that the action is not equal and opposite is not sufficient to "disprove" it unless there is a competing explanation. It just means that the theory doesn't currently explain that case.A second theory is adopted as temporarily true if it explains the facts better, but it is not necessary to disprove the first theory. Falsification allows you to disprove a theory with out offering a better explaination (I could disprove that F=ma, but not provide an alternative).
Technically, I never called it a theoryEep. First, "F = ma" is a definition, not a theory.
Disproof does not mean we cannot still use the theory untill a better one comes along. It may not be entirely accurate, but it is still valid for estimation.Newton's "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is the theory, and finding a case where it appears that the action is not equal and opposite is not sufficient to "disprove" it unless there is a competing explanation. It just means that the theory doesn't currently explain that case.
It isn't of the shade purple?All theories are temporary, and "disproof" isn't an inviolate act.
Indeed. Disproof does not mean a new theory must be made, leaving a void in scientific knowledge in the mean time. We use the best theory available to use, even if we know it is not always completely accurate.If there's only one theory to describe plate tectonics, and someone finds a hole in it (thus disproving the general theory), the theory will be modified to fit the new data. Even if the theory cannot be modified at present it is still the best theory.
Wait, do you think that I'm saying that to disprove something, you must also provide an alternate theory? Because I think we're talking about the same thing here...Consider Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (a real theory). It was the prevaling theory until the General Theory was formulated, even though the existence of gravity effectively invalidated it. The General Theory eventually corrected this, but today the GToR and quantum mechanics disagree on gravity; yet both theories are needed for the functioning of many devices. Just because a theory is incomplete or because it is falsified by math or observations does not "disprove" it unless there exists a better contender.
No, I'm the one saying that.Wait, do you think that I'm saying that to disprove something, you must also provide an alternate theory? Because I think we're talking about the same thing here...
Eep. First, "F = ma" is a definition, not a theory. Newton's "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is the theory, and finding a case where it appears that the action is not equal and opposite is not sufficient to "disprove" it unless there is a competing explanation. It just means that the theory doesn't currently explain that case.
All theories are temporary, and "disproof" isn't an inviolate act. If there's only one theory to describe plate tectonics, and someone finds a hole in it (thus disproving the general theory), the theory will be modified to fit the new data. Even if the theory cannot be modified at present it is still the best theory.
Consider Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (a real theory). It was the prevaling theory until the General Theory was formulated, even though the existence of gravity effectively invalidated it. The General Theory eventually corrected this, but today the GToR and quantum mechanics disagree on gravity; yet both theories are needed for the functioning of many devices. Just because a theory is incomplete or because it is falsified by math or observations does not "disprove" it unless there exists a better contender.
Trickster
Einstein's method of making his theory was questionable. He didn't make any observations and measurements to come to his conclusion. Plus Einstein even with all his genius was guilty of rejecting things(quantum physics) based on pre-existing belief. He definitely isn't a good example of a good theory discoverer.Consider Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (a real theory)
Just because Einstein didn't perform the experiments that indicated that the speed of light was independent of reference frame doesn't make his methods questionable in the least. Scientists use the work of other scientists all the time. Why is it, do you think, that today we have such open methods of communication among scientsts as http://arxiv.org/ and http://www.pubmed.gov/ ?Einstein's method of making his theory was questionable. He didn't make any observations and measurements to come to his conclusion. Plus Einstein even with all his genius was guilty of rejecting things(quantum physics) based on pre-existing belief. He definitely isn't a good example of a good theory discoverer.
Einstein's method of making his theory was questionable. He didn't make any observations and measurements to come to his conclusion. Plus Einstein even with all his genius was guilty of rejecting things(quantum physics) based on pre-existing belief. He definitely isn't a good example of a good theory discoverer.
I didn't suggest that it did. Reread my post!Also, AFAIK the general theory of relativity didn’t disprove the special theory.
Wow! What kind of a baseball coach goes around accusing his players of blasphemy? Evolution is accepted by quite a few (I'd guess most) Christian denominations. Is this coach of yours going to make sure no one but fundamentalists are on his team?my baseball coach accused me of being a blasphemer for being a neo evoloutionist (incorporating the theory of evoloution and the into the creation) by saying that the creation was somewhat wrong and that it happened by god creating the universe by making the bigbang himself
I didn't suggest that it did. Reread my post!
He is a theoretical physicist, as posted above. Besides, experiments comparing the difference between two atomic clocks, one 'stationary' on Earth, the other at a high speed in space, shows that Einsteinian time dilation holds.Einstein's method of making his theory was questionable. He didn't make any observations and measurements to come to his conclusion. Plus Einstein even with all his genius was guilty of rejecting things(quantum physics) based on pre-existing belief. He definitely isn't a good example of a good theory discoverer.
I agree, but the reason the Special Theory only applied to situations with no gravity is because Einstein had not yet figured out how to adapt the theory to the existence of gravity. My point is that his inability to explain gravity did not invalidate the entire theory.Alright. You said: "Consider Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (a real theory). It was the prevaling theory until the General Theory was formulated, even though the existence of gravity effectively invalidated it." So I'll grant you didn't say the General Theory invalidated it. Still, my point is the Special Theory wasn't invalidated. Gravity didn't invalidate it. The special theory was only meant to apply to situations in which gravity isn't a significant factor. In those situations it's still used, since it's much simpler to work with.
You know the theory of evolution is on the brink of utter collapse when an uneducated redneck hick from Texas like me can figure it out in just few months.
Lvl 4 threadomancy cast....[/color][/font]
Had you considered the possibility that BECAUSE you are 'an uneducated redneck hick from Texas' that, you know, you might be, maybe, wrong?
[/font]
He moved on, he was tired of people trying to refute his awsomely(bad) postsLvl 4 threadomancy cast....
So what ever happened to supersport?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?