Prove a Scientific theory ?

[AV1611VET]

I kinda doubt it ever was a theory. More like a folk belief.

-- Wow.

Don't put people on IGNORE, people.

Just don't.

 

[SelfSim]

Correct. Mike Tyson was the heavyweight boxing champion. He isn't now.

Spontaneous generation was a scientific theory. It isn't now - as I said.

Don't wear out your spade.

Welcome back @FrumiousBandersnatch! (Aside: I'm curious about whether you may have completed that Philosophy course you mentioned you were contemplating in the past?)

Parts of the essence of the old hypothesis of Spontaneous Generation are visible in modern day Origin of Life hypotheses. It also, (obviously), spurred on Pasteur etal's paradigm shifting research in the 19th Century. In that sense, it served a highly useful purpose in the development of modern day science.

Others who use it to send up science, are merely exposing their own ignorance about how science will grab onto anything testable, in order to make useful returns to human objective knowledge, eh?

 

[SelfSim]

-- Wow.

Don't put people on IGNORE, people.

Just don't.

Try making a useful contribution .. One never knows how that might change the status-quo.

 

[AV1611VET]

Try making a useful contribution ..

Would you know it if I did?

 

[SelfSim]

Would you know it if I did?

Unknown .. Its a hypothetical resolvable only by yourself.
We can only wait.

 

[sjastro]

Scientific theories can never be proven nor is it automatic theories will eventually be disproven.
Many scientific theories evolve or are merged with other theories to form new theories.

An example is the "genealogy" of physics where I have reproduced the family tree from an old book I have on the history of science.
The ancient Greeks kick started physics with the philosophy of naturalism which posed questions such as the origin of matter and the motion of objects.

Note mineralogy is not a branch of physics but played a role in its development.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I kinda doubt it ever was a theory. More like a folk
belief.

Yes, it was apparently taken as '(proto)scientific' fact even before the Ancient Greeks. Although a form of hypothesis testing was established in Socratic times, some such 'facts' survived unscathed even through the scientific revolution of the 16th century. We tend to overlook things that have 'always been taken for granted' until there is some compelling reason to question them!

 

[Astrid]

Yes, it was apparently taken as '(proto)scientific' fact even before the Ancient Greeks. Although a form of hypothesis testing was established in Socratic times, some such 'facts' survived unscathed even through the scientific revolution of the 16th century. We tend to overlook things that have 'always been taken for granted' until there is some compelling reason to question them!

Lucretius describes spontaneous generation
incl single bones or leaves, in explaining fossils.

A widely accepted folk belief is not a theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Lucretius describes spontaneous generation incl single bones or leaves, in explaining fossils.

Wikipedia describes spontaneous generation as an outdated theory.

A widely accepted folk belief is not a theory.

But widely accepted folks can believe in a theory, can they not?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Welcome back @FrumiousBandersnatch! (Aside: I'm curious about whether you may have completed that Philosophy course you mentioned you were contemplating in the past?)

Thank you - I may just be visiting, I'm not sure how much time I'll have.

The last course I mentioned on here was the Philosophy of Mind course, which was very interesting - the topics involved Cartesian dualism; the problem of other minds; Behaviourism; Materialism and Functionalism; Eliminativism; the subjectivity of experience and the problem of consciousness; is the problem of consciousness a ‘hard’ problem? An insoluble one?; Non-Cartesian dualism; and Panpsychism and emergence.

That was followed by 'The philosophical foundations of Conservatism, Liberalism, and Socialism', involving topics on: the politics of inheritance; the liberalism of rights and the liberalism of utility; Liberty, laissez-faire and cooperation; Socialism, equality of condition, and creative work; Liberal socialism?: Socialism and equality of opportunity; Liberal Conservatism?; Conservatism, reason and habit; Conservatism and the politics of authority; Socialism, equality and community. Sounds dull, but was fascinating.

Parts of the essence of the old hypothesis of Spontaneous Generation are visible in modern day Origin of Life hypotheses. It also, (obviously), spurred on Pasteur etal's paradigm shifting research in the 19th Century. In that sense, it served a highly useful purpose in the development of modern day science.

Spontaneous Generation and Origin of Life have the idea of life from non-life in common, but are otherwise quite different. Also, the Origin of Life hypothesis raises fundamental questions that Spontaneous Generation can't, such as the definition of life itself.

 

[rambot]

Gravity is gravity.

It is what it is.

Whoever called it a "theory" has, in my opinion, mislabeled it.

In short, there is no "theory of gravity."

I'm not surprised you THINK it is mislabelled; you don't understand what a theory is.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not surprised you THINK it is mislabelled; you don't understand what a theory is.

A theory is a belief in something that has been supported to your satisfaction by evidence, and is pending change.

 

[rambot]

A theory is a belief in something that has been supported to your satisfaction by evidence, and is pending change.

Wow! The ENTIRE world's definition of theory has to be hinged on whether the evidence is supported to AV1611VET's satisfaction?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A theory is a belief in something that has been supported to your satisfaction by evidence, and is pending change.

Not by common definitions of theory and belief. You can believe that a theory is the best available or current explanation without believing the theory. Living with uncertainty is part of what makes a good scientist

 

[Yttrium]

A theory is a belief in something that has been supported to your satisfaction by evidence, and is pending change.

Well, you got the pending change part right, at least. That's something.

 

[Astrid]

Well, you got the pending change part right, at least. That's something.

Possibility of change. Possibility.
So no, not right.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow! The ENTIRE world's definition of theory has to be hinged on whether the evidence is supported to AV1611VET's satisfaction?

Do you see my name in there?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, you got the pending change part right, at least. That's something.

Did I go too far when I said it's something you believe?

 

[rambot]

A theory is a belief in something that has been supported to your satisfaction by evidence, and is pending change.

Do you see my name in there?

Well, I assume the "your" was communal and not just MINE. I mean, what if I haven't studied the area of expertise? Why should my opinion count at ALL?

 

[AV1611VET]

Possibility of change. Possibility.
So no, not right.

Then how does this sound:

A theory is a belief in something that has been supported to your satisfaction by evidence, and is anticipating change.