What is theory?

[MagusAlbertus]

Theories are abstractions of the relationships between concepts that are only indirectly-measurable, while hypothesis are the more concrete understanding of the world derived from empirical evidence and link that which is measurable to that which is not. Without some level of indirect-measurement required there is no need for a theory, we would simply have fact.

This means that theory is not something verifiable through observation, but a systematic method of understanding complex reality in a way that is parsimoniously comprehensible. If competing theories have also yet to be disproved then there is no 'right' theory, only a trade off between utility and falsifiability -> the more general the theory, the less well it is defined concretely through variables and hypothesis -> the better it is at abstracting reality and the worse it is at being falsifiable.

It is a multidimensional abstraction of reality that, while useful for explanation and at some point empirically disprovable, must reside at some level of abstraction and thus make trade offs between its usefulness and dis-provability.

The point being that a "theory" is neither a super-hypothesis nor is it a half-witted conjecture. Both God and macro evolution are theories on this spectrum and only contradict when someone wants them to.

 

[philadiddle]

Where are you getting your definitions from?

 

[Cabal]

Where are you getting your definitions from?

Seconded.

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

Comparing evolution with God as if both were abstractions is flawed. Abstraction and theory is not the same thing either. A theory doesn't have to be empirical, and Christian theology shouldn't be, that's for sure. Man did not discover or create God. God created man, and God revealed Himself to man.

Evolution is an abstraction or a hypothetical-rational framework, but God is neither abstraction or theory.

 

[philadiddle]

Evolution is an abstraction or a hypothetical-rational framework

Only an abstraction? Have you read about evolution at all?

 

[shernren]

Only an abstraction? Have you read about evolution at all?

Well, evolution is real, but not in the sense that a rock or a squirrel or you or I am real. Niko's correct to say that evolution is an abstraction. A very sensible and strongly-supported abstraction, of course, but an abstraction nonetheless.

Philosophical clarity is paramount in this area.

 

[mark kennedy]

Theories are abstractions of the relationships between concepts that are only indirectly-measurable, while hypothesis are the more concrete understanding of the world derived from empirical evidence and link that which is measurable to that which is not. Without some level of indirect-measurement required there is no need for a theory, we would simply have fact.

This means that theory is not something verifiable through observation, but a systematic method of understanding complex reality in a way that is parsimoniously comprehensible. If competing theories have also yet to be disproved then there is no 'right' theory, only a trade off between utility and falsifiability -> the more general the theory, the less well it is defined concretely through variables and hypothesis -> the better it is at abstracting reality and the worse it is at being falsifiable.

It is a multidimensional abstraction of reality that, while useful for explanation and at some point empirically disprovable, must reside at some level of abstraction and thus make trade offs between its usefulness and dis-provability.

The point being that a "theory" is neither a super-hypothesis nor is it a half-witted conjecture. Both God and macro evolution are theories on this spectrum and only contradict when someone wants them to.

My favorite example of how a theory works is Sir Issac Newton. He does his experimentum crucis for the Royal Society in London demonstrating that light is composed of 7 colors. They way I get it he had to get to the crucial experiment or experimentum crucis making it a valid theory. Unlike the law of gravity light has never really been reduced to a law of science since it too inconsistent. That's how facts are assembled to the point of becoming a theory as far as I can tell.

Thats all I have got.

Grace and peace,
Mark