This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Sociology Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Epistemology / Logic / Science B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Epistemology Logic Philosophy of science

Science Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive: creation - end of 2008

I removed this section, which read:

The term theory is regularly stretched to refer to speculation that is currently unverifiable. Examples are string theory and various theories of everything. In the strict sense, the term theory should only be used when describing a model derived from experimental evidence and is provable (or disprovable). It is considered sufficient for the model to be in principle testable at some undetermined point in the future.

This is wrong for many reasons:

1. just about every new theory is not verified when it is proposed (and cannot be with the evidence available at that moment) - how could it be, if it's something really new? So when it's first proposed it's always "currently unverifiable".

2. string theory is not really one theory - it's a collection of theories - and some of those are verifiable as soon as the particle accelerator the Large Hadron Collider starts up, which will be soon (would be now if it wasn't for an engineering problem), and some others are verifiable using cosmological data right now. That's about as currently verifiable as you can get. Same goes for some other TOES.

3. the claim is that "currently verifiable" is the accepted definition of scientific theory, but that's just not the case. The Popperian definition of scientific theory, which is probably the best one, is NOT that at theory be verifiable, it's that a theory be falsifiable. All versions of string theory could be falsified tomorrow, in quite a few different ways (e.g. by observing violations of fundamental Lorentz invariance, violations of general relativity, etc.). Same goes for any TOE that's sufficiently fleshed out.

4. no theory can every be truly "verified" - one can have very high confidence in it, but it can never be proven. In fact if any theory was every truly proven it would no longer be falsifiable, and hence not science.

If someone wants to resurrect that section, it should be done using an accepted definition (such as Popper's), and with references.

Accepted by whom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.153.165 (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something published somewhere would be a start. Then if there's an extant debate it can be mentioned, linked to, maybe discussed, etc. Making up definitions, applying them to something, and presenting the results as facts on wiki is not acceptable.Waleswatcher (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in passing I found this old spelling for Theory, "5. Thoeory of arches and pontypridd;..." in www.amazon.ca. The pamphlet was written c.1750. I didn't want to add it to the article unless it truly added to the article. Seth Whales (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is evolution listed as a theory? Isn't it considered a fact? (viz., this) --BiT (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under 'Usage', the article states: In casual speech scientists don't use the term theory in a particularly precise fashion, allowing historical accidents to determine whether a given body of scientific work is called a theory, law, principle or something else. For instance Einstein's relativity is usually called "the theory of relativity" while Newton's theory of gravity often is called "the law of gravity."

However the final paragraph of the article asserts: Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[9] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. 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.

Either the difference between a theory of science and a law of science is an arbitrary historical accident based on scientists' preferred use of language at the time, or it is not. This article says it both ways, quite baldly, without using the references that assert one position to balance the references that assert the other. The final paragraph also seems to be hanging there out of context - is there an argument for combining the final paragraph with the 'usage' section to compare and contrast, in a more useful way, different approaches to the understanding of the difference (or lack of it) between a 'theory' and a 'law'? Riversider (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My other (much more fundamental) problem with this article is that it has been hi-jacked by the task of defining 'Theory' in terms of science. It would more properly be named 'Theory in Science' as the word 'theory' is used in many other ways, and many other contexts - there are multiple 'Theories' out there, but only a small percentage fit the definition of a 'scientific theory'. For the whole article to concern itself with this small percentage of theories, without overtly confining it's title to these specific theories is actually a form of 'linguistic imperialism', and gives a distorted picture of the meaning and usage of the concept of 'Theory' in environments wider than the scientific community, many of which should justifiably be included in an encyclopedia aiming to document the 'sum of human knowledge'. Really there needs to be several articles, which also need to be added to the disambiguation page: Theory in Science (will psychological theories fit in here?), Political Theory, Philosophical theory (and Praxis (process) how theory is related to practice), Theology (theories about God), the Theories which attach themselves to particular socially constructed practises, such as Nursing theory and awkward little theories like aesthetics (art theory) etc. There's even a case for Driving Theory - thousands of people do the Theory test in this every week. As the article stands, it in no way provides an explanation of 'theory' big enough to encompass all these various fields of theory, which I might justifiably expect to find in an article with such a mind-blowingly broad title as 'Theory'. It will make editor's job easier, and make the article much more precise and useful, if we confine it to 'Theory in Science', and use the disambiguation page to direct people to other species of Theory. Riversider (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support For one, the role and meaning of theory in science is such a notable and encyclopedic topic that it deserves a separate article in my opinion. See Brittanica, for example. Or evolution as a theory and fact. For two, the discussion of scientific theory really overtakes this article and the article would flow better with a summary style and a more balanced perspective of what theory means in various contexts. Some more opinions on the name would be good. I like "theory in science" but we also have a scientific theory article which redirects here, and probably fits more with our naming conventions. I do like the broader and more philosophical implications of "theory in science" though. Phil153 (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The article defines too much and only proceeds to muddy the issue. Theory should not be as ambiguous as it is presented in the article. The sub-definitions only lead to confusion.--Buster7 (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Semi support capitalization of "Science"? Shouldn't that be theory in science? 76.66.193.90 (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]