An illustration of the "theory" deception (I think)

[JohnStOnge]

You know how, during certian discussions, you hear the claim that something being a "theory" means that it's so well established in science that it might as well be considered fact. Well, consider this:

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/vs.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You've got competing theories. Both meet the standards for being considered theory, but they are different. Are fundamental constituents of matter particles or are they strings? And what are we to make, in light of the claims that saying that something is a "theory" means that it's been established with virtually unquestionable certainty, of the fact that there are different theories as to the fundamental constituents of matter?

Hopefully you can see what I'm getting at.

[BlueHen86]

You know how, during certian discussions, you hear the claim that something being a "theory" means that it's so well established in science that it might as well be considered fact. Well, consider this:

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/vs.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You've got competing theories. Both meet the standards for being considered theory, but they are different. Are fundamental constituents of matter particles or are they strings? And what are we to make, in light of the claims that saying that something is a "theory" means that it's been established with virtually unquestionable certainty, of the fact that there are different theories as to the fundamental constituents of matter?

Hopefully you can see what I'm getting at.

I disagree. Some theories may be so well established as to be considered fact, but many theories are not. It's up to the presenter to be accurate in their description of the theory and it's up to the listener to pay attention.

I seem to recall some physicists stating that string theory isn't really theory, but more of a philosophy. I don't keep track, has something changed?

[SuperHornet]

I haven't heard anything lately presenting string theory in that vein, 86. That, of course, does not mean that it hasn't happened. But I would accept your first paragraph.

[JohnStOnge]

I disagree. Some theories may be so well established as to be considered fact, but many theories are not. It's up to the presenter to be accurate in their description of the theory and it's up to the listener to pay attention.

I agree with you. As I have argued in the past, there are different certainty levels. But people do use the argument that "theory" essentially means etched in stone. The approach is particularly common in discussions of the overall theory of evolution. I recall that there have been a number of occasions involving this message board and others where people have taken that approach and I have argued that there are different levels of certainty and that the overall theory of evolution (which I do believe is true) is not established at the highest level of certainty.