Re: Explaining explain

[Mark Sylvester <msylvest@spin.it>]

Bob Sciamanda writes:
> I would also drop the word "theory" in favor of the word "model".  The word
> theory connotes a candidate for some absolute, objective "truth"; whereas a
> model is used to convey useful information without the pretense of being
> unique, complete or ultimate - in physics it is a useful way of describing
> reality in human terms.  This is the burden of paper of mine in Nov/Dec 1996
> Quantum.  It is reproduced @ http://www.edinboro.edu/~sciamanda/prelude.html
>
> -Bob

I must say I experience the opposite problem with the word "theory". People
tend to use it to mean "opposed to the facts", as in "That's all very well
in theory, but..." This is reinforced when they hear that the "Theory of
Relativity" proposes all sorts of uncommonsensical ideas about time and
space. What else would one expect of a theory?

On a more informed level, I have come across subtle distinctions between
"theory" and "model". I have the impression that a "model" is the basic
physical picture on which a "theory" may rest. "wave model", "particle
model", "Bohr model", "nuclear model of the atom"...   Is this the
impression of others?

A friend with whom I have discussed philosophy of science at length
maintains that we should reserve the word "law" for empirical laws
(Kepler's, Boyles, ...) as means of clarifying the distinction between
theories (as explanatory structures) and laws (as empirical facts, if one
may dare use the word). In these terms we should refer to Newton's
*Theories* of motion and gravity.

Mark.

Mark Sylvester
United World College of the Adriatic
34013 Duino TS
Italy.
msylvest@spin.it
tel: +39 49 3739 255