Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
And as we have discussed before, the word
"theory" is a booby-trap. It has two meanings.
A "mere theory" means speculation; this meaning
has been around for thousands of years. At the
other extreme, scientists use the word "theory"
to mean a grand collection of rules / laws /
formulas / whatever, giving a coherent view of
a subject.
We ought to find or invent a new word for the
latter meaning, to prevent unnecessary confusion
among non-scientists.
Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
This is true for a THEORY. But what about a model?
A model, I think, is acceptable even if it is not able to
agree with all known facts.
Whoa, be careful. Remember:
"No theory should fit all the facts,
because some of the facts are wrong."
-- attributed to Fritz Zwicky
There are rules, laws, formulas, equations,
principles, equalities, identities, et cetera.
I don't see much point in drawing fine
distinctions among these concepts.
A model is acceptable if its predictions agree with
facts not explainable by existing theories and
models. It is not as good as a theory but it is better
than nothing. I would say that a model is a
hypothesis, not a theory. Right or wrong?
It depends. Some models are well-nigh exact.
Some models are quite sketchy, qualitative,
and/or hypothetical. There's a continuum.
To my ears, calling something a model doesn't
imply much about where it sits on this continuum.