|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]|
Actually theories can not be even compared to laws because laws are
The thing that got me a little angry was one of the statements made on the
radio. It stated something along the lines that the teaching of "X-
relationships between variables that have been found by experiments. They
used to say that theories started as hypotheses and ended up as laws, all of
which is complete nonsense.
Laws can be universal, but also can be limited to specific circumstances.
As evidence see Boyle's Law, Charles' Law, Newton's Laws. Now this usage is
not always obeyed, but in general it stands up.
Theories then provide a framework for understanding the laws, but also
provide a method for hypothesizing new laws. Laws also do not have to have
an explanation, but can just be the relationship. Usually however, they
need to be applicable to a wide variety of circumstances such as the laws
that apply to ideal gasses.
The general public and most commentators have not been educated in the fine
distinctions between beliefs, facts, laws, theories, hypotheses... So it is
no wonder they get it wrong. In addition the science texts still promote
some of the inconsistent definitions.
John M. Clement
is wrong because it is a BAD theory.
My argument is that there really is no such thing as a "bad theory". To
the two words together, "bad" and "theory"...is bad! :-) What makes a
theory good or bad? Isn't a theory, just a theory...nothing good or bad
about it? The way they were using the word "theory", it was as if they
equated it to "law".