[Phys-L] Re: Bad Theory?

[Matt Jusinski <mjusinski@YAHOO.COM>]

What if science adopted a new, numerical framework to
rate the success of its ideas and explanations for
phenomena?  Throw out the confusing utterances of
"law," "theory," "hypothesis, "and "educated guess."

Perhaps a five-tier scale could be used to rate a
concept.  The most successful ideas get fives.
Newton's Laws, Maxwell, and Relativity are all tier 5
ideas.   Any idea, no matter how poorly supported,
gets a one. As an idea gets repeated observational and
experimental confirmations, it moves up the scale.

Evolution has many profound confirmations from
molecular biology, but these don't work well with the
public.  Perhaps if scientists assigned a Tier 5 to
Evolution, a wider public could have a clearer reason
to accept this idea.  Intelligent Design gets a one.
Another example may help.  In the last 20 years,
extraterrestrial explanations of dinosaur extinctions
gained wider acceptance.   In this framework, the big
meteorite explanation is now up to a Tier 3 or Tier 4
idea.

Matt Jusinski,   Morris Hills Regional District,
Rockaway, NJ

/******************************************/

--- John Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG> wrote:

> > 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-
> > belief"
> Actually theories can not be even compared to laws
> because laws are
> 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
> Houston, TX
>
>
>
> > is wrong because it is a BAD theory.
> >
> > My argument is that there really is no such thing
> as a "bad theory".  To
> > put
> > 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".




__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l