Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Sounds like someone might have been talking about the theories
ordinarily referred to as Newtonian Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics.

No, he appeared to be referring to all theories:

"Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't."

If you think that is incorrect, it should be easy for you to name
a theory that was validated by multiple, indendent, reproducible,
experiments and later discarded.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote in news:luwci.4098$bP5.4094
@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net:

Jim Higgins wrote:
Cecil seems to be annoyed by the Scientific Method because at some
point there are competing theories and all can't be correct. Of
course! That's how science works!

Jim, I'm annoyed at people who assert that scientific
theories are never wrong and are simply a subset of
something that is more correct.

Those who do are definitely not using the scientific method, are
they?

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Sounds like someone might have been talking about the theories
ordinarily referred to as Newtonian Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics.

No, he appeared to be referring to all theories:

"Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't."

And, I'd say that his statement is true, almost by definition.

Why? Well, it's because scientists don't upgrade a proposal from
something generally called a "hypothesis", to something called a
"theory", until it has survived quite a lot of technical challenges
and numerous attempts to find experimental evidence which disproves it.

In other words, if it were easy (and quick) to disprove it, or if it
didn't have substantial predictive power and verifiability, it never
would have been called a "theory".

Hypotheses are born in large numbers... and are often easily slain
while they're still at the "hypothesis" stage. "Theories" are the
ones which are still marching along, churning out useful predictions,
after many assaults.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote in news:FZDci.98$Rw1.80
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

Jim Higgins wrote:
And you can name those people ... and refer to a message where
this can be verified?

Don't want to name names but here is the assertion with
which I have been disagreeing:

"Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't."


No one is prevented from holding a theory that is wrong, so the statement
is more or less true. There are flat earthers around yet, and I wouldn't
be surprised if we could dig up someone who believes in Phlogiston theory
yet. There is no law that says we have to be right! ;^)

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Water burns!
 

wrote:

...
If you think that is incorrect, it should be easy for you to name
a theory that was validated by multiple, indendent, reproducible,
experiments and later discarded.



Just to get you started, mind you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolet...tific_theories

JS

Water burns!
 

wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
"Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't."

If you think that is incorrect, it should be easy for you to name
a theory that was validated by multiple, indendent, reproducible,
experiments and later discarded.

The theory that independent organisms smaller than 1 um
are impossible has recently been discarded. Up until they
identified a 10 nm independent organism, that theory was
validated multiple times.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim, I'm annoyed at people who assert that scientific
theories are never wrong and are simply a subset of
something that is more correct.

Those who do are definitely not using the scientific method, are
they?

Well, let's take an example. There was a theory that
the smallest independent organism couldn't be smaller
than ~1 um. Using the scientific method, no organism
smaller than that was discovered for decades.
Now we have apparently discovered an independent
organism 50 times smaller than the theory allowed.
Was the theory right or wrong?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
"Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't."

No one is prevented from holding a theory that is wrong, so the statement
is more or less true. There are flat earthers around yet, and I wouldn't
be surprised if we could dig up someone who believes in Phlogiston theory
yet. There is no law that says we have to be right! ;^)

Well, that shines a whole new light on the discussion.
Theories are never discarded even when they are proved
to be incorrect. I think I understand now.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote in news:luwci.4098$bP5.4094
@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net:

Jim Higgins wrote:
Cecil seems to be annoyed by the Scientific Method because at some
point there are competing theories and all can't be correct. Of
course! That's how science works!
Jim, I'm annoyed at people who assert that scientific
theories are never wrong and are simply a subset of
something that is more correct.

Those who do are definitely not using the scientific method, are
they?

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

The most vilest lie is sometimes successful--IF it contains at least one
element of truth, least it be recognized for what it is and discarded
immediately.

JS

Water burns!
 

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...
If you think that is incorrect, it should be easy for you to name
a theory that was validated by multiple, indendent, reproducible,
experiments and later discarded.



Just to get you started, mind you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolet...tific_theories

Let's do the physics ones:

Aristotelian theory of gravity: no experimental confirmation; discarded.

Classical mechanics: experimentally verified; superseded and still used
within appropriate boundaries.

Classical electrodynamics: experimentally verified; superceded and still
used within appropriate boundaries.

Ether: no experimental confirmation; discarded.

Caloric theory: no experimental confirmation; discarded.

Emitter theory: no experimental confirmation; discarded.

Persistence of vision: no experimental confirmation; still debated.

Let's do astronomical and cosmological theories:

Ptolemaic system/Geocentric universe: no experimental confirmation;
discarded.

Copernican system: no experimental confirmation; discarded.

Newtonian gravity: experimentally verified; superseded and still used
within appropriate boundaries.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.