Inference and its role in NS (General)

by dhw, Saturday, January 15, 2011, 13:04 (5059 days ago) @ xeno6696

dhw: I don't understand why scientific theory should be differently defined from any other kind of theory ... i.e. a set of ideas which explains certain facets of reality but the truth of which has not been proved.
 
MATT: a scientific theory is NOT what you describe here [which is what I'm complaining about] but is "an explanation that has been repeatedly verified".-You distinguish between this and a hypothesis, which you say corresponds to my definition and is NOT a theory. You go on to define theory as "literally ... the best explanation that anyone has come up with that describes the greatest portion of the data. (Not all.)" So if we set the big bang theory against, say, the theory of an endlessly expanding and contracting universe, or a universe that has existed for ever, or a multiverse, not only does someone have to have the authority to say which is the best, but by your definition, only one of them can be a theory and the rest, presumably, must be hypotheses. Who decides? Your response to Romansh suggests to me that a hypothesis is the early stages of a theory, and I would simply add that the distinction between the two is blurred.-You say "what the public doesn't get is the transitory nature of a theory", and you have consistently emphasized that science is "not about finding final answers to questions." I agree and have already questioned "finality" on the epistemology thread, in response to your definition of "transferable knowledge" as "a final state of information", but I would say that science IS about finding answers to questions. If, as you say, a scientific theory is an explanation or answer that has been repeatedly verified (which means demonstrated to be true), but is only transitory, then clearly the verification process is faulty, and the explanation has not been proved. Let me, then, repeat my layman's definition of a theory: "a set of ideas which explains certain facets of reality but the truth of which has not been proved." This sounds to me just like your definition of a scientific theory.-While you castigate the ignorant public for its naivete, I would suggest that it's scientists themselves ... not all, of course ... who foster the notion that their theories carry the weight of scientific authority: they have after all been "repeatedly verified". So it's only when their transitoriness, fallibility, inaccuracy etc. are actually exposed that suddenly the term theory reverts to its normal layman's meaning. In other words, I'm suggesting that scientific theory is the same as ordinary theory, and if the public doesn't "get its transitory nature", that is because it frequently suits the experts on one particular theoretical bandwagon to ignore or even in some extreme cases cover up the transitoriness until it becomes too obvious to hide.