Originally posted by WajomaYou seem to misunderstand the word "theory".
Science follows two streams - theory and experiment.
AGW is still theory.
A theory is the highest scientific truth. It is a cohesive explanation of a huge number of observations and experiments.
Yes, there is theoretical chemistry and theoretical physics (and biology), but these are based on sound scientific experimental work.
AGW is still theory
So is gravity, thermodynamics, evolution and a host of others. They can never be any more than a theory. A theory is the highest, the best, the most sure.
Originally posted by UllrTrue, but the frequency of these events has went up.
Of course there is no proof that this flooding has anything to do with global warming. If anyone wants to argue that it does then how would one explain why this level of flooding occurred in Britain 60 years ago?
For the record I don't deny that global warming is occurring nor that humans are at least partially the cause of it. I just think the doomsday pr ...[text shortened]... l warming are common sense and have side benefits, such as reduced energy consumption, as well.
For example, especially the graph at the top of the page;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extreme_weather_events
Originally posted by MacSwainActually, they generally don't. The "global cooling" myth is just that, a myth. It was NEVER considered mainstream science, and was more an invention of the popular press than anything real.
This article simply lists articles that were printed concerning "Warming" and "Cooling" over the past 110 years. All these articles were actually printed by major newspapers and magazines of the time. The articles REFLECT SCIENTIFIC DATA AT THE TIME THEY WERE PRINTED.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643
Originally posted by scottishinnzSay someone comes up with a theory, eg planetary orbits are eliptical, it remains a theory until proven by experiment.
You seem to misunderstand the word "theory".
A theory is the highest scientific truth. It is a cohesive explanation of a huge number of observations and experiments.
Yes, there is theoretical chemistry and theoretical physics (and biology), but these are based on sound scientific experimental work.
[b]AGW is still theory
So is gravity, ...[text shortened]... They can never be any more than a theory. A theory is the highest, the best, the most sure.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaThat's an idea, or at best a hypothesis (if it's based on observation), not a theory.
Say someone comes up with a theory, eg planetary orbits are eliptical, it remains a theory until proven by experiment.
Do not confuse the popular meaning of the word (i.e. a synonym for "idea" ) with the scientific meaning (i.e. an idea which has been repeatedly tested, never disproven, and describes, with predictive power, a large body of data). In the case of Climate Change, that body of data rests at around 29,000 observations in the IPCC report.
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotDo you mean to say hypothetical?
'theoretical'.
I don't know why this is so difficult for everyone, I had assumed it was known.
What you seem to think of as "theory" is actually hypothesis, or hypothetical. A potential explanation of events. If this explanation holds up to scrutiny, it is developed into a theory in order to make predictions.
http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.html
This table, despite its humour is actually quite accurate when it comes to how science is performed. First there is an idea, which is what is called by scientists a hypothesis, and by you a theory. That idea is tested and if found to agree with experiments gets developed into a theory, note that it is the highest one can get.
(the idea of "laws" is actually a flawed victorian idea, since cast out by science philosphy, no laws have been declared since the 1800's, even Newtons "laws" are found to break down at high speeds for instance, it's a quaint idea which still seems to cause a lot of confusion)
It also points out the crucial idea of falsifiability, no matter how many experiments are conducted, a theory can never be any more than a theory, but it takes just ONE contradictory experimental result to cast doubt on the entire theory.
I do wish you guys would read the definition of words before you used them, it would save a lot of confusion.
Now, any links to such contradictory evidence? (Remember to cross reference it with page 7 & 8 of the consensus thread, many potential candidates have already been struck down, no need to repeat ourselves.)
Originally posted by agrysonwhy do y'all keep complaining about usage of common usage in a chess forum?
Do you mean to say hypothetical?
I don't know why this is so difficult for everyone, I had assumed it was known.
What you seem to think of as "[b]theory" is actually hypothesis, or hypothetical. A potential explanation of events. If this explanation holds up to scrutiny, it is developed into a theory in order to make predictions.
http ...[text shortened]... many potential candidates have already been struck down, no need to repeat ourselves.)[/b]
---
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theoretic
Adjective
theoretic
1. concerned with theories or hypotheses rather than with practical matters
2. existing only in theory, not proven in reality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Theory
The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.
In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.
Originally posted by zeeblebotbecause the common usage and the scientific usage are being considered inter-changeable, which by merit of your own definitions (the first, according to the OED at least is actually flawed) is not the case.
why do y'all keep complaining about usage of common usage in a chess forum?
People are referring to AGW theory as "just a theory" whereas if we were to translate the scientific definition into common parlance, it is actually the "fact of AGW"
That is why it is so important to use the right definitions, which apparently has not been the case.
Originally posted by scottishinnznot necessarily repeatedly tested, not necessarily never disproven, etc. etc.
That's an idea, or at best a hypothesis (if it's based on observation), not a theory.
Do not confuse the popular meaning of the word (i.e. a synonym for "idea" ) with the scientific meaning (i.e. an idea which has been repeatedly tested, never disproven, and describes, with predictive power, a large body of data). In the case of Climate Change, that body of data rests at around 29,000 observations in the IPCC report.
Originally posted by agrysonnot to the degree to which you, et al, are using "theory" as a synonym for "fact".
because the common usage and the scientific usage are being considered inter-changeable, which by merit of your own definitions (the first, according to the OED at least is actually flawed) is not the case.
People are referring to AGW theory as "just a theory" whereas if we were to translate the scientific definition into common parlance, it is actually th ...[text shortened]... why it is so important to use the right definitions, which apparently has not been the case.
www.m-w.com
Theory
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
This statement by Stephen Schneider, a leading prophet of man-made climate warming, puts things in perspective and shows just how UN-scientific proponents of this ridiculous theory can be:
"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance
between being effective, and being honest."
http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm
Originally posted by SpastiGovFine, then don't believe a word this Stephen Schneider says, looks like a case of pot and kettle if you ask me, considering how you lied about posting a peer reviewed paper.
This statement by Stephen Schneider, a leading prophet of man-made climate warming, puts things in perspective and shows just how UN-scientific proponents of this ridiculous theory can be:
"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Ea ...[text shortened]... balance
between being effective, and being honest."
http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm
2 edits
Originally posted by zeeblebotMerrriam webster lists hypothesis as a synonym for theory, look it up. That's just wrong. Having done courses in philosphy of science, and being a scientist myself, there is a very important difference between the two. Also, there is a crossover between theory and fact.
not to the degree to which you, et al, are using "theory" as a synonym for "fact".
www.m-w.com
Theory
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as ...[text shortened]... ption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
Hypothesis: Gives an explanation of the facts.
Theory: Gives an explanation of the facts AND predicts future facts
"Testing a hypothesis" is the first step to making it a theory. I'm afraid I don't have an online pass for the Oxford Dictionary, but if you do, know someone who does, or have a paper version, look it up.
As for theory being thought of as fact, well, it is for good reason. Think of gravity we know what it does in the general case only due to theory, that's a fact, and so is gravity. Thermodynamics is the same. I don't need to have done an experiment showing that you will fall at the same speed as a lump of lead the same mass. I did it with two other masses, theorise that there's no real difference for all intents and purposes, and can thus state AS FACT that you will fall at the same speed as a lump of lead of the same mass. That's the point, I can't do that with a hypothesis.
The reason we can never rise above theory incidentally is because we cannot perform an experiment everywhere at all times, and so are forced to call it a theory rather than a law, we don't do it because there's an uncertainty as to the theories validity.