George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> writes:

> Calling something a 'theory' requires that there be evidence to
> support the idea, and that more evidence supports it than refutes
> it.

This statement is at odds with widely used dictionaries, common
contemporary usage, historical usage, usage seen in newspapers
and magazines, and also how scientists frequently use the term.

The distinction I think you're trying to make is between an
untestable (or perhaps untested) theory, and a testable (or
perhaps tested) theory. It isn't at all unusual for scientists
to use the word "theory" to refer to an untested theory, or
sometimes even an untestable theory. The important difference
is that they understand that there is a difference.

Tim Rentsch wrote:
> George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> Calling something a 'theory' requires that there be evidence to
>> support the idea, and that more evidence supports it than refutes
>> it.
>
> This statement is at odds with widely used dictionaries, common
> contemporary usage, historical usage, usage seen in newspapers
> and magazines, and also how scientists frequently use the term.
>
> The distinction I think you're trying to make is between an
> untestable (or perhaps untested) theory, and a testable (or
> perhaps tested) theory. It isn't at all unusual for scientists
> to use the word "theory" to refer to an untested theory, or
> sometimes even an untestable theory. The important difference
> is that they understand that there is a difference.
>
At least in Norwegian, the proper term is "hypothese", i.e. an idea
which might be correct but doesn't have enough (experimental) evidence
to turn it into a theory.

Terje

--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

On 18/06/2021 08:17, Terje Mathisen wrote:
> Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>>> Calling something a 'theory' requires that there be evidence to
>>> support the idea, and that more evidence supports it than refutes
>>> it.

If there is /any/ valid evidence that refutes the idea, it is not a
theory. You only need to find one single brick that falls upwards to
refute the Newtonian theory of gravity.

>>
>> This statement is at odds with widely used dictionaries, common
>> contemporary usage, historical usage, usage seen in newspapers
>> and magazines, and also how scientists frequently use the term.
>>
>> The distinction I think you're trying to make is between an
>> untestable (or perhaps untested) theory, and a testable (or
>> perhaps tested) theory.  It isn't at all unusual for scientists
>> to use the word "theory" to refer to an untested theory, or
>> sometimes even an untestable theory.  The important difference
>> is that they understand that there is a difference.
>>

(It is a little odd that Tim complains about one off-topic thread with a
whacko ideas from this OP, and then posts to resurrect another long-dead
thread of the same quality and topicality.)

> At least in Norwegian, the proper term is "hypothese", i.e. an idea
> which might be correct but doesn't have enough (experimental) evidence
> to turn it into a theory.
>

(That reminds me of our famous linguistic expert, Petter Solberg, who
said "I don't know what you call it in English, but in Norway we call it
"air conditioning")

When talking about a scientific theory (the word "theory" is used in
many contexts), there are several generally accepted requirements:

1. It should be falsifiable - it must be possible to use evidence to
demonstrate that the theory is incorrect.

2. It must be consistent with existing evidence, and normally also with
existing theories (subject to "extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence").

3. It must make predictions that can be tested.

4. The evidence (such as experiments) supporting the theory must be
repeatable and should come from multiple sources.

5. It should be at least as good as other established theories at
explaining, predicting and calculating results and evidence.

A "scientific hypothesis" does not require evidence - but it /does/
require the hope or hypothetical possibility of getting evidence.
Basically it is like a theory, but you haven't got enough evidence to
justify it yet, and your predictions can't be tested yet.

So no, Rick's ideas are not nearly up to the standard of scientific
hypotheses, never mind scientific theories. I'm not sure what the
correct term is here - "idea", "bad science fiction book plot",
"religious dogma". Certainly the scientific method is conspicuous in
its absence.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 17:55:02 -0700, Tim Rentsch
<tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:

>George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> Calling something a 'theory' requires that there be evidence to
>> support the idea, and that more evidence supports it than refutes
>> it.
>
>This statement is at odds with widely used dictionaries, common
>contemporary usage, historical usage, usage seen in newspapers
>and magazines, and also how scientists frequently use the term.

It certain is /not/ at odds with how scientists use the term - the
definition of 'theory' used by scientists requires factual evidence.

>The distinction I think you're trying to make is between an
>untestable (or perhaps untested) theory, and a testable (or
>perhaps tested) theory. It isn't at all unusual for scientists
>to use the word "theory" to refer to an untested theory, or
>sometimes even an untestable theory. The important difference
>is that they understand that there is a difference.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/difference-between-hypothesis-and-theory-usage

An idea with no supporting evidence is called a 'hypothesis'.

You are correct that there exist "untested" and so-called "untestable"
theories. These exist somewhere between 'hypothesis' and 'theory'
because they /do/ have mathematical support, but as yet lack factual
evidentiary support because they have not been tested (perhaps because
technology to test them does not yet exist).

Unfortunately, there is no widely agreed upon term for these things,
so because they have /some/ support, they get lumped in with 'theory'.

YMMV,
George

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 09:24:28 +0200, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

>On 18/06/2021 08:17, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>> Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>> George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> Calling something a 'theory' requires that there be evidence to
>>>> support the idea, and that more evidence supports it than refutes
>>>> it.
>
>If there is /any/ valid evidence that refutes the idea, it is not a
>theory. You only need to find one single brick that falls upwards to
>refute the Newtonian theory of gravity.

Quantum physics disputes Newton, but Newton works well enough in the
domain of "large" objects to remain in use ... but only for that
domain.

>> At least in Norwegian, the proper term is "hypothese", i.e. an idea
>> which might be correct but doesn't have enough (experimental) evidence
>> to turn it into a theory.
>
>(That reminds me of our famous linguistic expert, Petter Solberg, who
>said "I don't know what you call it in English, but in Norway we call it
>"air conditioning")

When I was in England, they called it "the box that sits in the window
and spits out cold air".

>When talking about a scientific theory (the word "theory" is used in
>many contexts), there are several generally accepted requirements:
>
>1. It should be falsifiable - it must be possible to use evidence to
>demonstrate that the theory is incorrect.
>
>2. It must be consistent with existing evidence, and normally also with
>existing theories (subject to "extraordinary claims require
>extraordinary evidence").
>
>3. It must make predictions that can be tested.
>
>4. The evidence (such as experiments) supporting the theory must be
>repeatable and should come from multiple sources.
>
>5. It should be at least as good as other established theories at
>explaining, predicting and calculating results and evidence.
>
>
>A "scientific hypothesis" does not require evidence - but it /does/
>require the hope or hypothetical possibility of getting evidence.
>Basically it is like a theory, but you haven't got enough evidence to
>justify it yet, and your predictions can't be tested yet.

Yes, I /partially/ addressed this in my reply to Tim. Both "untested"
(as yet) and (for now) "untestable" theories really ought to be called
something different ... but instead they have modifying adjectives.

But the /real/ problem still is that too many people think any old
idea can be counted as a 'theory', and most free online dictionaries
do little or nothing to discourage this notion.

YMMV,
George

On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-5, George Neuner wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 09:24:28 +0200, David Brown
> <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
> >On 18/06/2021 08:17, Terje Mathisen wrote:
> >> Tim Rentsch wrote:
> >>> George Neuner <gneu...@comcast.net> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Calling something a 'theory' requires that there be evidence to
> >>>> support the idea, and that more evidence supports it than refutes
> >>>> it.
> >
> >If there is /any/ valid evidence that refutes the idea, it is not a
> >theory. You only need to find one single brick that falls upwards to
> >refute the Newtonian theory of gravity.
> Quantum physics disputes Newton, but Newton works well enough in the
> domain of "large" objects to remain in use ... but only for that
> domain.
<
Quantum physics, when observed at macro scales, agrees perfectly with
Newtonian physics.
<
> >> At least in Norwegian, the proper term is "hypothese", i.e. an idea
> >> which might be correct but doesn't have enough (experimental) evidence
> >> to turn it into a theory.
> >
> >(That reminds me of our famous linguistic expert, Petter Solberg, who
> >said "I don't know what you call it in English, but in Norway we call it
> >"air conditioning")
> When I was in England, they called it "the box that sits in the window
> and spits out cold air".
> >When talking about a scientific theory (the word "theory" is used in
> >many contexts), there are several generally accepted requirements:
> >
> >1. It should be falsifiable - it must be possible to use evidence to
> >demonstrate that the theory is incorrect.
> >
> >2. It must be consistent with existing evidence, and normally also with
> >existing theories (subject to "extraordinary claims require
> >extraordinary evidence").
> >
> >3. It must make predictions that can be tested.
> >
> >4. The evidence (such as experiments) supporting the theory must be
> >repeatable and should come from multiple sources.
> >
> >5. It should be at least as good as other established theories at
> >explaining, predicting and calculating results and evidence.
> >
> >
> >A "scientific hypothesis" does not require evidence - but it /does/
> >require the hope or hypothetical possibility of getting evidence.
> >Basically it is like a theory, but you haven't got enough evidence to
> >justify it yet, and your predictions can't be tested yet.
> Yes, I /partially/ addressed this in my reply to Tim. Both "untested"
> (as yet) and (for now) "untestable" theories really ought to be called
> something different ... but instead they have modifying adjectives.
>
> But the /real/ problem still is that too many people think any old
> idea can be counted as a 'theory', and most free online dictionaries
> do little or nothing to discourage this notion.
>
> YMMV,
> George

On 6/18/2021 9:23 AM, MitchAlsup wrote:
> On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-5, George Neuner wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 09:24:28 +0200, David Brown
>> <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/06/2021 08:17, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>>> Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>>> George Neuner <gneu...@comcast.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Calling something a 'theory' requires that there be evidence to
>>>>>> support the idea, and that more evidence supports it than refutes
>>>>>> it.
>>>
>>> If there is /any/ valid evidence that refutes the idea, it is not a
>>> theory. You only need to find one single brick that falls upwards to
>>> refute the Newtonian theory of gravity.
>> Quantum physics disputes Newton, but Newton works well enough in the
>> domain of "large" objects to remain in use ... but only for that
>> domain.
> <
> Quantum physics, when observed at macro scales, agrees perfectly with
> Newtonian physics.

Instead of "perfectly", I would use something like "extremely highly
probable", or "for all practical purposes". While there is a
vanishingly small probability that the Statue of Liberty will suddenly
disappear from New York and reappear in San Francisco, that probability
is not zero, as Newtonian physics says it is.

--
- Stephen Fuld
(e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)

On 18/06/2021 18:20, George Neuner wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 09:24:28 +0200, David Brown
> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
>> On 18/06/2021 08:17, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>> Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>> George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Calling something a 'theory' requires that there be evidence to
>>>>> support the idea, and that more evidence supports it than refutes
>>>>> it.
>>
>> If there is /any/ valid evidence that refutes the idea, it is not a
>> theory. You only need to find one single brick that falls upwards to
>> refute the Newtonian theory of gravity.
>
> Quantum physics disputes Newton, but Newton works well enough in the
> domain of "large" objects to remain in use ... but only for that
> domain.
>

Yes, theories can remain useful despite being shown to be imprecise or
incomplete, because they still give useful results for useful domains.

>
>>> At least in Norwegian, the proper term is "hypothese", i.e. an idea
>>> which might be correct but doesn't have enough (experimental) evidence
>>> to turn it into a theory.
>>
>> (That reminds me of our famous linguistic expert, Petter Solberg, who
>> said "I don't know what you call it in English, but in Norway we call it
>> "air conditioning")
>
> When I was in England, they called it "the box that sits in the window
> and spits out cold air".
>

It's rare that the weather is warm enough in the UK to need one!

The reference here is really for Terje - Petter Solberg is a Norwegian
rally car driver. He is famous for two things - driving really fast and
winning rally races, and making very quotable mistakes when speaking
English. (To be fair, no one is at their best in a foreign language
when interviewed immediately after a couple of hours of high adrenalin
car racing.)

>
>> When talking about a scientific theory (the word "theory" is used in
>> many contexts), there are several generally accepted requirements:
>>
>> 1. It should be falsifiable - it must be possible to use evidence to
>> demonstrate that the theory is incorrect.
>>
>> 2. It must be consistent with existing evidence, and normally also with
>> existing theories (subject to "extraordinary claims require
>> extraordinary evidence").
>>
>> 3. It must make predictions that can be tested.
>>
>> 4. The evidence (such as experiments) supporting the theory must be
>> repeatable and should come from multiple sources.
>>
>> 5. It should be at least as good as other established theories at
>> explaining, predicting and calculating results and evidence.
>>
>>
>> A "scientific hypothesis" does not require evidence - but it /does/
>> require the hope or hypothetical possibility of getting evidence.
>> Basically it is like a theory, but you haven't got enough evidence to
>> justify it yet, and your predictions can't be tested yet.
>
> Yes, I /partially/ addressed this in my reply to Tim. Both "untested"
> (as yet) and (for now) "untestable" theories really ought to be called
> something different ... but instead they have modifying adjectives.
>
> But the /real/ problem still is that too many people think any old
> idea can be counted as a 'theory', and most free online dictionaries
> do little or nothing to discourage this notion.
>

Agreed.

You see it a lot with those "intelligent design" muppets. They like to
say "evolution is only a theory" - as though that meant they can swap it
out with whatever twaddle they think of next.

David Brown wrote:
> On 18/06/2021 18:20, George Neuner wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 09:24:28 +0200, David Brown
>>> (That reminds me of our famous linguistic expert, Petter Solberg, who
>>> said "I don't know what you call it in English, but in Norway we call it
>>> "air conditioning")
>>
>> When I was in England, they called it "the box that sits in the window
>> and spits out cold air".
>>
>
> It's rare that the weather is warm enough in the UK to need one!
>
> The reference here is really for Terje - Petter Solberg is a Norwegian
> rally car driver. He is famous for two things - driving really fast and
> winning rally races, and making very quotable mistakes when speaking
> English. (To be fair, no one is at their best in a foreign language
> when interviewed immediately after a couple of hours of high adrenalin
> car racing.)

I did of course get that, Petter is rightly famous for his English,
which btw have improved a lot over the last 10+ years, while his son has
been advancing to the first rank of rally cross driving.

His best quote ever might be "Det er ikke farten som dreper, det er
smellet (når du krasjer)", i.e. "It isn't the speed which kills you, but
the bang (i.e. when you crash)" which he instead "translated" to

"It isn't the fart that kills you but the smell".

Terje

--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

On 20/06/2021 20:50, Terje Mathisen wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>> On 18/06/2021 18:20, George Neuner wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 09:24:28 +0200, David Brown
>>>> (That reminds me of our famous linguistic expert, Petter Solberg, who
>>>> said "I don't know what you call it in English, but in Norway we
>>>> call it
>>>> "air conditioning")
>>>
>>> When I was in England, they called it "the box that sits in the window
>>> and spits out cold air".
>>>
>>
>> It's rare that the weather is warm enough in the UK to need one!
>>
>> The reference here is really for Terje - Petter Solberg is a Norwegian
>> rally car driver.  He is famous for two things - driving really fast and
>> winning rally races, and making very quotable mistakes when speaking
>> English.  (To be fair, no one is at their best in a foreign language
>> when interviewed immediately after a couple of hours of high adrenalin
>> car racing.)
>
> I did of course get that, Petter is rightly famous for his English,
> which btw have improved a lot over the last 10+ years, while his son has
> been advancing to the first rank of rally cross driving.

(Since we are on the topic, can you spot the grammar mistake you made in
that paragraph? I think it is the first time I have noticed a mistake
in your English. You'll have to try harder if you want people to
believe you are not a native English speaker!)

>
> His best quote ever might be "Det er ikke farten som dreper, det er
> smellet (når du krasjer)", i.e. "It isn't the speed which kills you, but
> the bang (i.e. when you crash)" which he instead "translated" to
>
> "It isn't the fart that kills you but the smell".
>

It's a shame his English has improved - I suspect that this one line
alone increased the popularity of rally in Norway quite significantly :-)

David Brown wrote:
> On 20/06/2021 20:50, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>
>> I did of course get that, Petter is rightly famous for his English,
>> which btw have improved a lot over the last 10+ years, while his son has
>> been advancing to the first rank of rally cross driving.
>
> (Since we are on the topic, can you spot the grammar mistake you made in
> that paragraph? I think it is the first time I have noticed a mistake
> in your English. You'll have to try harder if you want people to
> believe you are not a native English speaker!)

I do claim fluency on my CV, I can see that I wrote that paragraph
somewhat similar to how I speak: I tend to run on, adding commas and
going off on tangential topics. :-(

An old friend used to poke me with a quick "POP" exclamation when he
thought I should try to unwind my stack and get back to the original
question/topic. :-)

Terje

--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

On 21/06/2021 12:08, Terje Mathisen wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>> On 20/06/2021 20:50, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>>
>>> I did of course get that, Petter is rightly famous for his English,
>>> which btw have improved a lot over the last 10+ years, while his son has
>>> been advancing to the first rank of rally cross driving.
>>
>> (Since we are on the topic, can you spot the grammar mistake you made in
>> that paragraph?  I think it is the first time I have noticed a mistake
>> in your English.  You'll have to try harder if you want people to
>> believe you are not a native English speaker!)
>
> I do claim fluency on my CV, I can see that I wrote that paragraph
> somewhat similar to how I speak: I tend to run on, adding commas and
> going off on tangential topics. :-(
>

There's nothing wrong with that - if there were, I'd be in trouble too.
No, you had written "his English /have/ improved", instead of "has".
It's one of these things Norwegians get wrong regularly when writing
English, just as English speakers like myself regularly get the gender
of nouns wrong in Norwegian.

> An old friend used to poke me with a quick "POP" exclamation when he
> thought I should try to unwind my stack and get back to the original
> question/topic. :-)
>

Look at the first post in this thread. Do we /really/ want to go back
to that?

David Brown wrote:
> On 21/06/2021 12:08, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>> David Brown wrote:
>>> On 20/06/2021 20:50, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I did of course get that, Petter is rightly famous for his English,
>>>> which btw have improved a lot over the last 10+ years, while his son has
>>>> been advancing to the first rank of rally cross driving.
>>>
>>> (Since we are on the topic, can you spot the grammar mistake you made in
>>> that paragraph?  I think it is the first time I have noticed a mistake
>>> in your English.  You'll have to try harder if you want people to
>>> believe you are not a native English speaker!)
>>
>> I do claim fluency on my CV, I can see that I wrote that paragraph
>> somewhat similar to how I speak: I tend to run on, adding commas and
>> going off on tangential topics. :-(
>>
>
> There's nothing wrong with that - if there were, I'd be in trouble too.
> No, you had written "his English /have/ improved", instead of "has".
> It's one of these things Norwegians get wrong regularly when writing
> English, just as English speakers like myself regularly get the gender
> of nouns wrong in Norwegian.

Ouch!

I don't think I've messed up that way in a while, I'm usually more
worried about style, including things like the Oxford comma. :-)

(Said comma make a lot of sense to a programmer since it removes ambiguity.)

Terje

--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> writes:

> Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>>> Calling something a 'theory' requires that there be evidence to
>>> support the idea, and that more evidence supports it than refutes
>>> it.
>>
>> This statement is at odds with widely used dictionaries, common
>> contemporary usage, historical usage, usage seen in newspapers
>> and magazines, and also how scientists frequently use the term.
>>
>> The distinction I think you're trying to make is between an
>> untestable (or perhaps untested) theory, and a testable (or
>> perhaps tested) theory. It isn't at all unusual for scientists
>> to use the word "theory" to refer to an untested theory, or
>> sometimes even an untestable theory. The important difference
>> is that they understand that there is a difference.
>
> At least in Norwegian, the proper term is "hypothese", i.e. an idea
> which might be correct but doesn't have enough (experimental) evidence
> to turn it into a theory.

I don't know any Norwegian; my comments are only about usage
in English.

Note that "theory" means more than just a hypothesis, whether or
not there is any supporting evidence. In physics for example we
might hypothesize that parity is conserved (or that it is not
conserved). To be a theory there must be some sort of additional
structure, that allows other consequences to be deduced beyond
just the hypothesis itself.

In the scientific community it is common to use the word "theory"
in connection with ideas that do not (yet) have supporting
evidence. Some examples include

String theory
General theory of relativity
"Theory of the Fermi Interaction", by Richard Feynman and
Murray Gell-Mann, published in Physical Review in 1958

The general theory of relativity had almost no supporting
evidence when it was first introduced; it would be years or
decades before the implications of general relativity could be
tested. The last example is interesting because there was
existing experimental evidence at odds with their theory; indeed
the paper "listed specific experiments that contradicted their
theory and declared that the experiments must therefore be wrong"
(quoting from James Gleick's biography of Richard Feynman).

In my experience it is more common, even in science, to use the
word "theory" in connection with ideas that have not amassed, or
not yet amassed, substantial supporting evidence. For example
students are not taught "the theory of conservation of energy",
"the theory of conservation of momentum", or "the theory of
electromagnetism"; instead they learn "the law of conservation
of energy", "the law of conservation of momentum", and Maxwell's
equations. I don't remember any of these areas being described
as a theory. To some degree it's like the word "technology":
"new technology" is technology developed since the time one was
born. In today's world we don't think of pencils as "new
technology", but there was a time when they were. Similarly with
theories. A theory of quarks was developed in the early 1960s,
before there was any experimental evidence for the existence of
actual quarks; students being taught physics today accept quarks
as a fact, not as a theory.

Gleick's book "Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman"
is an excellent source of examples for how the word "theory" is
used both in science and by scientists.

George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> writes:

> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 17:55:02 -0700, Tim Rentsch
> <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>
>> George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>>> Calling something a 'theory' requires that there be evidence to
>>> support the idea, and that more evidence supports it than refutes
>>> it.
>>
>> This statement is at odds with widely used dictionaries, common
>> contemporary usage, historical usage, usage seen in newspapers
>> and magazines, and also how scientists frequently use the term.
>
> It certain is /not/ at odds with how scientists use the term - the
> definition of 'theory' used by scientists requires factual evidence.

Counterexamples were given in my response to Terje upthread.

>> The distinction I think you're trying to make is between an
>> untestable (or perhaps untested) theory, and a testable (or
>> perhaps tested) theory. It isn't at all unusual for scientists
>> to use the word "theory" to refer to an untested theory, or
>> sometimes even an untestable theory. The important difference
>> is that they understand that there is a difference.
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/difference-between-hypothesis-and-theory-usage

Merriam-Webster's theory about how the word "theory" is used
is contradicted by the evidence of actual usage.