Are theories proven or unproven?

[Tart]

There has been an uproar on saying a theory is something that is unproven. "its just a theory", meaning something unproven.. I was reading my physics 1 book last night and in the opening they gave a brief explanation for the meaning of the word theory...

“Calling an idea a theory does not mean that it’s just a random thought or an unproven concept. Rather a theory is an explanation of natural phenomena based on observation and accepted fundamental principles.�

Then just a few paragraphs away it states.

“It is the nature of physical theory that we can disprove a theory by finding behavior that is inconsistent with it, but we can never prove that a theory is always correct.�

Are these two statements incompatible with one another? Specifically about the statement of a theory not being an unproven concept, and then stating that these theories can never be proven. Was it just a bad choice of words?

Do you think there is alternative motives to state such a thing or is it understandable from a scientific explanation? Or a rational explanation? That a theory isnt an unproven concept, but it can never be proven?

[Tart]

Though on closer examination, perhaps the word "just" is important to acknowledge..

It's not "just" an unproven concept... Which would acknowledge that it is an unproven concept, but there is more to it...

Do you agree?

So all theories can be wrong? I think we should all agree to that, though the uproar in society, some may want to debate it.

[Willum]

A Theory is something so well established that it is unlikely to be proven false.

Religion is the opposite.
Something with so little established that it can never be shown to be true.

You can't prove something is always correct because you can't account for variables the theory doesn't encompass.
For example, things cannot float into the sky with the theory of gravity.
It does not account for people strapping rockets to things.

You shouldn't be so cavalier, many more minds than you or I have put great deal of thought into this.
It is unlikely you or I will have much to add to or disrupt the subject.

[Divine Insight]

You need to understand what a theory is.

A theory is an explanation of how something works.

Theory - a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

So a theory is an explanation of how something works. It may or may not be true or correct.

However this should not be confused with facts of reality that have been proven to be true.

For example. It's a fact that biological Evolution is true. It's also a known fact that we are a member of primates and in particular a member of what we call the "Great Apes".

Those are facts, not theories.

The "Theory of Evolution" is an attempt to explain how the "Fact of Evolution" works. The Theory of Evolution may or may not be true in every explanation it offers. But regardless of what the Theory of Evolution might have to say, the Fact of Evolution will always remain a known proven truth. Nothing can change that.

Similarly:,...

It's a fact that everyone will measure the same speed for the speed of light regardless of their motion. It's a fact that time dilates. It's a fact that gravity bends light rays. It's a fact that gravity slows down the passage of time . These are all known facts.

The "Theory of Relativity" has predicted all of these things. The Theory of Relativity attempts to explain how these things occur. The fact that the Theory of Relativity predicted all these things before they were known to be true suggests that the Theory of Relativity is most likely a very good explanation for how and why they occur.

However, the fact that all these things occur will always remain true, even if new "Theories" (Explanations for why they occur") are discovered.

So you need to be careful when dismissing "Theories" as potentially being wrong. For example, even if the Theory of Evolution turns out to be a bad explanation for how evolution works, that still won't change the FACT that evolution did indeed occur.

So you need to pay attention to which is which. A theory is an explanation. A fact is a fact. Facts cannot be wrong as they have already been demonstrated to be true. But theories (i.e. explanations) can indeed change over time.

[Divine Insight]

A Theory is something so well established that it is unlikely to be proven false.

There is a HUGE problem with this. Scientists simply aren't consistent in their use of this term.

For example, did you ever hear of String Theory?

Well, String Theory does not satisfy your definition above. It is not well established at all, in fact, it could be dead wrong. It's an attempt to "explain" something, But whether it has actually succeeded in this is a question that is far from being answered.

How about Loop Quantum Gravity, this is also often called a "Theory". It too is an attempt to explain things. In fact, it tries to explain things in a totally different way from String Theory. So both, String Theory, and Loop Quantum Gravity, cannot be simultaneously correct.

In fact, IMHO, these should both be called "Hypotheses", not "Theories".

But again, if a theory is just an "explanation" (whether true or not) then they both qualify as "Theories".

So the term "Theory" itself is fairly ill-defined, and/or, often misused or abused.

For example.:

Evolution is a fact. But the "Theory of Evolution" could have a lot of things wrong about how Evolution actually works. But even if the "Theory of Evolution" has some things wrong, this doesn't change the truth of the fact that Evolution itself actually occurred.

[Menotu]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

...a theory is an explanation of natural phenomena based on observation and accepted fundamental principles.�

Then just a few paragraphs away it states.

“It is the nature of physical theory that we can disprove a theory by finding behavior that is inconsistent with it, but we can never prove that a theory is always correct.�

If you observe the principles of something that creates a theory, shouldn't you be able, later, to observe something that, until now, seemed the opposite of the initial observation?
If you constantly see water flows downhill, then, one day, you come across a place where it seems to flow uphill, does that prove the theory of 'downhill water flow' wrong, or does it mean 1) you don't know as much as you thought or 2) you were wrong to begin with?

I don't think they have to be two totally opposed ideas, just different ideas.
People have to be able to accept something once thought right/correct has the ability to be proven incorrect at some point. Otherwise, we'd know everything already.

[Danmark]

“Calling an idea a theory does not mean that it’s just a random thought or an unproven concept. Rather a theory is an explanation of natural phenomena based on observation and accepted fundamental principles.�
....
“It is the nature of physical theory that we can disprove a theory by finding behavior that is inconsistent with it, but we can never prove that a theory is always correct.�

Are these two statements incompatible with one another?

No.
The second statement is product of the humility that must always be an integral part of true science. Ultimately it becomes a matter of probability. We have a theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun once a year and it rotates on its axis once every 24 hours. We base these theories on thousands of observations combined with mathematics. We observe that each day the Sun appears to rise which is consistent with this theory. Mankind has observed this phenomenon every day for the tens of thousands of years of our history and 100% of our recorded history.

The true scientist has faith in these theories, but he is also open to change and altering his theories if the billion to one phenomenon occurs and the Sun does not 'rise' when predicted. Absolutes only exist in the religious mind.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

Scientific theories are proven in the sense that they have passed every test we've thrown at it.

Scientific theories are unproven in the sense that one day it may fail a new test we come up with.

Scientific theories are "not just unproven concepts" because the word unproven implies it hasn't been put to the test.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

True, I can't help inconsistency between scientists, or the intimidation involved in contradicting a "String Theorist."

But technically it is a hypothesis.

[Danmark]

Do y'all have a problem with putting it this way?

'A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.'
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Hypothesis_vs_Theory

Makes sense to me. Now sticking strictly within the universe of 'theories,' I suggest some theories are supported by better and more pervasive evidence than others.

The theory of the heliocentric solar system, the theory of evolution, and the theory the Earth is spherical are supported by such overwhelming evidence they may, in general, be referred to as facts.

String theory may not be the best example because it has so many different aspects.* This may be true of many areas of science when one ventures into the subatomic world.

In any event, can't we agree that some theories have more robust proof than others? I also think that many of us lay folk, and perhaps some scientists, use 'theory' when we really mean 'hypothesis.'

____________________________________
*"To construct models of particle physics based on string theory, physicists typically begin by specifying a shape for the extra dimensions of spacetime. Each of these different shapes corresponds to a different possible universe, or "vacuum state", with a different collection of particles and forces. String theory as it is currently understood has an enormous number of vacuum states, typically estimated to be around 10 to the 500th, and these might be sufficiently diverse to accommodate almost any phenomena that might be observed at low energies."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Criticism