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?

[William]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

This is actually one of the most confused aspects of the scientific method the difference between a law and theory.

A law is simply an observation. For example: the law of gravity: stating that any two masses attract each other with a force equal to a constant multiplied by the product of the two masses and divided by the square of the distance between them. So if a book is dropped on the Earth the book will always drop towards the Earth. Notice it does not explain why this is the case simply that it is the case.

Another example is the law of biogenesis which states: living matter always arises by the agency of preexisting living matter. Again notice that it does not say why this is the case simply that it is the case.

A hypothesis is an explanation of an observed event or law. A theory is a tested explanation.

Einstein's theory of gravity states that gravity is a consequence of an indention in the fabric of space.

A hypothesis is not tested like for example a hypothesis of how an object "knows" it is being attracted is the idea of a graviton particle is exchanged between the two objects. This is an hypothesis because a gravitron has never been observed.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 11 by EarthScienceguy]

Another example is the law of biogenesis which states: living matter always arises by the agency of preexisting living matter. Again notice that it does not say why this is the case simply that it is the case.

There is no law of abiogenesis. This is just a creationist invention, much like the concept of sin.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 11 by EarthScienceguy]

Another example is the law of biogenesis which states: living matter always arises by the agency of preexisting living matter. Again notice that it does not say why this is the case simply that it is the case.

There is no law of abiogenesis. This is just a creationist invention, much like the concept of sin.

Wait a second. You dont believe in bad stuff people do? Like wrong things people do that arent good?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 11 by EarthScienceguy]

Another example is the law of biogenesis which states: living matter always arises by the agency of preexisting living matter. Again notice that it does not say why this is the case simply that it is the case.

There is no law of abiogenesis. This is just a creationist invention, much like the concept of sin.

Wait a second. You dont believe in bad stuff people do? Like wrong things people do that arent good?

I am fully aware of people doing bad stuff. I don't believe in sin as I don't believe that any of it offends some mysterious deity. Now let's return to the topic. Do you have anything to say about this fictional law of abiogenesis?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 11 by EarthScienceguy]

Another example is the law of biogenesis which states: living matter always arises by the agency of preexisting living matter. Again notice that it does not say why this is the case simply that it is the case.

There is no law of abiogenesis. This is just a creationist invention, much like the concept of sin.

Wait a second. You dont believe in bad stuff people do? Like wrong things people do that arent good?

I am fully aware of people doing bad stuff. I don't believe in sin as I don't believe that any of it offends some mysterious deity. Now let's return to the topic. Do you have anything to say about this fictional law of abiogenesis?

Thats not the topic smart guy, i started this thread i should know

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 15 by Tart]

Thats not the topic smart guy, i started this thread i should know

No need to get snarky. The notion of scientific laws is much closer to the topic than belief in people doing bad things.

[Tart]

Moderator removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 12 by brunumb]

There is no law of abiogenesis. This is just a creationist invention, much like the concept of sin.

That would be BBBBBBBiogensis. If you do not believe that there is a law of Biogenesis then you might need to speak to all of the biology text book printers.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 12 by brunumb]

This is just a creationist invention, much like the concept of sin.

Sin is not a creationist invention but it is an idea that was born in the Judeo-Christian Bible.