What is a Scientific Theory?

[The_Child]

---

@Fritzd
yes, i do not pretend to be a scientist nor will i engage scientists with scientific problems, i leave scientific issues to physicists like you. But to clarify my point, scientific theory is a product of a scientific process or methodology, which makes something scientific. But the very process or framework that legitimize something as scientific cannot be scientific. It cannot, so to speak, have its cake and eat it too! The question is not really about the relation between domains in science, i.e., general relavity and quantum mechanics, (it can even be said that if you do not know classical mechanics then you will not be able to grasp quantum mechanics, that although they operate in different domains, demarcated by the planck level, the latter can only be understood in in its break from newtonian mechanics, in math this is also true, between prime, rational, irrational, fractions...., the domains are there because of theoretical limitations) the question is about science itself. how does it account for itself to be true, via automatic legitimation? via a set of criteria - but what lends this criteria any justification to be scientific?

TO clarify my point, to justify something as scientific you have a criteria, say the scientific methodology or framework, but what justifies the criteria, what justifies a scientific methodology or framework to be scientific? Truth-claims discovered by science is due to a certain set of criteria, but what determines the truth-claims of this set of criteria?

a kernel of scientific methodology is induction. But we know that induction is logically problematic because the connection between phenomenon A to phenomenon B is merely contingent and not necessary. This old epistemic issue is called the problem of induction.

@rodion put it this way, you cannot use the principle of verifiability dear to science to determine that the principle of verifiability is in itself verifiable. This is not a twisted account of science, but rather a real theoretical issue in science as a whole, which is in line with the topic "what is scientific theory?" Since the topic is theoretical in nature, then i presented a theoretical reply. Would it have been a discussion or a solution to the age old three bodies problem, then i would, with all honesty, leave it to scholars like fritzd et al.

cheers!

[rodsky]

Would it have been a discussion or a solution to the age old three bodies problem, then i would, with all honesty, leave it to scholars like fritzd et al.

Would this section have been a PHILOSOPHY SECTION then your glorious rebuttal would have shown like gold, but alas it is not. If you continue to post similar discussions in this vein, then you will be banned. And that, sir, is a fact. Cheers!

-RODION

[The_Child]

@Rodion OT: That is not yet completely a fact. Now make it a fact. now. This is my gift to you for the season, my banishment.
click away, Captain Beatty! Ill be sailing away in the new oberburgermeister hacken off to siberia. Merry xmas!
cheers!

[fritzd]

@Fritzd
yes, i do not pretend to be a scientist nor will i engage scientists with scientific problems, i leave scientific issues to physicists like you. But to clarify my point, scientific theory is a product of a scientific process or methodology, which makes something scientific. But the very process or framework that legitimize something as scientific cannot be scientific. It cannot, so to speak, have its cake and eat it too! The question is not really about the relation between domains in science, i.e., general relavity and quantum mechanics, (it can even be said that if you do not know classical mechanics then you will not be able to grasp quantum mechanics, that although they operate in different domains, demarcated by the planck level, the latter can only be understood in in its break from newtonian mechanics, in math this is also true, between prime, rational, irrational, fractions...., the domains are there because of theoretical limitations) the question is about science itself. how does it account for itself to be true, via automatic legitimation? via a set of criteria - but what lends this criteria any justification to be scientific?

TO clarify my point, to justify something as scientific you have a criteria, say the scientific methodology or framework, but what justifies the criteria, what justifies a scientific methodology or framework to be scientific? Truth-claims discovered by science is due to a certain set of criteria, but what determines the truth-claims of this set of criteria?

a kernel of scientific methodology is induction. But we know that induction is logically problematic because the connection between phenomenon A to phenomenon B is merely contingent and not necessary. This old epistemic issue is called the problem of induction.

You do pose a strong argument which goes into realms that are not part of what I know. This, as rodsky mentioned, may go way beyond a pure scientific discussion.

Anyway, all I can say is that in science we have experiements. From the experiments, we obtain results which leads into new scientific theories. These theories most of the time make predictions which will later be confirmed via experiment. And the combination of all of these lead to scientific and technology. And we progress technologically as a species. So for me, that is more than enough to justify that what we have (scientific theories, laws, experiments, etc..) must be somewhat true or at least it's one hell of a good approximation.

[rodsky]

@Rodion OT: That is not yet completely a fact. Now make it a fact. now. This is my gift to you for the season, my banishment.

-RODION

[The_Child]

@rodsky lol

[dustin]

Mangutana ko bro, what is the difference between scientific theory and scientific facts?

[ain]

A theory is a statement, or group of statements, used to explain a group of phenomena that occurs during experimentation, when a hypothesis withstands repeat attempts to disprove it. The only difference between a theory and law is a theory is still open to debate under certain circumstances; whereas a law generally is not. A law is a theory, but a theory is not necessarily a law.

Good question TS! since most people don't even have a clue what science is, and what scientists do. They think we are out to prove something, when our job is actually an attempt to disprove. only failure to disprove a hypothesis should be considered evidence of its validity. When your goalis to prove a hypothesis, the tendancy to botch data occurs more often and before i get a bunch of thumbs down responses, i want to add... most cases i have witnessed of attempts to debunk man-made global warming have actually been attempts to "prove" that it doesn't exist, rather than experiments attempting to disprove the ones that suggests it does...

[JuanDestruct]

if im not mistaken a field of studying and "disecting" science is called "the philosophy of science".

[AndreiCool]

a scientific theory is more like a hypothesis. when it's proven wrong or right, it can become a law