).
You asked for theories, but the problem then arose through that with science. It's not just that some people weren't being properly scientific (because you don't have to be just to raise or discuss an idea) but that some thought they were being scientific when they weren't.
I see my ramblings about the scientific method fell on blind eyes...
WildMoon wrote:Theory:
Big Bang Theory suggests ... [snip]
Law:
The Law of Conservation states ... [snip]
Hypothesis:
I think that ... [snip]
A nice attempt from a young 'un to formalise things, but not right enough I'm afraid
.A theory by modern standards must make precise predictions which can be tested, and the tests should be aimed to disprove the theory, not prove it. That's because there's an asymmetry in logic concerning proof and disproof, as Hume noted. The best way to make precise predictions is using mathematics, because mathematics is the most precise form of communication known to us.
A law is a misnomer for a theoretical prediction. There is actually no such thing as a natural law. The name came from ancient Greek philosophers who supposed that some god or gods commanded nature to obey their laws (and that means that's why they thought things did what they did: divine control). However, whereas people can break legal laws and get punished, for natural laws we end up with the silly situation that we change our natural laws to fit what nature does. So, can a natural law ever really be broken?
Hypothesis comes from ancient Greek; 'below a position', meaning less than a firm idea. Hypotheses are then propositions, explanations or assumptions specific to some problem, For example, concerning the causes of Californian forest fires, I could propose these hypotheses: a) lighting strikes, b) human campfires, c) Flambus, god of fires and lollipops. They are possibilities.
The example you gave about plants A and B is actually rather more suited to scientific theory, though not quantitative, let alone mathematical. You predict plant A will grow faster because of better nutrition - it's clear enough to turn it into a mathematical matter: the mass of plant A should be greater than that of plant B. Most people make the mistake of thinking that if you measure plant A to be heavier than plant B, you have 'proven' your theory: nutrtion helps plants grow more. Not true. Plant A could have grown more because of a different reason. Any different reason. The interesting outcome is if plant A did not grow more than plant B. Then you know that the nutrition did not cause plant A to grow more.
When we talk of a 'hypothetical planet' that means something that 'could be' but is not proven. However, I have mentioned the problem of proof, as in...
Malenfant wrote:It is important if there is some way that the hypothesis can be proved or disproved. If it's unprovable, then it's a waste of time.
Malenfant wrote:NO. It's not like that at all.
Theories have sufficient evidence to support them ... [snip]
... which looks like the Francis Bacon description of the scientific method, which is flawed with the problem of induction.
Spiff.
