Bullshit. A theory is a theory because it is carefully formulated so it can demonstrate itself to be either true or false by making unique predictions about the phenomenon it describes that could tested.

A theory about a phenomenon whose manifestations is multifaceted, such as evolution or the Big Bang, must be able to uniquely account for each facet. But once a theory has shown itself able to uniquely account for most of the major facets, the probability is very high that the theory is basically right in its outline and needs no more than fine tuning to account for all the other assets.

In this case the basic outline can be considered a fact, because we have sound reason to be as certain or more certain of its validity than we normally possess when making colloquial assertions of facts. But at the same time it remains a theory because it is still making unique predictions that is yet to be tested, and it might require more tuning on the margins.

(September 12, 2014 at 9:33 am)Chuck Wrote: Bullshit. A theory is a theory because it is carefully formulated so it can demonstrate itself to be either true or false by making unique predictions that could tested.

And it's tested over and over, and even with consistent outcomes, most explanations of phenomena never move past the "theory" status because of the issue of correlation not equaling causation unless you can be assured all the variables have been controlled for. Some end up being called "facts" eventually, but that's because someone deems it's not worth continuing to test because it's been so consistent and it's helpful to assume it as a "given" in order to expand upon the concept.

As someone versed in the sciences, can you tell us what is past the theory stage?

(September 12, 2014 at 9:55 am)Stimbo Wrote: As someone versed in the sciences, can you tell us what is past the theory stage?

"Fact"- Which maintain that label until conflicting evidence makes people go... "oops, that shouldn't have been given that label".

Sorry; science understanding fail. Expect derision.

Any fact deserving of the name retains all the attributes of a theory forever and will remain a theory forever. All facts are theories, although only some theories have any chance of being facts. Err on the side of theory, and you are less likely to make a theistic fool of yourself. Think a fact can exist that has shed attributes of a theory, and you have become a faith head, a religious person, and therefore a fool.

(September 12, 2014 at 10:15 am)Chuck Wrote: Any fact deserving of the name retains all the attributes of a theory forever and will remain a theory forever. All facts are theories, although only some theories have any chance of being facts. Err on the side of theory, and you are less likely to make a theistic fool of yourself. Think a fact can exist that has shed attributes of a theory, and you have become a faith head, a religious person, and therefore a fool.

So, we agree, yay!

I was giving you the logical answer with regard to labels. As you should see, my response was clearly in agreement.

(September 11, 2014 at 10:14 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Ok, so your belief regarding public opinion may be different than mine. Not surprising, we probably have very different social circles.

I stand corrected if that's not the commonly held opinion here. How was I to know that without putting it out there and asking for feedback?

You have a remarkable ability to distance yourself from cuplability for your own statements. What difference does it make if some people believe that the BBT posits anything at all about a pre-expansion universe? Even that word 'pre-expansion' is a meaningless expression when discussing Big Bang cosmology.

The point is that you yourself were making this error, and it colored your entire post. You then proceeded to make incorrect statements about the gravitational constant, as has been pointed out previously. You then proceeded to apply a god of the gaps fallacy to the dark matter, dark energy, and unified theory unknowns.

So, I ask you, since the things we currently theorize about the physical properties of the universe cannot be trusted, what is your alternative to the idea of formulating theories based upon the current available evidence and continuing to re-evaluate the things we know when new information becomes available?

Facts exist in reality; theories describe those facts and the mechanisms driving them.

(September 12, 2014 at 10:24 am)Stimbo Wrote: Facts exist in reality; theories describe those facts and the mechanisms driving them.

Rather isolated perception of observations exist in reality. Some theory is required, whether implicitly or explicitly, for them to become interpreted as facts.