It's not "just a theory"!

[Atrea]

What if someone doesn't know they are interested?
I didn't know about what science had to offer, since all I heard about it were dull bits of knowledge in my science class. The teachers were boring, EVERYTHING was boring.
But science itself is pretty damn exciting and without my best friend, who is currently aiming to become an astrophysicist, I wouldn't have tried to learn more, at all.

It's not my problem.

[HazardYo]

It's not my problem.

Then we simply are a different kind of people, haha :P

[Atrea]

Then we simply are a different kind of people, haha :P

Not really; I mean, I was writing a post. It was quite long already.
But I stopped, because I didn't see the value in it.

If someone wants to enlighten themselves, they eventually will. If they don't, they won't.
To the former, I don't need to say anything. To the latter, nothing I say will matter.

[haxartus]

As far as I know about String theory, it is well-explained and documented, althought more of a theoretical construct then truly being supported by evidence.
Scientists are currently trying all over the world to find conclusive evidence for it, so one could say it is a "Theory in progress".

It's a hypothesis. They called it a "theory" because it has pretty powerful supporters in the scientific community and they wanted it to sound important. After all, it's supposed to unify all of the major branches of physics in to one.
It really sounds beautiful on paper and something that well mathematically supported has never been proven false, but there isn't a single real evidence that it might be true.

[HazardYo]

If someone wants to enlighten themselves, they eventually will. If they don't, they won't.
To the former, I don't need to say anything. To the latter, nothing I say will matter.

Oh lord, type in "science" and "theory" and you get tons of sites with different definitions, all saying something entirely different.
Sure, some are religiously motivated, some are simply wrong, some are correct, but those are hard to find.

Too many people use the Internet as their only source of knowledge nowadays (never heard of a library?), and the Internet offers too much... false information, let's call it that way :P

[apepi]

I know the scientific theory but my words of about just any knowledge can be summed up my my favorite, Socrates

As for me, all I know is that I know nothing, for when I don't know what justice is, I'll hardly know whether it is a kind of virtue or not, or whether a person who has it is happy or unhappy.

[Ludijak]

Good thread, not entirely correct but it explains problem very well, I had similar problems, and all you can is to blame education system.

And scientific law is something different then scientific theory. Scientific law expresses fundametal principle of science. Theory on the other hand is more, it explains whole concepts, it is based on laws, and observations and more, but combines that to explain how something is, or why. It is right, but it usualy can be proven, but it doesen't make it wrong, it is a fact in the world of science.

But mathematics is better, no dispute there, we have theories and proofs for them.

[HazardYo]

It really sounds beautiful on paper and something that well mathematically supported has never been proven false, but there isn't a single real evidence that it might be true.

Hence the reason I said that they currently work their hardest in order to find it :P
But yeah, technically, it is more of a hypothesis, you are right about that. At least mathematics say that it must be correct (then again, how many dimensions were now correct? 11? I am more of a biologist myself :P).

[Datub]

So when I study Atomic Theory at University, all that is just a guess?

Wrong.

first i didn't say its all just a guess, what you are learing is the best possible explanation we can give to certain occurance at this moment, but if we learn something new, it can change

this doesn't mean your THEORY is completely wrong it just needs some adjustment

[Toccs]

Thank you for explaining this, but i feel that it will fall on deaf ears for the majority of the forum users.

I do hate the fine line Fact/Theory have though quite annoying.

[HazardYo]

Thank you for explaining this, but i feel that it will fall on deaf ears for the majority of the forum users.

This doesn't matter.
is4kss0n learned something new (you're welcome, by the way!), so it was already worth it.

[Toccs]

Oh lord, type in "science" and "theory" and you get tons of sites with different definitions, all saying something entirely different.
Sure, some are religiously motivated, some are simply wrong, some are correct, but they are hard to find.

Too many people use the Internet as their only source of knowledge nowadays (never heard of a library?), and the Internet offers too much... false information, let's call it that way :P

I 100% support this and agree, the internet while a good thing can also be a plague of incorrect information.

[Catta]

thanks for clearing this up... Now i can copy paste this to any nut who says evolution is just a theory...

[Datub]

To reiterate what the OP said, a 'law' forms one of the bases needed to formulate a theory.

first law of thermodynamics: the energy in a closed system is constant, it can change form but can never be destroyed or created
so are you saying that this is only a starting point for theories and never was an end statement of a scription?

i would say that the first law of thermodynamics is a pretty solid theory on itself, ofcourse it can be used in other theories to prove some point thats how progress works you build on pieces you already have

[Ais]

IMO just change the name "theory" to "law".
If people are really so ignorant that they think that scientific theories are not valid then it's, for the sake of your own sanity, not worth the argument.

[Toccs]

thanks for clearing this up... Now i can copy paste this to any nut who says evolution is just a theory...

Its a fact and thoery actually (From what i've read of course)

[Ais]

There are a lot of stuff we "know" but it is always changing. For example Atoms 50 years ago were the smallest thing possible.. then we broke it open, and found stuff in there.. these were the smallest things we knew of.. guess what? we broke those open too and Quarks came out..

Are you serious? Not one physicist claimed that atoms were smallest particles known, they were smallest unit found at the time.

[Greennunu]

I actually didn't know that, I always thought Scientific Laws were higher than Scientific Theory. I don't think the naysayers of the internet are to ignorant to learn, but rather to arrogant to learn. They've formulated their own opinion of subject and when faced with opposition they fight back without even checking sources.

Though I do hate your comment on internet learning, I think there is a difference between learning from chat rooms, games, forums, and actual academic sites. Plenty of good information mixed in with the bad on the net, but it doesn't take much effort to find the correct answer.

[Deleted]

first law of thermodynamics: the energy in a closed system is constant, it can change form but can never be destroyed or created
so are you saying that this is only a starting point for theories and never was an end statement of a scription?

i would say that the first law of thermodynamics is a pretty solid theory on itself, ofcourse it can be used in other theories to prove some point thats how progress works you build on pieces you already have

The first law, or indeed any of the laws, of thermodynamics are not theories because they don't attempt to describe any sort of mechanism or provide an explanation for phenomena. They're essentially a concise statement describing previously observed results and usually only remain true for a limited range of applications. Scientific laws and scientific theories are two completely different things that perform completely different functions and it's not the case that a theory eventually becomes a law. A theory is the end point for a scientific explanation, it's as high as you can go.

[Toccs]

I actually didn't know that, I always thought Scientific Laws were higher than Scientific Theory. I don't think the naysayers of the internet are to ignorant to learn, but rather to arrogant to learn. They've formulated their own opinion of subject and when faced with opposition they fight back without even checking sources.

Though I do hate your comment on internet learning, I think there is a difference between learning from chat rooms, games, forums, and actual academic sites. Plenty of good information mixed in with the bad on the net, but it doesn't take much effort to find the correct answer.

The problem is that a lot of users (myself included at times) will do one search on Google and go on the first answer they see as correct, which in most cases it isn’t. I think a lot of us are guilty of that crime.