That would be a law. A theory means that here's an idea...I can't prove it...but this is what I think happens... It's not a fact Gruss.
-----Original Message----- From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 11:47 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: This is silly I didn't have the heart to tell 'Im. A theory basically means scientific fact On Sep 12, 2011, at 12:51 PM, William Bowen <[email protected]> wrote: > > erm... they do have a category... it's called... > . > . > . > drumroll please. > . > . > . > "A Theory" > > From http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html: > > THEORY > > 1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information > about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984) > 2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase > our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, > 1984). > 3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a > substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of > observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation > (Lincoln et al., 1990). > 4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic > or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced > to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, > 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that > even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which > leads to confusion]. > > 5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or > account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been > confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is > propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement > of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of > something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; > [emphasis added]). > > 6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is > substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995). > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Eric Roberts > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Yes...i think anyone that ignores science is an idiot...plain and >> simple. I do wish thay had a category for a theory that has a butt >> load of evidence to back it up, but still not 100% proven. >> >> I didn't realize that was sarcasm...it's what i get when I read email >> before coffee... >> >> Eric >> >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Gruss Gott <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> I mean there are PLENTY of things that are matters of perspective >>> and opinion. >>> >>> Global warming for example. Sure there's lots of evidence but how >>> or what it means is all intrepretation ( of course the re-insurance >>> industry has decided yes, absolutely and that's good enough for me ) >>> >>> But the whole science-is-crap thing is really scary. And misusing "theory" >>> is annoying too. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 12, 2011, at 7:51 AM, GMoney <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Eric Roberts < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I didn't see any pretending anywhere. It's only people that >>>>> believe >>> there >>>>> is an Adam and a Eve that are pretending with their fake pseudo science. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Blasphemer!!!!!!! >>>> >>>> (I think that was the point Gruss was making with his sarcasm...) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:342474 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
