No, actually, it wasn't. It was an unknown, again, just like "dark matter". Read Robert's response, his is the credited answer.
But how about this analogy: air. We can see the effects air has, we can calculate air's effect on things, we can "test" for it, we can try to theorize about air. So is air a theory? A fact? No. Because there is no such substance as "air". It's simply a placeholder for other substances. Now if we had a theory about HOW this substance acts given certain conditions (let's say a fan at constant speed) in general, at a certain level of granularity, that theory will always be fact. Note the key difference! The second theory is about the motion OF air, not "air". If, for example, you assume that "air" is everywhere and you can always survive breathing "it" ... Well that experiment would fail. Thus air is not a fact, just like phlogiston isn't. Phlogiston theory was about effects, not the substance itself. Just like air is a place holder. On Sep 22, 2011, at 7:53 AM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > > Actually it was tested repeatedly for about 100 years. > > You need another qualifier to prove your point, or you could just > admit your wrong and move on...or just move on. > > . > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Gruss Gott <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Phlogiston was was not a tested theory, only a postulate or inference based >> on observation, and that postulate failed under testing. It really doesn't >> matter what was "thought to exist" to use your wording. What matters is >> that something is tested and KNOWN to exist. >> >> A proven scientific theory, or fact, must be testable, repeatable, >> predictive, and quantifiable. Phlogiston was not. >> >> A modern equivalent would be dark matter theory. This substance is not >> tested, but inferred or postulated, based on other testable phenomena. Dark >> matter itself has never been been quantified as other than a place holder >> thus dark matter is not yet a fact just like phlogiston wasnt. >> >> So tested theories are, in fact, fact. >> >> PS >> If you want another example take black holes. General relativity postulated >> them, but they were never experimentally detected. Now they are, and their >> behavior is as predicted and is quantifiable and repeatable thus general >> relativity is f > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:342921 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
