Wed Feb 12 14:44:57 1997

From owner-tc-list  Wed Feb 12 14:44:57 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id OAA19740; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:44:57 -0500
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:44:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Nichael Cramer 
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: What is a theory (Was: Re: Koren vs BHS text)
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1002

On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
> 3. Theory. *Anything* not falling under the above heads is theory.
>    All interpretation is theory. A theory may have strong backing,
>    but it cannot be proved. You cannot prove an interpretation; you
>    can only *dis*prove it. (You disprove it by providing a
>    counterexample.)

Well, perhaps I'm picking nits (we're certainly getting off topic) but to
state this prehaps another way: 

Probably the closest synonym we have to the term "Theory" is the word
"Model".  I.e. a Model that attempts to exaplain and/or systematize a
broad range of data. 

For example, we observe how small particles interact and behave.  These
are our data.  From this we develop a model (Quantum Theory) that attempts
to explain why these particles behave in the way that they do.  Likewise
we observe the subsequent replacement of species over the lifetime of the
Earth.  From this we develop a model (Evolutionary Theory) that attempts
to explain these facts. 

N

Back