N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 27 2016,00:01) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 26 2016,22:56) | | You go on telling yourself that, and see if anyone believes it, other than you. |
People regularly say that they have a theory. And it's annoying for someone to butt-in by turning the word used to describe an explanation for how something works or happened into a sacred word that all but you and your friends are qualified to use. That's clubhouse mentality. A hypothesis is not a ritualized event either, it's simply an idea (that can be in the form of a question) you can test.
There is no way you can enforce your special definitions. Science does not need them. The vast majority of people are for good reason just going to keep on ignoring you anyway. As far as I'm concerned: as long as a person knows the simple difference between a hypothesis and a theory they're all set. Only thing you would do is leave them with a dysfunctional definition for both. Then you look foolish when someone asks you about "String Theory" and other theories that are not doing all that well these days or are known to be false. Your need for a theory to have been tested until there is zero chance of being wrong is unworkable to begin with. |
Yes, people regularly say they have a theory. However, you are making claims in science, demanding that people test your thing and work on it on the grounds that you claim it is a theory and science has certain obligations towards a theory. You also claim that your idea wins by default because there isn't a better theory.
Even if any of that were true (and none of it is), it would pertain to scientific theories, not to the general use of "theory" (you have a really bad habit of trying to argue by jumping categories and conflating terms). However, what you claim about theories is not true of scientific theories either. You are in fact wrong that science has any obligations toward a legitimate theory: scientists can work on it or not, and part of scientists' decisions will depend on whether they think it is interesting and fruitful and worth their time. Unless someone else is all fired up about it, it is basically up to the proposer to do the legwork to demonstrate the potential validity and value of the proposed theory. You haven't done anything at all in that direction. In fact, everything you write and say indicates exactly the opposite, because you keep showing that you lack valid logic, useful definitions, supporting evidence, a ground-truthed model that actually supports your claims, and any reasonable command of relevant background information. Moreover, a theory does not win by default: it has to have something going for it, unlike your idea (see the above failings). Even worse for you, the default in the absence of a decent theory is not the next most reasonable theory but "We don't know yet."
I don't get to decide what a theory is, but neither do you. If nothing else, "theory", as used in science, includes a requirement of broad acceptance, if not acceptance as a complete explanation at least acceptance as being worthy of further consideration and exploration. You don't have that. Hence, you don't have a scientific theory, and you don't get to make any claims on that basis.
If you wanted to do some useful science, you might begin with some actual testable hypotheses, because you've been short on those too.
Science isn't an exclusive clubhouse. Its doors are wide open. However, it does have a sign at the entrance saying "No nonsense allowed". Sadly, your stuff is nonsensical.
Look after your family, because your not-a-theory is dead in the water.
|
