"Theory" of Plate Tectonics

[Wabbajack]

If it's a theory does that mean there is some doubt that it's true?

[Lefta Dissenter]

1. are you doubting

the theory of gravity? :shrug:

[Blue Wally]

25. But

Gravity is a myth, the earth just sucks!!

[jpgray]

2. Yes, just like gravity, or flight

Clearly there's doubt as to whether there is gravity, or that things can fly.

(People really need to read about what a theory signifies.)

[hatrack]

3. How about the "theory" of thermodynamics?

Or the "theory" of a heliocentric solar system?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. NO...the definition of a theory is as follows

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

[whistle]

33. Then what is a scientific law....

[Ediacara]

5. No

Theory in science is different from theory in everyday speach.

Theory in everyday speach is more like an "idea." Theory in science is an hypothesis that has not been falsified despite numerous attempts at falsifying it by testing.

[sui generis]

6. it's so complicated that our puny minds cannot understand it

therefore some really Intelligent Deity, I mean, Intelligent Design must be involved. /end sarcasm

[Wabbajack]

7. Thanks all

I thought "theory" meant it was unproven and "law" is what it's called when it is proven, thanks.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. i dont mean to offend...but seriously

www.dictionary.com would have resolved this without sarcasm.

[AZCat]

9. No, a theory generally includes specific laws

For example, the theory of thermal mechanics includes a number of laws that describe the numerical relationships between different factors.

[murray hill farm]

13. So..it is...

if this is "a" is true and "b" is true, then might we conclude that "c" is true..and this is what constitutes a "theory"? A looking at a thing to determine if it is true by using what we do know to be true and applying it to show that then "c" might also be true? But not always the case? "Generally" u stated..so, not alwasys?

[Jesus H. Christ]

14. For fuck's sake.

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. clearly nobody but you likes my suggestion to use a bloody

DICTIONARY

[ChairOne]

31. I'm down.... with it....

I just hate explaining the english language to people who are "supposed" to be competent users of it....

[AZCat]

18. I don't understand your post

Could you be more clear about what are you asking?

[patcox2]

12. Theory as opposed to hypothesis.

The common speach definition of "theory" is closer to the scientific definition of "hypothesis." The scientific definition of "theory" is closer to the general usage definition of "proven fact." I am serious. This is a good way of thinking about it.

[progressiveBadger]

10. Theory just means that it hasn't been disproven

by anything currently known. The fact that the earth was round was only a theory until someone actually mapped out the whole thing. The point of the whole thing is so that FACT can never be disproven.

[Jesus H. Christ]

11. Artists talk about "color theory"

There's still such a thing as color.

As for plate tectonics, read a frikking book.

[K-W]

16. There is no such thing as absolute truth in science.

We could wake up tommarow to find that everything weve ever thought was wrong. That is why science is a good way of approaching the world around us. It recognizes that it can be wrong.

[Jesus H. Christ]

17. Bullshit there isn't.

nt

[K-W]

19. Excuse me?

Would you care to elaborate?

Id be happy to clear up any misunderstanding you may have about the scientific method.

[Jesus H. Christ]

20. Sure.

There are tectonic plates. That's an absolute fact. All life on Earth is has evolved from a common ancestor. That's an absolute fact. Microbes cause disease. That's an absolute fact.

The idea that "science never proves anything absolutely" is an absurd interpretation of the scientific method. Scientists don't subscribe to that notion. In fact, the only people that do are pseudoscientists like Creationists who hope to cast doubt on scientifically proven things, such as Evolution.

[AZCat]

21. Well, there are "refinements"

I think it is important to note that the understanding behind certain theories can change, just like how Newton's understanding of physics was shown to be a simplification of the current model. But that in no way invalidates Newton's work - in fact, his laws are used IMHO more commonly than the more accurate version because for the vast majority of problems (those with velocities < 10% speed of light) it is accurate.

[K-W]

24. Sometimes new evidence calls for a refinement of a theory.

Sometimes it calls for a theory to be thrown out wholesale.

Since all good theories must match the evidence, the odds of any good theory being completely wrong are slim, slim but not zero.

[AZCat]

26. Thank you for editing your post

I didn't understand your point at first - now I do.

Yes, I agree. I was just pointing out a case where the understanding behind physical evidence had changed, but the original understanding wasn't invalidated (it just needed an extension).

There are other examples of theories that had to be thrown out - the theory of an "ether" was discarded because of the experiments by Michelson and Morley.

[K-W]

23. You are misundestanding both science and my post.

"There are tectonic plates. That's an absolute fact."
The existance of a physical object is an emprical fact. Empiricism, not science deals with the existance of physical things.

"All life on Earth is has evolved from a common ancestor. That's an absolute fact. Microbes cause disease. That's an absolute fact."
Faith offers absolute facts. Science offers explenations of the world around us based on evidence. These explenations must by definition be falsifiable, which pretty much proves you completely wrong. That microbes cause disease is a link with a great deal of emprical support. That life on earth evolved from a common ancestor is also strongly empircally supported. They could however both be wrong, and anyone who claims to be a scientist will be happy to explain to you that once they think they know absolute truth, they have become philosophers, not scientists.


"The idea that "science never proves anything absolutely" is an absurd interpretation of the scientific method. Scientists don't subscribe to that notion. In fact, the only people that do are pseudoscientists like Creationists who hope to cast doubt on scientifically proven things, such as Evolution."

Actually the entire institution of science is based on the fact that there are no absolute truths. That all we can do is systematically evaluate the evidence and create as accurate a picture of the world as we can, but that picture must always be considered falsifiable. Science is the exercise of trying to disprove what we think we know, it is not an exercise in finding truth, and no competent scientist would ever claim to know absolute truths.

[Nihil]

28. Excellent summary

> anyone who claims to be a scientist will be happy to explain to you
> that once they think they know absolute truth, they have become
> philosophers, not scientists.

Dogmatic fanaticism is a bad habit, regardless of the particular "faith"
being followed ...

[Ediacara]

30. Actually, sir, you're talking out of your ass

The philosophical basis for the scientific method is falsification. There is no such thing as proof in science.

While tectonic theory and evolutionary theory have observed data supporting them, and have yet to be falsified despite endless attempts, they cannot ever be considered absolutely proven. Just as F = Ma can never be absolutely proven.

[T Town Jake]

22. You're not fooling anyone...

...with this horseshit post; you only come off looking pretty silly in the attempt.

[Squeegee]

27. No

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[enki23]

29. of course there's doubt!

when was the last time these tectonicists correctly predicted an earthquake? never. obviously this is all a bunch of bullshit. my ancestors never rode around on "plates." my ancestors *ate* off plates. and besides, it goes against the second law of thermodynamics. the plates in the earth's crust could never have come together at such well-defined and well-ordered boundaries by pure chance alone. look at how perfectly they line up. obviously there's an intelligence behind all this. and anyone with half a brain, and three-quarters of a soul in their pineal gland, could tell you those big cracks were created by the flood, so god could drain out all the water.

[On the Road]

32. They Can Pretty Much See the Plates Separating

in places like the spreading center of the Atlantic Ocean. That observation was the knockout punch for plate tectonics.

[AndyP]

34. look up polar wandering

When some igneous rocks are formed they have their moleculed aligned with the poles. We can look at the igneous rocks formed on the seafloor and we notice that the rocks don't point at the pole, you can actually follow where they did pointit forms a line that seems to "wander" about the top of the globe. Obviously the pole hasn't moved, it's been the plates, and the rocks on the plates that have moved. In my opinion it's the best evidence for plate techtonics, I like numbers and data- just how I like my evidence.