Comments on: Theories and Laws

By: Alan in Upstate NY

Alan in Upstate NY — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:55:16 +0000

You’re quite welcome. Thanks for the interesting links.

Clear skies, Alan

By: jewel

jewel — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:52:32 +0000

I really need to read more about String Theory and what predictions it makes. And also, where it fits in to the “theory”/”not theory” model of what we’re used to seeing.

Thank you Alan — now you’ve gotten me intensely curious.

By: jewel

jewel — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:45:16 +0000

You raise an excellent point, Alan and I don’t disagree.

By: Alan in Upstate NY

Alan in Upstate NY — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:24:06 +0000

I understand why people are confused by the terminology, it just bothers me that scientists don’t seem consistent in their usage – which can only add to the confusion. To me, sting theory seems little more than an interesting intellectual and mathematical exercise with absolutely no evidence behind it. Even if my analysis is a bit too harsh, it certainly doesn’t have the stature of evolution and gravity, and doesn’t yet deserve to be called a theory.

Clear skies, Alan

By: jewel

jewel — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:11:56 +0000

It really isn’t that hard to fathom why people would be confused by the terminology at all. That science uses words – that most of us use every day – to mean something different does take getting used to. That’s actually why I wrote this post – so that I could better understand the difference and be better prepared next time it comes up in conversation. And, hey, if it can clear anything up for anyone else, then that’s just a bonus.

I have often wondered about string theory, now that you mention it. I have no idea at all if it is well supported or not – I’m assuming the math supports it to at least some degree, but observation, I have no idea. It does seem a bit “out there”, though. I don’t have nearly enough of a math and physics background to be able to make any kind of determination about it it on my own, but it does sound quite interesting.

By: Alan in Upstate NY

Alan in Upstate NY — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 04:02:01 +0000

I just wish there was a bit more care in the use of “theory.” The folks trying to debunk evolution often claim “It is only a theory.” Scientists reply that a theory is a highly complimentary label that says the evidence strongly supports this idea and it is widely accepted. At the same time we have talk about “string theory,” which seems far from being an established idea backed by evidence.

Perhaps there is a differentiation between “String Theory” and “Theory of Strings?” At any rate the usage often confuses me and I should read some of your references.

Clear skies, Alan

By: Brett McCoy

Brett McCoy — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:38:17 +0000

Thanks! I am going to be posting a review of the book I mentioned this weekend.

By: jewel

jewel — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:27:59 +0000

Cool! I’ve added it to my sidebar links and to my feed reader. Looks interesting!

eta: I like the design quite a lot, too. Very pleasing to the eye.

By: Brett McCoy

Brett McCoy — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:15:17 +0000

BTW, I have started a new blog called “Autodidacted”:

http://debunkcreation.wordpress.com/

Despite the URL, it’s not really focused just on debunking creation, it’s a resurrection of an old blog I had started for someone else.

By: jewel

jewel — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:09:46 +0000

Yep, got it

Thanks!