[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

FW: Theory or Law : Semantics??



You hit the nail right on the head, David!!!

----------------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:41:37 +0100
> From: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Theory or Law : Semantics??
>
>> Dawkin[...]s has suggested the word "theorum" (not "theorem", already in
>> use) for something which "has been confirmed or established by
>> observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as
>> accounting for known facts; [it is] a statement of what are held to
>> be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or
>> observed." He uses evolution, heliocentrism, a round planet, and
>> photosynthesis as examples of theora.
>
> Too bad this word sounds outright stupid outside of English. :-)
>
> This site http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/evol/evolfact.htm offers a very
> good definition of "fact" and points out the importance of "speculation"
> together with "hypothesis" and "theory". It's just too bad it gets "law"
> completely wrong.
>
> Laws are simple generalizations about facts, usually expressible in a
> simple mathematical formula.
>
> Theories don't grow up to become laws or facts. Theories _explain_ facts
> and laws.
>
> Incidentally, most conspiracy theories are encompassing enough to
> qualify as theories, unparsimonious though they are...                        
>                   
_________________________________________________________________
Say Happy New Year with Messenger for Mobile.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9706117