Talk:Theory

message: I had removed this i.m.o. vague and incomprehensible (and unsourced) phrase which was inserted by . Environnement2100 re-inserted the phrase and left this on my talk page. This message didn't clear up, nor explain much, let alone provide a source. I also think that the statement is just wrong, after all, we all know that theories can at best falsified, but never proven true. Edit-warring is not really on priority list, but I think this phrase should be removed again. Comments? DVdm (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As there were no comments, I assume that there is no objection to the removal of the phrase, so I went ahead and removed it. DVdm (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It must come with a number of conditions under which it has been proven true" 

message: As mentioned above this article certainly needs discussion of the theory/practice distinction which is the basis of the whole meaning of this word in modern European languages. There is also no discussion of practice in any Wikipedia article. I think there is no point having two articles, as the two terms make sense in contrast to each other.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What happens if someone is looking up the word practice in the sense covered by this article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question, I think there is definitely a case for a disambiguation page, or some other wikiartefact to point people in the right direction. The fact remains though that this article is about more than just the difference between theory and practice, so adopting such a title would be an unneccessary stricture. Riversider (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly a solution can be found in that direction?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change proposal: "Theory and practice" 

message: I recently looked and found the page praxis (process) on a specific notion of the relationship between theory and practice. Seems relevant to theory to me. User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory and Practice relationship

message: Can some things be theoretical and also non-theoretical (i.e. actual?)? If so, then there may need to be such a distinction as "theoretical-only" or similar, making it clear that certain things cannot exist or won't exist, or probably don't exist. Or maybe all three of those things from the last sentence could do with a distinctive name, or maybe I'm completely missing the point. For example, the ideal gas article refers to molecules of zero mass. Can this exist? I'd suspect not, therefore, some acknowledgement of that along-side the word "theoretical" might be useful. A good idea? --Rebroad (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of words like "only in theory" to refer to impossible abstractions is in my opinion something best handled as a word use variant at wiktionary? Although it is common, there are other ways to refer to such abstraction which would not use the word theory. Perhaps there could be a mention of this usage in the article and a link to a more appropriate article, but what article would that be? (Wikipedia is not normally just a collection of word meaning information. See WP:NOT.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Theoretical-only" 

message: The article starts to touch on this public misunderstanding of the word "theory" by discussing "theoretical" but never quite reaches the colloquialism. This really should be addressed someplace since it is so often used. Student7 (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain in more detail what you mean. Are you talking about for example the case of people who say the theory of evolution is only a theory?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That sort of thing. "Theoretical" touches on this but does not address the exact wording used by the public at large which has a different understanding of the term. Seems easy to insert but needs encyclopedia tone and references. Student7 (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Only a theory"

message: Just one thing. I'm explaining alittle more along the lines of the article above. Isn't something called a theory, because that's what it is? Just a theory? Most people confuse "theory" with "fact". Like the Big Bang theory, or the theory of evolution.  A Theory is something that could be true, not something that is true. The sad thing is, most schools are teaching theories like those above, as fact.  I just wanted to make that clear.Carleen6 (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Isn't a Theory, a Theory?

message: Under References is listed the following book:
    Mohr, Johnathon (2008). "Revelations and Implications of the Failure of Pragmatism: 
    The Hijacking of Knowledge Creation by the Ivory Tower". New York: Ballantine Books. pp. 87–192.
Problem: The underlined reference to the author is a generic page on the name "Mohr",
not a reference to the author.
Problem: A search of the internet using Google shows many Wiki references to this
book, but no listing of the title or author.
Problem: A search at both Amazon.com and Biblio.com finds
neither an author or title of the listed reference.
I believe that this entry dhould be corrected or removed.
Respectfully Submitted,
     Chip Griffin  
     September 6, 2011
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.103.97 (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it. I see no good purpose it was serving, and I also could not anything except an amazing number of obvious wiki mirrors. Have you also looked at the other works in the references?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect article reference.  (?) 

message: Thank you for correcting the reference error.
No, I did not check the other references, 
but they "seemed" valid from my earlier readings.
When I find time, I will check them.  
(It seems odd that none of them are underlined.
This would indicate a link to the source.  
The notes above seem to have valid hypertext references.)
Chip Griffin
September 7, 2011 at 1:20pm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.103.97 (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect article reference.  (?) - Followup 

message: I have re-deleted two passages from the article's section "Theories as models", after my original deletion was reverted without explanation. 
First, it originally said that theories "explain, predict, and master phenomena", and I deleted "master". To explain or predict phenomena has a scientific meaning, whereas to "master" phenomena does not. 
Second, I deleted the passage
:[A scientific theory's] statements [can be thought of] as axioms of some axiomatic system.
That is not true. Some of a theory's statements are axioms, and some are not.
Third, I deleted 
:The aim of [a scientific theory's] construction is to create a formal system for which reality is the only model. 
Reality is the model of the formal system? Nope. The formal system is a model of reality.
Fourth, I deleted
:The world is an interpretation (or model) of such scientific theories, only insofar as the sciences are true. 
No, the scientific theories are interpretations of the world, not vice versa.  Duoduoduo (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for recent edit

message: It is incorrect to claim that "a theory is an hypothesis that has survived extensive testing."
The difference between an hypothesis and a theory is one of kind, not of degree.
An hypothesis is a single testable statement. Any hypothesis can be restated as single question. A theory is a body of knowledge about a certain subject, organized according to a particular paradigm. A theory necessarily involves the exploration of how certain ideas relate to other ideas within the subject matter. A theory will normally have at its foundation multiple hypotheses. It is absurd to claim that an hypothesis can become a theory via extensive confirmation. To form a theory from an hypothesis requires not confirmation, but rather elaboration.
Theories can be revised as new evidence arises. Is it often possible to modify a small part of theory without requiring major changes to the theory as a whole. In contrast, an hypotheses is generally all or nothing - its either kept or replaced depending on how it fits with newly discovered evidence; incremental tweaking of an hypothesis is only rarely possible, thus failed hypotheses are normally replaced rather than modified.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waynemv (talk • contribs) 21:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your well-articulated explanation of the difference. I hope you like, or will improve on, my modification of that part of the article.  Duoduoduo (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your modification is brilliant, and better stated than I could have done.  Waynemv (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory versus Hypothesis 

message: I move this remark to a new section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: A concern about how theories in science are being described

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140912175614/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0251:text=Praec.:section=1&highlight=medical%2Ctheory to http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0251:text=Praec.:section=1&highlight=medical%2Ctheory
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think a section needs to be added to Scientific theories to address the difference between math theories and others (as is done for physics). Math theories (say, set theory) are collections of math techniques and concepts that fill in a disciplinary area, or something like that. Physical evidence (observations, data) aren't relevent, I think. I haven't the philosophical chops to put that together. SkoreKeep (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Mathematical theories

message: A theory is flat out misunderstood in the welcoming paragraph of the main page. It states the widespread, incorrect usage of "Theory" and pretends its true. A Theory is as close to a fact as you can get in Science. People are using the word, like it means hypothesis, it does not. Stop spreading this incorrect information. Fix this page!! TheCyndicate (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike other areas on the web, we put new posts at the bottom of the page. I have taken the liberty of moving your post to this position, I hope you don't mind. You would not have reached this false impression had you read as far as the fourth paragraph in the lead. You are clearly referring to what is called there a scientific theory, while the whole article is dealing with a broader topic of theories in general. In this broader context, non-scientific theories (in education, history, economics, etc.) do not carry the same weight that scientific ones do, and they are much closer to being merely hypotheses.--Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add here that your assertion that a scientific theory "is as close to a fact as you can get in science".  That's not true; all scientific theories are always provisional and open to correction or scrapping when new data shows they are wrong, and it is never possible to claim you have a theory that covers all possible data. Facts (roughly, observations or data) are that which can be accepted as true by both sides of a controversy. Gravity is a fact, anyone can observe it.  The theory of gravity is a theory; they are not the same things.  Let's try to be a little less dogmatic about these things.  SkoreKeep (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is incorrect information allowed posted here? 

message: I'm reverting the following recent addition to the lead section, for the following reasons:
:It is possible to distinguish between three types of theories. Explanatory theory, also known as descriptive or empirical, helps to explain why and under what conditions, certain situations take place. The second type is interpretive theory or constitutive theory and this imposes meaning on events and issues with the objective to understand, instead of explaining, the world. The last one is called normative theory, also referred to as prescriptive, which prescribes values and standards of conduct: that means dealing with how the world should be instead of what it is.[4]
with a citation to a book called Global Politics. I think a book on international relations is too narrowly focused to be a source for categorization of theory as it occurs in a wide variety of contexts. And the categorization in this paragraph strikes me as not very sensible. First, why would "explanatory theory" be viewed as synonymous with "descriptive theory"? Description is not even theory, and explanation does not simply describe but rather states why we observe what has been described. Second, the paragraph says that interpretive theory strives to understand rather than to explain; but there's no substantive difference between explaining and understanding—explaining is both necessary and sufficient for understanding.Loraof (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of theory, in lead 

message: Why is this article almost entirely focused on hard-science theories?  That coverage is fine, but the article as a whole is grossly overbalanced toward the hard sciences; we have exactly fourteen sentences split among theories in social sciences and the humanities.  The only section of this article in which anything other than hard science comes close to a balance is the List of notable theories section; elsewhere in the article is zero mention of such significant concepts as music theory, film theory, and literary theory, except in a single sentence listing kinds of theory.  I came here expecting to find something about theoretical approaches to history, but the string histor appears only in an etymological discussion, applications of scientific theories in the real-time historical world, historical changes in our understanding of scientific phenomena, and the titles of two cited works.  The article doesn't even mention Marx, who's been a major factor in historical theory, economic theory, political theory, and even linguistic theory!  Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps so.  Please feel free to essay changes to the article to balance it where needed. SkoreKeep (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced template 

message: I think there is a discussion about this topic like most scientfic laws are derived by data. But some belive that by finding complete theory will give all results.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.37.164.87 (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory derives data or other way? 

message: There seem to be several problems with this sentence, found in the introduction:
"The word theory or 'in theory' is more or less often used erroneously by people to explain something which they individually did not experience or tested before."
First,
"... which they individually did not experience or tested before"
is obviously not grammatically correct.  I'm not quite sure what the author meant to say -- perhaps something like
"... which they have neither experienced nor tested."
That would at least be grammatically correct, but it doesn't seem to make sense in that it mixes testing -- presumably of the theory -- with experiencing -- presumably of the phenomenon to be explained.
In
"The word theory or 'in theory' is ...,"
surely "theory" should be quoted, to be clear that we aren't talking about something called "word theory."  Also, the construction is awkward, since "in theory" is not also a word.
Finally, in
"is more or less often used erroneously"
is "more or less" describing "often," or "used"?  Should that be
"is often used more or less erroneously"?
Wait, one more thing.  It seems unnecessary (and a bit silly), when talking about words being used erroneously, to clarify that we are talking about words used "by people."
AmigoNico (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical problems 

message: I've noticed some previous discussions on the topic, but it still appears to be missing some important distinctions especially in the areas of science/physics. The article does a good job at highlighting the extent of verification that a theory must undergo for it to be different than a hypothesis, but there really should be more of a distinction made between fact and theory. As it is currently worded, it world not be that difficult to confuse one with the other, which is obviously not the case. It might be helpful to make a very direct comparison of the two so that the average reader will be able to understand the difference (perhaps by supplying a small paragraph to this point alone). Simply searching through the article for the word ″fact″doesn't actually find a straight forward explanation. To test this, I've had two other people read through the page and then asked them what the difference between fact and theory was. The response was that there wasn't any. Granted, these were not individuals that had a great interest in science, but this is Wikipedia and they shouldn't have to be. It may simply be just taking concepts from different sections and putting them together more directly. Perhaps explaining how they are not interchangeable, how theories can be used to explain facts (again, by making a simple, direct reference to the word ″fact″) and that despite rigorous testing, theories can always be challenged and possibly corrected, if flawed. I think the article as a whole address these things, but I imagine that anyone reading it specially for this information would not feel confident that they understood the idea once they're done.
Johnbo42 (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that the "fact/theory" distinction would be something a lot of readers would be interested in. Perhaps the article could be made to better address the question. Unfortunately I, and many philosophers and scientists, would argue that fact and theory are equivalent! But that theories come in different levels of generality, predictive power, and certainty.  I guess we could choose theories that we are sufficiently sure about facts if we liked. I imagine we can dig up a number texts that look into the question, quine comes to mind at the moment, but there are probably more modern things. I think a paragraph that discusses the difference between "theories" like "the boiling point of water is 100C", "quarks exist" and "separation of institutions increases political stability". I think some quiney philosophy, and a little economics history and sociology might make a nice mix here.  Talpedia (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  fact theory 

message: In the section "Definitions from scientific organizations", it also becomes a reference to that of atoms.
Here "... that matter is not composed of atoms", except that such a thing is perhaps only a simplification of real fact,
when also the Periodic table.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table
More is perhaps needed for that of detail here, in order to be explaining.
Feilretter2468 (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions from scientific organizations 

message: Ano Ang teorya 209.35.164.4 (talk) 09:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ap 

message: I think these should be merged together as they have a lot of overlaps and currently, for some reason, the page shows quantum gravity and string theory in cosmology. Theories like Newton's theory of gravitation do fit the title of astronomy but are important in other areas of physics too. Angulon (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astronomy, Cosmology and Physics 

message: I think "theories" like string theory, quantum gravity and multiverse theory should be removed from physics because as explained in the article, theories need to have testable predictions. These can instead by put separately somehow. Angulon (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untested "theories like string theory