What is a Theory?

No it isn't, water under normal circumstances still only boils at 100 C. But the observation wasn't under normal circumstances, it added a bit, the pressure. And so the theory became, water boils at 100 C unless a certain pressure is applied, then it boils at 70 C. Exactly, but since this doesn't happen naturally here on Earth, the theory that water boils at 100 C still stands. No it isn't. Your logic, however, is. Yes it does. Since the observation you're talking about didn't contradict the theory. But it didn't contradict it, water still boils at 100 C under normal circumstances, it will boil earlier when you tinker with the pressure,, but in a normal situation, this never happens. As shown, the theory is not false, there was just a bit added.

---

I hunt for the truth

Conditions as they exist naturally on this Earth. Happy now? Yes, and it is true. Everything we know says that it is right, how can you be so sure that it is wrong? Do you have evidence that it is wrong? No? Then this is just a baseless assertion. How do you know there will even BE a "next iteration"? You don't? Then it is again a baseless assertion. Wrong. Science will remain true, until facts turn up that show it isn't entirely correct. I think we can say this safely about most of the most well understood theories: "NO fact that turns up will sow them to be absolutely false." They might need some tweaking, but I'm fairly confident that they won't be shown to be utterly false. Look at your water example, that water boils at 100 C is still true, it just so happens you can also make it boil at 70 C when you tinker with the pressure.By the way, you do know NOTHING can ever be proven in science, don't you.

---

I hunt for the truth

Hey Ned, one thing: The Heliocentric model was overturned? When?

---

I hunt for the truth

Only by your definitions. See? Wrong. An incomplete theory simply hasn't had ALL possible observations and circumstances put into it. Everything it says will still be correct, there just needs to be added something to make it encompass more data. Again, only by your (false) logic. Axiomatic theories perhaps, but NO scientific theory is axiomatic. No, it isn't. For if everything we know is false i.e. it does not comply with reality, then how can we ever do anything? Ok, then since it doesn't mean that (only you think so), have we finally reached the conclusion that they aren't? And since it has absolutely no evidence, we can safely regard it as false for now.Here's an example for you to demonstrate the difference between false and incomplete.Say I went to a store last Friday and bought 2 sweets 1 soda and 1 hot dog. Now, when the next day someone asks me what I did yesterday, I tell them I went to the store. This is true (I went there). However, it is also incomplete (I bought several things there, which I didn't mention). Does this make the statement false? NO! The statement is true, just incomplete.I hope it helped.

---

I hunt for the truth

Of course not, because there's no way to tell if this is the case. Further, it was a hypothetical situation, showing that your logic is wrong. No theory claims itself to be true, simply because we can never know if it IS true, that doesn't mean that it reflects all observation until that point perfectly, and can thus be considered true. Yes, that does not mean it is not true though. Nobody does. But all theories fit all observation up until now. But we will never know if they are. But we can't observe every fact, not ever. Yes, such theories do not exist however. They don't exist either. Yet, such a theory does not exist. Wrong. They must be considered unscientific. In fact, they mustn't be considered theories at all. Wrong. Unfalsifiable statements aren't theories. They should also be considered unscientific. Wrong, theories are NEVER unfalsifiable.

---

I hunt for the truth

As Percy pointed out, none of those are theories. So again, you show your logic is false.Show me a theory that has a fixed number of observations that can be made, or retract your statements (like that will ever happen, judging by the way you post).I suggest you very carefully read this article, before posting again, to avoid embarrassing yourself some more with your faulty logic.Scientific theory - Wikipedia

---

I hunt for the truth

You didn't read the link I posted, did you? From Wiki:

quote:

---

In science, the word theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.

---

Since your statement doesn't explain a phenomenon (it only makes a prediction) it is not a theory.

---

I hunt for the truth

Did you read what I wrote? I wrote that your "theory" does not explain a phenomenon. It is only a prediction, it is not a an explanation, and thus not a theory.

---

I hunt for the truth

You were wrong though. We're not talking about formal theories here, we're talking about scientific ones. And your prediction that it will rain tomorrow is NOT a scientific theory.

---

I hunt for the truth

Seriously? You didn't just say that did you? What the hell has gotten into your head? "It rains tomorrow" A mathematical theory? Can I have some of what you're smoking?

---

I hunt for the truth

But it is NOT a mathematical theory, which is what you claimed it to be. Further, it rains tomorrow doesn't mean it will rain on the 17th of January, it depends on when the statement is made what tomorrow is. Also, it is not a scientific theory, as has been explained at least 5 times now.

---

I hunt for the truth

No he didn't. I don't know if he is "smarter" than Strephen Hawking, I do know you didn't understand what he said. Would you mind arguing against what he actually said, instead of resortying back to this trather poor ad hominem?P.s.: All hail Rrhain! Champion of reason and logic!

---

I hunt for the truth