To be considered rubbish (or sound) ALL theories need to be tested. That goes for both academics and mystics.
No they don't, in that world they do [prove it, prove it again- oh i can't so therefore it can't be true], just because someone can't prove something is true doesn't make it a lie.... [i know it doesn't make it true either]
Although sometimes testing a theory may disprove it (or bits of it), or it may take it somewhere else instead.
If there is evidence that can be put up against the theory, the evidence may support the theory (without necessarily disproving it), in which case the theory can then be tested against other evidence that comes to light.
If the evidence doesn't fit the theory, then this can be an indication that the theory was completely wrong, or it might just need to be modified to accomodate the evidence. But the evidence itself must also be sound.
For example, if I have a theory that water boils at 50 degrees, I can test this by boiling water and using a thermometer to check the boiling point. If the thermometer shows the water has actually boiled at 100 degrees, this would appear to be evidence that doesn't support my theory.
But what if my thermometer is faulty? What if instead of 100 degrees, it shows that the water is boiling at 50 degrees? Would this prove that my theory was right? Not necessarily.
I could use a second thermometer as a control. If this one shows that water boils at 100 degrees, I have a problem, as the two thermometers show two different boiling points. So it would be necessary to check again with a third thermometer. If I test the temperature with enough thermometers, and they all show the boiling point to be 100 degrees, I can be fairly sure that my original theory "water boils at 50 degrees" is disproven. And then I have to bow to the weight of evidence and accept that my theory was wrong.
Reply | with quote
|Posted by thesweetcheat|
6th August 2012ce
Modern not antiquarian (texlahoma, Aug 01, 2012, 11:49)
- Re: Modern not antiquarian (Littlestone, Aug 01, 2012, 12:15)
- Re: Modern not antiquarian (goffik, Aug 01, 2012, 12:59)
- Re: Modern not antiquarian (Chris Collyer, Aug 01, 2012, 13:18)
- Re: Modern not antiquarian (CARL, Aug 01, 2012, 13:45)
- OT: That's you! OMG! (thesweetcheat, Aug 01, 2012, 21:24)