many times a newer theory is developed, is that considered a change or another theory? However, then you have a theory, like Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which covers a broad range of areas. Some of those areas have been proven false but some parts still have validity.
So it all depends on how you look at it, in reality a theory can change when new light is brought out. To me it would be more of a clarification to the theory rather than the end of it. So personally I would say that it can be altered.
Yes.
When I was in school 60 years ago, the theory was that the moon was formed when a part of the earth, located where the Pacific Ocean is today, broke off and became the moon. That was why the Pacific Ocean basin was different than the rest of the world.
Obviously that theory has been disproved. We now know that there was a collision between the earth and another planet somewhat the size of Mars, which scattered lots of debris into space. Enough of that coalesced into the moon.
And the Pacific Ocean basin is different than the land because tectonic plates in the deep ocean are formed of basaltic rock, which is less common on land.
Soooooooooooo, changes in our understanding of science, and the world around us, make it harder from some of us old folks to keep up. However, it's also true that some of us are more interested in what's going on, so spend more time trying to make sense of the conflicting sources of information that is available to the public.
Since this was asked in the global warming category, it's possible that it was in response to the global warming controversy that exists today. I might point out that it was the scientists, not the general public, that changed our understanding of the formation of the moon, and the geology of the Pacific Ocean. And the scientists nearly universally think that global warming is a problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of ALL OF THE MAJOR INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...
"With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change."
IE, NO REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION NOW CLAIMS THAT AGW IS NOT REAL.
SO, virtually all of the scientists, from countries around the entire world, think that global warming is a problem. Why do so many relatively uneducated people, who honestly don't understand the physics involved, think that they are smarter than the scientists, who, in many cases, have Master's, and PhD, degrees? That is the problem that we're having -- the number of people who don't understand, or don't care, that the earth really is warming.
http://www.rkm.com.au/ANIMATIONS/carbon-... <== here's the physics.
For both water and CO2. You really want to understand what it's saying.
The more water and CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more heat the earth retains.
This is the basic science behind global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
Wikipedia probably has the most complete description in one place.
respect for scientific knowledge and achievements. However, many will agree that while science involves a way of knowing, it is not the only source of knowledge. The purpose of science is to describe phenomena in the natural world and to assist in answering how these phenomena occur.
Science provides us with insights into the physical universe, meaning everything that is observable. But no matter how far scientific investigation goes, it can never answer the question of purpose―why the universe exists in the first place.
“There are some questions that scientists can never answer,” remarks author Tom Utley. “It may be that the Big Bang happened 12?billion years ago. But why did it happen? .?.?. How did the particles get there in the first place? What was there before?” Utley concludes: “It seems .?.?. clearer than ever that science will never satisfy the human hunger for answers.”
Scientific knowledge gained through such inquisitiveness, far from disproving the need for a God, has only served to confirm what a fantastically complex, intricate, and awe-inspiring world we live in. Many thinking people find it plausible to conclude that the physical laws and chemical reactions as well as DNA and the amazing diversity of life all point to a Creator. There is no irrefutable proof to the contrary.
True religion, in answering the question of why and in dealing with the purpose of life, also offers standards for values, morals, and ethics as well as guidance in life. Scientist Allan Sandage expressed it this way: “I don’t go to a biology book to learn how to live.”
“There is no incompatibility between science and religion. Both are seeking the same truth. Science shows that God exists.”―D.H.R. Barton, professor of chemistry, Texas.
For more information on this subject and others go to the source below for free downloads, publications, videos or read on line.
The key word is THEORIES. Theories are not the same as fact. Fact is a known thing that does not change. Theories can change. Theories are ideas that are thought as true until someone comes up with a way to change it and make it better. So, the answer is FALSE.
If you have anymore questions email me at:
advisoranonymous@yahoo.com
True - Ones that can't stand up to the scientific method are scrapped, others are natural laws like gravity. (gravity is a law, not a theory). Phrenology, Eugenics, and the Geo Centric Universe were once theories accepted by 97% of scientists. Now they are scrapped and so will other theories that are supported by 97% of "scientists" because they can't be shown to be true.
Scientific Theories are based on facts.
To develop a theory a scientist attempt to disprove his hypothesis then takes the end results and asks other scientists to attempt to disprove the findings.
Posting that question here in Global Warming, rather than in the Science and Math section suggests you may be looking at the global warming issue politically.
Also, since you have a new, level 1 account, and this is the first question you have asked, and you haven't answered any questions, i concluded you've had accounts suspended and are an abuser of Yahoo Answers. If i'm wrong about that, i welcome you to Y!A
True.
In science, the word "theory" is short hand for "this is the scenario that all known facts support". The key term here is "known facts". Theories can change, be rendered obsolete or be flat proven wrong with the advent of new information. Theories gets revised all the time to allow for new information. It is actually more common for a theory to change than it is to be proven false or become obsolete.
I think Gary F's answer is correct on this one. Theories are subject to change meaning the theory was proved wrong and you then need a new theory.
true, of course. What scientists call a "theory" they should better call an "explanatory model", based on evidence gathered. They have lots of what they call "theories", like the "theory" of gravitation, or the "theory" of quantum physics. Science has overthrown or adapted many of their explanatory models (allow me to use this term from now on), like when Einstein said, there is no ether, and light is a particle as well as a wave, and he and his contemporaries (like Planck, Heisenberg, Bose, and many others) made up the "quantum theory". It obviously works, because if it didn't, we wouldn't have lasers, GPS, and the internet.
I don't understand many of these theories, like space-time bending around heavy objects, or, when you pull a neutron apart, with enough energy, its constituating quarks don't just disappear, but for every quark there suddenly is its counterpart appearing, which proves, on the one hand, Einstein's theory of energy equivalating mass, by mass appearing out of "nowhere", and on the other hand tells us that no matter how you try, you can't destroy a neutron. Scientists do experiments like that which are beyond my imagination, and my imagination is already out of the ordinary.
There is a nice anecdote about the guy who found out that between the electron and the nucleus of an atom, there is a lot of empty space: He went upstairs to sleep after that discovery, and the next morning, he was afraid to step out of bed because he thought he could fall through the floor. -- Even if that is just a well-told story and there's no truth in it, I can understand how mindbending it must be to discover something like that: That all atoms, and therefore, everything alive, is held together by force fields, and matter is less than what we think, or after all, what we think is matter is just the illusion of it.
True. Scientific theories change all the time. Earth was initially considered flat and now it considered as a sphere.
Good discussion of the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law, and how theories can change, while laws do not.
http://thehappyscientist.com/science-exp...
True. More facts and evidence can be discovered after the theories are formed. Not everything can be 100% correct the first time.
True - although "change" typically means one scientific theory being replaced by a new theory.
=====
Dr Jello --
>> (gravity is a law, not a theory).<<
Gravity is a law (Newton) and a theory (Einstein). The theory is more powerful.
Many scientific theories die when the scientist who thought it up dies. It is replaced by a 'new' theory that lasts just as long.
True. A theory is widely accepted by most but is not a set in stone idea.
Conditionally true.
Scientific theories are subject to change until the science becomes "settled." Then no more changes are possible.
Edit: Three TD's. I guess the libs are upset I pointed out that "settled science" is an oxymoron. Science is never settled.
True. A theory is widely accepted by most but is not a set in stone idea.
True. A theory is widely accepted by most but is not a set in stone idea.
True,
Sometimes they are proven false. Sometimes they have to be updated. Other times they simply evolve as we continue to learn more.
Even some Scientific Laws need to be adjusted from time to time.
True. A theory is widely accepted by most but is not a set in stone idea.
True. So are scientific "laws" and "facts."
In most cases, scientific law and scientific theory are synonymous.
True. Facts based on empirical observation and replicable experiments are the ultimate determiner of which theories last, and which die or get changed.
True. So are scientific "laws" and "facts."
In most cases, scientific law and scientific theory are synonymous.
True. So are scientific "laws" and "facts."
In most cases, scientific law and scientific theory are synonymous.
True. So are scientific "laws" and "facts."
In most cases, scientific law and scientific theory are synonymous.
True. So are scientific "laws" and "facts."
In most cases, scientific law and scientific theory are synonymous.
They (modern scientists) change their theory day by day as well as reverse also. They cheat Govt. and peoples and earn huge money and enjoy.
true. gravity is such a theory but it still hurts falling down a building even if the explanation is about curved time-space tensors.
anytime the word "theory" is used, its subject to change.
Lin Lyons read this https://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads...
