We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.

New answers tagged

-2

Your question contains lots of misconceptions about science and critical discussion in general. First, scientific knowledge is created by noticing a problem with existing ideas, proposing solutions to that problem and criticising the solutions until only one is left. No theory is immune from people spotting problems with it and proposing a better theory. ...


3

Here are some considerations that may be a first step toward an answer: Normativity - It seems to me the biggest difference here is that the public educators you mention all have a normative concept built into their definition of 'theory.' The Berkeley page says "strongly supported", and the other two say "well-substantiated" and "well-supported", ...


0

I believe this question misunderstands that nature of scientific investigation. A theory is nothing more than a claim about (or model of) the processes lying behind some observable event. We do not need evidence of any sort to formulate a theory; evidence only serves to convince others (and ourselves) that our theory is functional and sound. Obviously, a ...


0

Let me throw my two cents here. I am not claiming to have answers to your questions. I have just some remarks of methodological nature and some references that you may find useful. I think that you can only speak about precise definition (or lacks of one) of some entity in the context of some fixed system S. So when discussing notions of a physical/abstract/...


-1

Words change over time. If looking for any ‘true definition’ if it exists, it is buried in prehistory (before the age of writing) and so etymologies going back to prehistory can only be speculative. The word at the origin of the meaning ‘tree’ (the plant), may have come from the same prehistoric ancestor of the Latin word ‘terra’ and French ‘terre’ (which ...


3

[I]t is difficult to narrow down an exact definition of a tree because every tree is different. So to define a tree, we are actually defining everything else as not a tree, until we decide it fits into the tree category. Welcome to SE Philosophy! This is a very philosophical question, and one that hinges on the nature of definition. In your title you use ...


3

The definition you're suggesting would be circular. So to define a tree, we are actually defining everything else as not a tree Of course, to define everything else as 'not a tree' you would first need to a have conception of 'tree'. Also, notice how you say "everything else", which presumably means "everything that's not a tree". So we define everything ...


Top 50 recent answers are included