5 ms·

You mean it's not just a hypothesis. I would really, really expect users of this site to know the difference.

elpocko 3y ago
What if they don't? Will they cease to be users of this site? What if they speak a lot more languages than you, just not perfectly? Does it even matter what you would expect?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
andrewflnr 3y ago
Users of this site who pay attention to how science is actually practiced, and not the oversimplified cartoon version they teach us in school, know that the boundary between a "theory" and a "hypothesis" is rather blurry. For instance, have you ever noticed how it's called "string theory" despite having no real evidence for it? Have you ever heard anyone, let alone a real scientist, complain about this nomenclature? Early theories and fleshed-out hypotheses overlap a lot. There's no sharp transition from one to the other.
- infamouscow 3y ago
  I think it's important to draw a distinction between the formal and natural sciences. HN is overrepresented by folks with backgrounds in mathematics and computer science where using "theory" is correct, e.g., set theory. Bret Weinstein explained the distinction between a hypothesis and theory a few weeks ago on YOUR WELCOME. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac4MnNrs6g4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac4MnNrs6g4
  - andrewflnr 3y ago
    I specifically cited an example in the natural sciences, specifically physics. IIRC chemistry and biology do similar shenanigans at times. Again, consider how you could possibly draw a sharp distinction when accumulation of evidence is so often a gradual process. I'll consider responding to the video if you give me a reasonable timeslice, but I'm not going to watch the whole hour.
- snowwrestler 3y ago
  String theory is supported by a ton of evidence in that it can produce many predictions and hypotheses that match observed data. That’s why it’s called a “theory” and why people continue to study it. What’s missing is a test that would produce evidence that would allow us to distinguish between string theory and competing theories. But that’s not nearly the same thing as saying it has “no real evidence.”
  - philipswood 3y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but string theory is still in the "it's so pretty and elegant is must be true kind of territory". Not only do they have no proof, most of the potential experimental confirmations are at energies so high they're effectively out of reach for the foreseeable near future.
    - AppleBananaPie 3y ago
      I used to think this same thing but I went down a rabbit hole a few months ago listening to people very critical of string theory like angela collier, sabbine, eric weinstein, peter woit and some others on youtube. Yeah they all have their own quirks but after listening to their take on the history of string theory the common things are it hasn't produced anything but the major proponents of it always talk like it has and in some cases outright lie about things that it has contributed. I really like listening to brian greene and sean carroll but now when I listen to them, particularly in recent videos, it feels like there is much less substance to what they're actually saying string theory has done. But who knows! Maybe I'll learn something new and completely flip my world view again, I'm not a physicist by any stretch so have to rely on listening to experts :)
      - andrewflnr 3y ago
        I think you're in agreement with the grandparent post. I took them to be using "must be true" sarcastically, given the rest of their post.
    - snowwrestler 3y ago
mcmoor 3y ago
The (scientific) theory is really not just a (colloquial) theory

What if they don't? Will they cease to be users of this site? What if they speak a lot more languages than you, just not perfectly? Does it even matter what you would expect?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

andrewflnr 3y ago

Users of this site who pay attention to how science is actually practiced, and not the oversimplified cartoon version they teach us in school, know that the boundary between a "theory" and a "hypothesis" is rather blurry. For instance, have you ever noticed how it's called "string theory" despite having no real evidence for it? Have you ever heard anyone, let alone a real scientist, complain about this nomenclature? Early theories and fleshed-out hypotheses overlap a lot. There's no sharp transition from one to the other.

infamouscow 3y ago
I think it's important to draw a distinction between the formal and natural sciences. HN is overrepresented by folks with backgrounds in mathematics and computer science where using "theory" is correct, e.g., set theory. Bret Weinstein explained the distinction between a hypothesis and theory a few weeks ago on YOUR WELCOME. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac4MnNrs6g4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac4MnNrs6g4
- andrewflnr 3y ago
  I specifically cited an example in the natural sciences, specifically physics. IIRC chemistry and biology do similar shenanigans at times. Again, consider how you could possibly draw a sharp distinction when accumulation of evidence is so often a gradual process. I'll consider responding to the video if you give me a reasonable timeslice, but I'm not going to watch the whole hour.
snowwrestler 3y ago
String theory is supported by a ton of evidence in that it can produce many predictions and hypotheses that match observed data. That’s why it’s called a “theory” and why people continue to study it. What’s missing is a test that would produce evidence that would allow us to distinguish between string theory and competing theories. But that’s not nearly the same thing as saying it has “no real evidence.”
- philipswood 3y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but string theory is still in the "it's so pretty and elegant is must be true kind of territory". Not only do they have no proof, most of the potential experimental confirmations are at energies so high they're effectively out of reach for the foreseeable near future.
  - AppleBananaPie 3y ago
    I used to think this same thing but I went down a rabbit hole a few months ago listening to people very critical of string theory like angela collier, sabbine, eric weinstein, peter woit and some others on youtube. Yeah they all have their own quirks but after listening to their take on the history of string theory the common things are it hasn't produced anything but the major proponents of it always talk like it has and in some cases outright lie about things that it has contributed. I really like listening to brian greene and sean carroll but now when I listen to them, particularly in recent videos, it feels like there is much less substance to what they're actually saying string theory has done. But who knows! Maybe I'll learn something new and completely flip my world view again, I'm not a physicist by any stretch so have to rely on listening to experts :)
    - andrewflnr 3y ago
      I think you're in agreement with the grandparent post. I took them to be using "must be true" sarcastically, given the rest of their post.
  - snowwrestler 3y ago

mcmoor 3y ago

The (scientific) theory is really not just a (colloquial) theory