John Futch Robin has hit the nail on the head with the exception that she mixes

up theory with hypothesis. One's theory is an hypothesis or set thereof UNTIL experiments conducted assuming those hypotheses regularly and without exception predict the results those assumptions as hypotheses constituting such a theory predict will occur; if they do occur... the theory then attains the status of fact.

[Here Futch conflates Theories with Facts. Theories place observable facts in a framework; That framework is the Theory. My position is that: 1) Addition or removal of specific facts can change modify or disprove the Theory; 2) Alternate Theories may be constructed from the same Facts; 3) Theories may be asymptotic to Facts, but they will probably not be able to define ALL aspects of the Facts there may be discrepancies or holes which may take generations to complete.]
>>Relation of String Theory Mathematics Faradays Equations<<

I'd hate to believe we were still only theorizing that a certain mass will produce a chain reaction after the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the numerous other tests.

[And then conflates theorizing , ie, thinking about, with Theory]

Same with evolution: the fossil record and genetics have now confirmed that evolution does occur by Spencer's term "natural selection based on Darwin's ideas in ORIGIN OF SPECIES (1859).

[Spencers term was survival of the fittest which he came up with after reading Origin of Species; Spencer more accurately believed that life evolved toward purpose manifested by greater complexity His evolution of complexity encompassed creation of the universe, to animal evolution on earth, to social evolution of people, and was less derived from observation, as Charles Darwins work, than from comparative and analytical philosophers. According to Spencer, social evolution would create a perfect man in a perfect world with understanding and equanimity.] Today, that is fact [not clear what that refers to] and why Rice University has a Department of
Evolutionary Biology and wouldn't consider teaching "creationism" as an alternative. Tuesday at 2:50am John Futch Science or scientific 'knowledge' is merely a set of hypotheses constituting theories which have been rigorously and without bias or invalid skewing tested over and over consistently with the same results occurring for each set of the same assumptions, constants, and conditions.

[This is the classic picture of the physical sciences with clearly defined and testable elements.]
The word 'science' is merely an English form of the Latin 'scientia which was Romes translation of the Greek word 'episteme', both of which translate merely as 'knowledge'. Science has come to mean in English precisely what Plato described as 'EPISTEME' in the 6th Book of his great writing, THE REPUBLIC. To understand the term 'EPISTEME' (four syllables), one must STUDY Plato's REPUBLIC or in Greek POLITEA, again our term for that immortal masterpiece is a Latin translation combining the terms RES = THINGS and PUBLICA = OF THE PEOPLE (as a group). Both 'scio, scire' are 'I know', 'to know' and the same for the Greek 'epistamai' or 'epistei', 'epistasai' are 'I know' (as an act on myself) or 'I know', 'to know, Plato explains the object of this verbal action of 'knowing' in the famous Simile of The Line . Understanding or knowing the principles and elements of something merely means that one can explain whatever that something is by means of a consistent set of hypotheses or 'theory' which, when tested produces the implied results or consequences predicted by that theory from nature, 'natura', 'physis', or the world of experience around us.

[Does this imply that science explains what IS, the what? Or that science can demonstrate the contiguous elements of the Theory which it is attempting to explain in order to explain the elements which demonstrate the Theory? Or that science describes the how?]

Today that is just what science means.

[So Today, Science means just what Plato said it meant in the Republic? How would one reconcile Heisenberg and Schrodingers cat to Platos expositions?] [An interesting digression is that the science of making a Damascus blade was consigned to a lost art for over 5 centuries until extensive scientific analysis in the past 50 years provided a picture of what was going on at the molecular and atomic level of the metals in the blade. This science was, of course, unavailable to the 9th and 10th century artisans producing the blades. ]
Tuesday at 5:19am Robin Indeededo

Thank you for the Platonic excursion (I see you had reading materials for the jungle explorations); You seem to be postulating that the hypothesis is a 'junior', untested theory. As a lemma, I would then postulate that all theories have standing hypotheses - some of which have been proven or validated, some of which have been left as place-holders and are, as yet, not completely validated. Would there be some point at which the number of validated hypotheses is sufficient to constitute a Theory? There are two issues: (1) how much can be assumed vs validated to 'define' a theory, and, (2) how many counter-propositions, null -hypotheses, alternate theories need to be invalidated to maintain a theory? Or are counter-examples one of those 'place-holders' for providing a more cohesive theory?

[As Theories evolve certain assumptions may be defined as incorrect, or merely put aside. In the theory of light, Huygens described the bending of light due to transmission through various media as resultant of the wave nature of light. Newton postulated corpuscles of light and explained rainbows as a result of velocity changes in these particles; this replaced Huygens theory for over a century, until waves were brought back to explain interference and polarization. The waves of light acted as waves in water, and therefore required a medium for them to wave in, thus Ether was postulated and served to explain the transport of light waves. The famous physical experiment in 1887 by Michelson and Morely which was not able to demonstrate the existence of the luminiferous aether did NOT disprove existence either. In fact, for the next 20 years, physicists were inclined to discount the lack of physical evidence in favor of maintaining the theory of an Ether substance. Assumptions as to temperature-induced errors, magnetic-induced errors, or entrainment were used to account for this anomalous measurement. In 1905, in On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies referred to as the Principle of Relativity, Einstein developed a theory of a constant speed of light where luminiferous aether was ignored as unnecessary to the conjecture, and in 1920 said that aether may not have a physical effect upon the speed of matter. Testing for the effects of ether on the speed of light continued into the 1920s, and to this date, while the luminiferous aether has not been disproved, no elements of current physics are dependent upon it, so it has effectively vanished from the field of view. The point of this being that, in retrospect, all may appear to be a lot more clear and cohesive than was understood at the time.]
BTW, Robin is a diminutive of Robert; You had a 50% chance of guessing correctly. Tuesday at 9:14am John Futch All you need do is open a dictionary. An hypothesis is by definition an "untested" assumption, and it's symmetric: an assumption is an hypothesis. A theory has its derivation in "vision," "a viewpoint," an explanation of what something is or how it works--of necessity a group of mutually consistent hypotheses with reference to something. An hypothesis is merely What if?; same assumptionsomething not proved as well until a trained scientist develops a method acceptable to all other scientists for testing that theory, performs the experiments and finds an answer from that work either confirming or denying the

prediction the theory makes. Exempli gratia, whether the gravity of a large mass such as the sun bends light in accordance with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Einstein formulated the theory mathematically; Eddington designed experiments which in 1919 confirmed that fact of Einstein's predictions General Relativity asserts that material bodies produce curvatures in space -time that form a gravitational field and that the path of a body in the field is determined by this curvature. The geometry of a given region of space and the motion in the field can be predicted from the equations of the general theory. Details of the motions of the planet Mercury had long puzzled astronomers; Einstein's computations explained them. He stated that the path of a ray of light is deflected by a gravitational field; observations of starlight passing near the sun, first made by A. S. Eddington during an eclipse of the sun in 1919, confirmed this. He predicted that in a gravitational field spectral lines of substances would be shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. This "red shift' is the tell tale evidence for the "Big Bang" theory cosmology that we live in an "expanding" universe. Any single counter-example from experimental data to any prediction from a theory is sufficient to deny the truth of the whole theory. A counter-example is direct evidence that a theory is false.

[Unfortunately, this simplistic notion of proof and falsity ignores much information. Like the wave motion of electrons through a slit! which disproved the theory of electrons as particles. Except for the contradictory evidence to prove that electrons are particles (eg Millikens experiments), and their existence does not depend upon a wave transfer! Enter quantum physics! ]
Tuesday at 11:42am John Futch And, by the way, I am not postulating anything. I am merely using the English language in a clear, nondeceptive, and well-defined manner. What you said was gobble-de-gook! And all the Robins I have known were female--no insult intended. You are a counter-example to a false assumption that I made; only an assumption, not a theory. [A counter-example is direct evidence that a theory is false (your quote). The assumption is an

unquestioned, implicit theory. If X preceded Y in the past, and I encounter X, I will assume Y will occur next. A false-assumption is an error; an error has no counter-example. (Or, the counterexample of an error is either: a) All elements which are TRUE, or the counter-example of the error, which is an error! A) Robin is a female. Type I error; error of excessive credulity: All the Robins I know are female. R,f R,f Counterexample: John is a Male. B) Robin is a female. Type II error; Robin IS a girls name. R(fn) R(fn+1) Counterexample: I dont know any persons named Robin who are not female.
Tuesday at 11:50am

Robin Indeededo Whether the words are 5 minutes or 5 centuries old, their existence does not constitute a physical reality only a reference to a reality. A dictionary meaning does not construct an impregnable fortress, it serves as a facilitator to communication. Working with the assumptions of a dictionary is to postulate utilizing its content. I am confused by the distinctions between hypotheses and theories (Let us ignore laws, lemmas, principles, theorems, postulates, etc.) It appears to me that I can: (1) observe a specific physical behavior, eg differentiation of Galapagos finches by Darwin; (2) attempt to order or 'make sense' of this information by creating a hypothesis, such as: a) Limited island habitat,

b) sudden influx of a single population of finch, c) observations of morphological diversity in finch population, d) correlation of morphology to ecological niche for food and protection. Some observations are demonstrable (eg, island, limited resources), some are postulated but are not directly verifiable (eg, sudden influx of finch population). (3) From this and similar observations and reasoning, Darwin develops his theory for the descent of species. Using this and related observations in the physical sciences, a general theory of evolution is developed wherein physical stresses on the chemistry of physical processes lead to biological modifications which lead to heritable changes in morphology - adaptation. In this process, not all of the hypotheses can be validated, yet I can integrate new information and adapt my theory. This theory is a 'large container' integrating hypotheses with others' hypotheses and observations. It is found internally coherent, ie, no obvious contradictions . [cf especially Wittgensteins Tractatus 6.341 through 6.374] Lamarcks theories of external influence generating inheritable characteristics was ridiculed in the 60s yet today biochemical evidence demonstrates this very phenomenon: Roundup-resistant weeds, early-life stress http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8346715.stm ). When Darwin published Origin of Species, he referred to it as a theory and acknowledged that there were unanswered questions which needed to be addressed. The bottom-line is that the distinction between hypothesis and theory depends more on what the subject is and who is considering it; If I think it, it is a hypothesis; if I publish it, it is a theory. From Stephen Jay Gould: In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" -- part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Boy, is that all over the place, or what? Wednesday at 12:06am John Futch I have spent too much time analyzing your rant above trying to isolate the inconsistencies and logical fallacies incorporated therein. I planned to respond to you; but your thinking is like a non-well-defined partial order system. You start with a statement which is a non-sequitur to what I stated clearly Then proceed to disagree with yourself and me and the accepted meaning of common English words. This is another of the 2500 year old classic 7 fallacies first enunciated by Aristotle called using a word with a double meaning in both ways: equivocation. Also there is affirming the consequent, appeal to probability, and begging the question. This is a dialogue I do not choose to continue. Your conclusion, however, is valid--you are "all over the place" indeed. Yesterday at 3:44am

John Futch Robin, the best I can do for you is to suggest a bibliography of well-accepted and classic texts which might teach you how to reason clearly and effectively when that burst of emotion impels you exercise your thinking function : (1) Copi's Introduction to Logic; (2) Mendelssohn's Introduction to Mathematical Logic, (or similar books by Tarski or Quine); (3) Origins of Modern Science by Butterfield; (4) Goodstein's book Boolean Algebra; (4) Ogden & Richards; The Meaning of Meaning; (5) Ryle's The Concept of Mind; (6) [should have been first] Wittgenstein's Tractatus,

[Interestingly enough, Tractatus Logigico-Philosophicus posits that logical propositions are inherently tautological (6.11). And that, therefore, Logic cannot demonstrate anything surprising because the logical syntax contains all propositions at the outset of its definition.(6.1251) In sum, Logic cannot be used to define or elaborate or explain the real world (6.371 & 6.372)]
(7) any of a vast number of available books on the sentential calculus (which is both ordered and complete) ususally titled something like Axiomatic Theory of Sets and Logic; (8) You might try your luck reading at least to Proposition 64 Whitehead and Russell's Principia Mathematica. I actually read that as a sophomore. To reason clearly you MUST understand the definition of your terms and use them consistently in formulating propositions. It is the formation of those propositions and their logical derivation from a set of inducted or assumed axioms or postulates that make the reasoning either valid, invalid, or gobble-de-gook. Fallacies or invalid means of discourse are also important to familiar[ize] yourself with. The "excluded middle" is with us and must remain to effect any valid sort of discourse. Yesterday at 6:06am John Futch There are indeed at least four levels of certainty in Indo-European languages; the hindus believe in 7 and they are probably right, but the other three generally lie beyond our individual experience. The best model ever written about this is the Simile of the Line in Plato's Republic. Plato really merely analyzed what the Greek language had as its axioms and made those patent in his writing. (1) mere opinion and its sense objects; (2) belief and the practice of how things work, such as a journeyman brick layer or carpenter = know how; (3) Comprehension or understanding of matters hypothetically, i.e., organized in propositions which can be tested simply called mathematics and all natural science, which = know why [including the understanding of Aristotle's 4 causes] ; [(4)T]hen there is a real knowledge which one grasps as the senses grasp sense data but of the mind. This is valid intuition which is a sort of wisdom that fits all the parts of the puzzle together and brings tranquility to the mind such that it is said to possess 'wisdom.'(sophia) or noes -- the knowledge so clear that it not only explains but defends adequately the positions it holds as valid. The third level comprises all the practitioners of the various sciences and mathematics. The fourth was according to Einstein the method by which he developed his general theory of relativity Of necessity, it is extraordinarily rare in any human being. Yesterday at 6:40am

Robin Indeededo There is also a type of rhetoric which uses torrents of seemingly inescapable logic to pummel the target into submission - it is a technique of Condoleeza Rice well documented by during the 911 hearings. A physical phenomenon which has conclusive proofs is different that the inductive proof of evolution. I would suggest to you an interesting essay "Intertheory Relations in Physics" by Robert Batterman. There is no question in my mind that evolution is an integral manifestation of our physical reality -- I do not doubt the procedures used to validate the processes; I do not doubt the conclusions based upon that evidence; I do not question whether or not evolution occurred or IS occurring. My whole interest was merely attempting to discern the difference between your concept of a hypothesis and a theory, because I believe that they are applied differently for clearly demonstrable causal events and other, less clearly delineated, causalities. Yesterday at 10:42am John Futch I find your discussion uncivil and that of an ass arrogant in his self-congratulatory unawareness.
As You Like It Act V. Scene IV. TOUCHSTONE:

O sir, we quarrel in print, by the book; as you have books for good manners: I will name you the degrees. The first, the Retort Courteous; the second, the Quip Modest; the third, the Reply Churlish; the fourth, the Reproof Valiant; the fifth, the Countercheque Quarrelsome; the sixth, the Lie with Circumstance; the seventh, the Lie Direct. All these you may avoid but the Lie Direct; and you may avoid that too, with an If. I knew when seven justices could not take up a quarrel, but when the parties were met themselves, one of them thought but of an If, as, 'If you said so, then I said so;' and they shook hands and swore brothers. Your If is the only peacemaker; much virtue in If.