Posted 8 Jul 2012 · Report post Hey Guys,As I delve deeper into the world of science I know that I will come across theories that are good but probably many more that are total nonsense. For obvious reasons I would prefer to first give glance to those theories that are at least sound, if not yet proven beyond a doubt, as opposed to theories that are absurd but accepted mainstream; such as string theory, multi-universe theories, etc..The topic is open to anything you know about in any field of science and does not have to be limited to the whole field; example: astronomy. But can be more specific; example: cosmology, stellar, etc...It might be useful to make a list of theories under the titles:Good theories(undeniable)Potentially good theories(that show potential, may be good but incomplete)Potentially bad theories(skeptical about)Bad theories(absurd, violate known facts). -But please feel free to post in any format you feel most comfortable.Good premises! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 8 Jul 2012 · Report post I did write "if not yet proven beyond a doubt".But your point is taken as being cautious. However the purpose is more to separate into groups which theories are outright absurd vs the ones that show potential to explain things objectively. The degrees that I outlined are not written in stone, but rather a suggestion to start us off. Please feel free to post in any way you are comfortable with.More specific to me and what I look to get out of this thread is: as I study chemistry I will likely be looking to expand my knowledge in various fields, I'd rather that when I expand I start with solid material based in reality vs floating abstractions that are drowning every field.This thread can serve to be an outlet to compliment scientists and their work, highlight things you agree with that you think are on the right path, but also to criticize trends that you think are taking the wrong path, point out flat out mistakes in their respective fields, etc...But relating to the swan example: When the black swan was discovered, they expanded the definition to include black swans. Did they learn where they made their mistake when making generalizations? I don't know, but that's not the purpose of this thread unless you know that some generalization does not account for everything... then you can point it out and why and categorize the theory accordingly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 8 Jul 2012 · Report post Thread derailing. Please let's stay on topic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 8 Jul 2012 · Report post The common theories of physics and chemistry that you are studying now at your current level of progression are reliable (what you call "good theories"). What you need to look for in regard to them is how they were they established in what context, what the difficulties were, and what are the known limits of applicability. You won't be able to get this from your textbooks alone so you will have a lot of open questions while you wait to study the history more. In particular, there remains much that is not explained in and about the quantum mechanics relied on in your chemistry text.Taking that approach to the status of your own knowledge will be much more valuable to you than focusing on a short list of the reported status of current hypotheses in fields you don't know much about (to say nothing of thread derailments trying to convince you with repetitive interuptions that nothing has been established). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted 3 Mar 2013 · Report post Thread derailing. Please let's stay on topic.I have split off many of the posts in this thread into a new topic titled "Can scientific theories be certain?" here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
