It's also important to know the real definition of theory: a hypothesis that has been thoroughly tested or researched and explains natural phenomena. Not just an idea.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Also defined as an accepted hypothesis.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

What? It is.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Except for it isn't. It starts out as a hypothesis, but it isn't just accepted. A theory is a hypothesis supported by countless experiments giving the same results time and time again.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Ok- look it up. Google (or bing or whatever) these exact words: Theory "also defined as an accepted Hypothesis"

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Or how's about I look in my biology book for the real, scientific definition?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That is the real scientific definition, but whatever. An actual PHD writes: Theory A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis. Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes. Reference: http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

by Anonymous 11 years ago

We are talking about //scientific// theories. There is nothing scientific about saying an explosion was caused by aliens. Yes, that is a theory, but it is not a scientific theory. It is a theory much in the same way that I assume my dog is responsible when I come home and my pillows are all over the floor; I can't test it, but it makes sense so I will call it a theory. But it's not the same kind of theory as the theories of evolution, or gravity or the big bang.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

We did not make this post, I did. And I'm sorry your textbook did not have a full concise definition. This post isn't even about scientific theory, and it's definition, but thanks for the input.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

We, as in you and me in this conversation right now, are talking about the scientific definition of a theory. Or at least I thought we were when you used the word //scientific// in your post. I don't see how your definition of theory is full, but it is definitely concise. It says the bare minimum about what a theory is. My textbook, however, has the full, not so concise definition of a theory and it is much more than just a supported hypothesis.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Wasn't full.. Was an additive. The statement is correct be it scientific or Webster definition.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The statement is correct so long as it isn't a scientific theory. But for it to be considered scientific theory you have to include the "additive." And personally, I would rather believe the chemist who agrees with the majority of other scientists out there than finding ONE chemists whose definition of a theory accurately reflects my own personal definition.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Whatev

by Anonymous 11 years ago

My dad has a PhD. That doesn't make him right about everything.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Nobody said that. But I am going to take the word of a chemist with a Phd over a student.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Am I wrong in assuming that the Big Bang is somewhat more 'theoretical' than the theory of evolution?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Generally, from what I have seen they tie the two together with statements like, "The earth's geological evolution began with a Big Bang" briefly touch on that concept, and then delve into the evolutionary "history" of our planet. According to the source, this may or may not include that we "came from monkeys" or climbed out of the "primordial" soup. Both are equally theoretical both by scientific and standard definition.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Evolutionary theory does not, in anywhere, say we came from monkeys. For someone arguing evolution you should probably know what it is. The Big Bang: basically the universe was once extremely hot and dense and expanded. After it cooled, things like protons and electrons and neutrons came about. Eventually, they formed hydrogen. It is a widely accepted theory in the science community. I got all that from Wikipedia in 5 minutes. I did not read a single thing about things climbing out of primordial soup.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

RIGHT!! But that is not always how it is taught. I am not defining science or evolution here, y'all- I am commenting on how it has been taught wrong to some students.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Isn't the theory of the evolution of man that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor and not that one evolved from the other?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Honestly, I don't know...

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Trust me, we can tell.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well, we think it's funny that you think highly enough of your own opinion to speak for other people.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

but darwin....

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I agree, teaching them as scientific fact is not correct, however that is exactly why all schools teach it as Darwin's THEORY of evolution. So not really sure where you're trying to go with this.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Because not ALL schools teach it that way.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The Big Bang is theoretical, I agree with that part. Evolution, however, has enough evidence backing it to be considered pretty much factual.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't know, all of my teachers still refer to them as theories.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Then, in all fairness, they shouldn't teach anything that happened before the invention of the camera as fact because you can't verify that shit wasn't just made up.

by Anonymous 11 years ago