🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3800@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> myers@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Bob Myers) writes:
>Paul Keube ( :-)  ) writes:

>>A theory, scientific or otherwise, is a statement about how things
>>are.  Like any statement, it is true iff things are the way it says
>>they are.  That's all there is to it...  What relative likelihood of
>>truth of theories amounts to then is just a matter of how you want to
>>do probability theory.

>Interesting. I don't agree. Firstly, I think a theory is more than "a"
>statement. Continental Drift is not a theory, but Plate Tectonics is.

Continental Drift, as articulated by Wegener, was more than "a"
statement. I have to call you on this one, Bob -- can you explain why
CD isn't (or do you mean "wasn't") a theory, but PT is? (No fair
saying CD was 'wrong' ... ;-)

>Now, is plate tectonics "true"? Are things the way plate tectonics say
>they should be? Certainly not exactly. Plate tectonics is a model of
>geological processes, necessarily much simplified from what "actually"
>is going on.

And so too was Continental Drift a model of geological processes,
necessarily much simplified from what "actually" is going on. We must
be careful not to restrict our definition of "theory" to only those
families of ideas which are currently accepted ... You wouldn't want
to get caught calling Newton a lousy theorist, would you? ;-)

greg

-- 
"You're not the only soul 
accused of hit and run
Tire tracks all across your back
I can see that you had your fun"          ...seismo!princeton!mind!greg