[extropy-chat] NASA and the Big Bang "theory"

[Dirk Bruere]

On 2/5/06, ben <benboc at lineone.net> wrote:
>
> Good gravy, when will all these people insisting upon the word 'theory'
> figure out what that actually means?
>
> They obviously think it somehow degrades the ideas presented in the
> theory, and that a theory is somehow inferior.
>
> Look at at all the insubstantial theories we have: the theory of plate
> tectonics, the theory of evolution, einstein's theories of relativity,
> even the standard model of physics is a theory. I also have a theory
> that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Perhaps i should be worried,
> because after all, it's 'just' a theory.
>
> It would be interesting to propose that we should refer to the god
> theory, the genesis theory, the jesus theory, the virgin birth theory,
> the original sin theory, the infallibility of the pope theory, the
> apocalypse theory ...
>
> But it's a shame most of those can't actually be tested, so they can't
> be dignified with the word 'theory'.
>
> The big bang IS a theory, and that's all it needs to be. It should be
> proud to be one.
>
>
A theory is a data compression algorithm.
A scientific theory is a data compression algorithm that can be extrapolated
to yield further prosective data points that can be tested by experiment.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060205/a1d3c704/attachment.html>