• dogsoahC@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Normally, I’m all for language changing over time. If some word is used a certain way, so beit. But not here. Not in a case where people can end up saying dumb shit like “Evolution is just a theory.” I will physically fight people on that, If need be.

      • JoeyJoeJoeJr@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        A law describes what happens, a theory explains why. The law of gravity says that if you drop an item, it will fall to the ground. The theory of relativity explains that the “fall” occurs due to the curvature of space time.

        • tate@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Science can never answer “why.” In your example, the question why is just moved, from “why does it fall?” to “why does mass distort space-time?” In both cases physics just describes what happens.

        • Victor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          I was referring to the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

          Theorem would also be interesting to add to the mix.

          • JoeyJoeJoeJr@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            In a scientific context, a hypothesis is a guess, based on current knowledge, including existing laws and theories. It explicitly leaves room to be wrong, and is intended to be tested to determine correctness (to be a valid hypothesis, it must be testable). The results of testing the hypothesis (i.e. running an experiment) may support or disprove existing laws/theories.

            A theorem is something that is/can be proven from axioms (accepted/known truths). These are pretty well relegated to math and similar disciplines (e.g. computer science), that aren’t dealing with “reality,” so much as “ideas.” In the real world, a perfect right triangle can’t exist, so there’s no way to look at the representation of a triangle and prove anything about the lengths of its sides and their relations to each other, and certainly no way to extract truth that applies to all other right triangles. But in the conceptual world of math, it’s trivial to describe a perfect right triangle, and prove from simple axioms that the length of the hypotenuse is equal to the square root of the sum of the squares of the remaining two sides (the Pythagorean Theorem).

            Note that while theorems are generally accepted as truth, they are still sometimes disproved - errors in proofs are possible, and even axioms can be found to be false, shaking up any theorems that were built from them.

            • Victor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              4 months later, sorry for the late reply. Thank you for this explanation! 😁🙏