Comment: That's nice, and while your need to correct me is commendable

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I am talking about the way (see in situ)

That's nice, and while your need to correct me is commendable

I'm afraid, I'm simply going to be repeating what I said earlier, because word-definitions don't depend on one's assertions.

And, I see no sourced material other than your assertions, even though these 'concepts' are so rudimentary like calling water, water, and boat, a boat, that one would not need to necessarily source them.

That said, the wiki reference is a short hand for items that SHOULD already be commonly understood. And, just because a wiki entry says The Republic is attributed to Plato, does not make it wrong.

Want to dispute me? That's great, too. Then, dispute the footnoted source in the wiki entry.

My last reply and quoted entry is not just some flippant opinion. Please check the footnote, verify for yourself.

Setting aside for the fact that modern educational institutions are woefully political, there are still a few common denominators in any given field that are not much in dispute, kinda like apple and oranges.

I would highly challenge you to repeat the same assertions that you made to me about the 'fact' that a "scientific theory" is NOT a proven "scientific HYPOTHESIS," to ANY science major, and add that you are a physics major, they'll wonder WTF you're doing in their department.

No. Definitions for "scientific theory" as a proven "hypothesis" is NOT in dispute. Nor is the "scientific method" (as cited) utilized to prove it.

Yes, many wiki entries are crap, but pretty mainline items, least of all something unquestionably commonly understood definitions like "hypothesis" and "theory" and the "scientific method," are rarely in dispute.

You and me arguing over what scientific hypothesis vs. a scientific theory is you akin to telling me that sand particles = glass. Certainly, sand particles can be melted to become glass, but as described, they are not window panes, YET.

Thanks for making my point; to wit:

Scientists do in fact talk about the Theory of General Relativity, which is very well established. They do in fact talk about the Theory of Classical Electrodynamics, and Group Theory, and the Theory of Evolution, all of which are very well established and true for all practical purposes.

AGREED! What? You say? It's a theory, because it's well established. Precisely: it's NOT called HYPOTHESIS of Relativity. N'est pas?

When there is a 'field' "consensus" after proven, repeatable experiments, it becomes established. The very thing you "proved" is a hypothesis. When that proof becomes established, it IS called a "theory." NOT "hypothesis."

Again, you're proving my point:

I see no evidence that scientists have renamed Einstein's theory the General Hypothesis of Relativity just because the theory has been well confirmed by experiment.

That's because it's NOT called the "General LAW of Relativity" because repeatable EXPERIMENTS proved the HYPOTHESIS true.

If you're clear on definitions, what you WOULD have said is this:

I see no evidence that scientists have renamed Einstein's theory the General LAW of Relativity just because the THEORY has been well confirmed by the HYPOTHESIS.

When the HYPOTHESIS is proven true, it's THEN called a "theory."

But it's still NOT "law" like "law of thermodynamics." Because until further experiments could be done, post-space age, not ALL of Einstein's THEORIES could be further proved like the atomic clock on ground vs. in space. But because they were able to mathematically prove aspects of the initial HYPOTHESIS of Relativity, AFTER mathematically being able to prove it true, and repeat them, it BECAME a "THEORY."

Clar?

I don't know how many different ways I can explain to you that the proper scientific definition for a "theory," is a PROVEN "hypothesis."

Think of it this way:

1. I don't know phenomenon X
2. I want to observe and figure out what causes phenomenon X
3. I observed phenomenon X
4. I noticed some possible patterns while oberving phenomenon X
5. I want to test my HYPOTHESIS that those patterns (from this pt. I shall refer to as pattern-Z) drive phenomenon X
6. I devised experiments with known previous constant (because no basis for scientific knowledge pops out of a vacuum; it's a long continuation of accumulative knowledge base) as "control" and unknown variables as "experiment"
7. My experiments proved my HYPOTHESIS that pattern-Z DO drive phenomenon X!
8. I want to share my findings, and I want my peers to review and verify my findings by repeating the same tests
9. My peers agree! Not only was I correct in proving my HYPOTHESIS true, but my peers were able to repeat the same experiments under the same parameters and were able to REPEAT the same results!

10. Now My HYPOTHESIS that those pattern-Z DO drive phenomenon X is now an established reality.

11. I shall call my proven HYPOTHESIS that pattern-Z indeed does drive phenomenon X, as the "Conduit Theory."

That, is the scientific method, and the process of a Scientific HYPOTHESIS becoming a Scientific Theory, NOT a "scientific Law," in a nut shell.

I would challenge you to pose your definition to ANY physics major from community college to Harvard/MIT grad and see if you get a different answer than the one I gave you.

If you're gonna keep calling apples oranges, we're at an obvious impasse, and I see no point in devolving the conversation further.

Please, be clear on definitions, especially if you are going to assert that someone is wrong. I have ZERO problems with anyone correcting me, when they are actually right. In this case? Not so much.

But no bigs.

Cheers lad.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul