There is no such thing as consensus science

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
And it is basic to the nature of science that you will have scientists in total agreement on a broad subject, but with some professional differences on the details. It which point, people who are not scientists at all try to discredit all of them because there is still some leading edge of theory which is being worked out.


What are the necessary credentials to confirm a person as a "scientist"?



"Confirm" to "whom"?

To the person making the judgement.

 

[d00df00d]

In everyday speech, "theory" just means "guess."

In science, "theory" means a coherent explanation that covers a body of well-attested facts. An educated guess is called a hypothesis, and an uneducated guess is called a waste of time.

Here's an example: Gravity.

1. Things with mass tend to be attracted to each other. This is a fact.

2. The above fact seems to be true in all places and all times, so we call it a law.

3. The strength of the attraction seems to follow certain rules, which we can describe very accurately with mathematical equations. All together, those equations and the explanations of them are lumped together as the theory of gravitation.


By contrast, when you're just shooting the breeze with your buddy and he says "I got a theory about why my car keeps breaking down," he probably just means he has a guess.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d

Here's an example: Gravity.

1. Things with mass tend to be attracted to each other. This is a fact.

2. The above fact seems to be true in all places and all times, so we call it a law.

3. The strength of the attraction seems to follow certain rules, which we can describe very accurately with mathematical equations. All together, those equations and the explanations of them are lumped together as the theory of gravitation.

So a theory must be testable, correct?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
So a theory must be testable, correct?


Yes. Otherwise it's theology or a guess.

Even a hypothesis must be framed so it can be tested, or there's no point.

 

[d00df00d]

"Testable" is just a fancy way of saying you have a good way to tell whether something is true or false.

If you don't have that, then you don't have a theory. What you have is either a hunch or an outright delusion.