Talk:Theory

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sociology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Logic / Science High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic Philosophy of science Science Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Scientific theory#Characteristics of theories|criteria]] The anchor (#Characteristics of theories) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

I had removed this i.m.o. vague and incomprehensible (and unsourced) phrase which was inserted by Environnement2100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Environnement2100 re-inserted the phrase and left this on my talk page. This message didn't clear up, nor explain much, let alone provide a source. I also think that the statement is just wrong, after all, we all know that theories can at best falsified, but never proven true. Edit-warring is not really on priority list, but I think this phrase should be removed again.

Comments? DVdm (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there were no comments, I assume that there is no objection to the removal of the phrase, so I went ahead and removed it. DVdm (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above this article certainly needs discussion of the theory/practice distinction which is the basis of the whole meaning of this word in modern European languages. There is also no discussion of practice in any Wikipedia article. I think there is no point having two articles, as the two terms make sense in contrast to each other.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• disagree there are wikipedia articles on Praxis (process), practice (social theory) and also Craft. The existing article certainly needs to define theory in relation to practice, but to give the article this title would serve only to confine its scope purely to this matter, rather than allowing it to embrace all the various aspects of theory. Riversider (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happens if someone is looking up the word practice in the sense covered by this article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, I think there is definitely a case for a disambiguation page, or some other wikiartefact to point people in the right direction. The fact remains though that this article is about more than just the difference between theory and practice, so adopting such a title would be an unneccessary stricture. Riversider (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a solution can be found in that direction?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree that the name of this article (Theory) should be changed. Perhaps the Theory and practice article could be absorbed into this article as a little (currently 5th) section Theory#Theory versus practice or something? DVdm (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recently looked and found the page praxis (process) on a specific notion of the relationship between theory and practice. Seems relevant to theory to me. User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can some things be theoretical and also non-theoretical (i.e. actual?)? If so, then there may need to be such a distinction as "theoretical-only" or similar, making it clear that certain things cannot exist or won't exist, or probably don't exist. Or maybe all three of those things from the last sentence could do with a distinctive name, or maybe I'm completely missing the point. For example, the ideal gas article refers to molecules of zero mass. Can this exist? I'd suspect not, therefore, some acknowledgement of that along-side the word "theoretical" might be useful. A good idea? --Rebroad (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The use of words like "only in theory" to refer to impossible abstractions is in my opinion something best handled as a word use variant at wiktionary? Although it is common, there are other ways to refer to such abstraction which would not use the word theory. Perhaps there could be a mention of this usage in the article and a link to a more appropriate article, but what article would that be? (Wikipedia is not normally just a collection of word meaning information. See WP:NOT.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in, but there is a long-simmering conflict between how scientists use the word "theory" and laypeople understand it which has led to endless confusion. What I did is check dictionary definitions and considered basic understandings. What's written is a suggestion for development. Another thing to consider is that some people don't read beyond the first paragraph(s) so that first paragraph should function as an abstract or a brief overview. Margaret9mary (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your concrete proposal?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I didn't realize you'd already edited. Will look.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you see this as a battle between philosophy and science? I do not like that approach. The "philosophical" meaning of a word like theory is really the broadest and oldest meaning and therefore the only one which helps makes sense of all the specialist meanings. If you move narrow meanings of a word to the top of an article, without any rationale for making that meaning the main one, you'll just start an edit war with people from different fields reverting each other whether it be slowly or quickly. For reference below are the two versions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In philosophy, theory (from ancient Greek theoria, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding") refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.^[1] Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a concept that in its original Aristotelian context referred to actions done for their own sake, but can also refer to "technical" actions instrumental to some other aim, such as the making of tools or houses. "Theoria" is also a word still used in theological contexts.

A classical example uses the discipline of medicine to explain the distinction: Medical theory and theorizing involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked.^[2]

The word θεωρία apparently developed special uses early in the Greek language. In the book, From Religion to Philosophy, Francis Cornford suggests that the Orphics used the word "theory" to mean 'passionate sympathetic contemplation'.^[3] Pythagoras changed the word to mean a passionate sympathetic contemplation of mathematical and scientific knowledge. This was because Pythagoras considered such intellectual pursuits the way to reach the highest plane of existence. Pythagoras emphasized subduing emotions and bodily desires in order to enable the intellect to function at the higher plane of theory. Thus it was Pythagoras who gave the word "theory" the specific meaning which leads to the classical and modern concept of a distinction between theory as uninvolved, neutral thinking, and practice.^[4]

While theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and not easily observable empirical phenomena, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science.

The word theory, when used by scientists, refers to an explanation of reality that has been thoroughly tested so that most scientists agree on it. It can be changed if new information is found. Theory is different from a working hypothesis, which is a theory that hasn't been fully tested; that is, a hypothesis is an unproven theory.
The word theory also distinguishes ideas from practice. The words empirical and clinical are also used to distinguish theory from practice. This is different from laypeople's use of the word theory which is usually used to mean an idea that isn't certain, that is not reality.

In philosophy, theory (from ancient Greek theoria, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding") refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.^[5] Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a concept that in its original Aristotelian context referred to actions done for their own sake, but can also refer to "technical" actions instrumental to some other aim, such as the making of tools or houses. "Theoria" is also a word still used in theological contexts.

A classical example uses the discipline of medicine to explain the distinction: Medical theory and theorizing involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked.^[6]

The word θεωρία apparently developed special uses early in the Greek language. In the book, From Religion to Philosophy, Francis Cornford suggests that the Orphics used the word "theory" to mean 'passionate sympathetic contemplation'.^[7] Pythagoras changed the word to mean a passionate sympathetic contemplation of mathematical and scientific knowledge. This was because Pythagoras considered such intellectual pursuits the way to reach the highest plane of existence. Pythagoras emphasized subduing emotions and bodily desires in order to enable the intellect to function at the higher plane of theory. Thus it was Pythagoras who gave the word "theory" the specific meaning which leads to the classical and modern concept of a distinction between theory as uninvolved, neutral thinking, and practice.^[8]

While theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and not easily observable empirical phenomena, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science.

Originally the word theory is a technical term from Ancient Greek. It is derived from theoria, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding") refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.^[9] Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a concept that in its original Aristotelian context referred to actions done for their own sake, but can also refer to "technical" actions instrumental to some other aim, such as the making of tools or houses. "Theoria" is also a word still used in theological contexts.

A classical example uses the discipline of medicine to explain the distinction: Medical theory and theorizing involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked.^[10]

While theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and not easily observable empirical phenomena, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science. A distinction is often made in science between theories and hypotheses, which are theories that are not considered to have been satisfactorily tested or proven.

The word θεωρία apparently developed special uses early in the Greek language. In the book, From Religion to Philosophy, Francis Cornford suggests that the Orphics used the word "theory" to mean 'passionate sympathetic contemplation'.^[11] Pythagoras changed the word to mean a passionate sympathetic contemplation of mathematical and scientific knowledge. This was because Pythagoras considered such intellectual pursuits the way to reach the highest plane of existence. Pythagoras emphasized subduing emotions and bodily desires in order to enable the intellect to function at the higher plane of theory. Thus it was Pythagoras who gave the word "theory" the specific meaning which leads to the classical and modern concept of a distinction between theory as uninvolved, neutral thinking, and practice.^[12]

---

Comments please? The above is based on the latest proposal and the most recent version before it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a comment. In both the old version and the proposed new version, the first paragraph ends with "... that is, a hypothesis is an unproven theory."

This is a grossly misleading statement. I am not trying to nitpick, but the fact is that no theories are ever "proven". They can only be disproven. So while a hypothesis is, indeed, unproven, theories themselves are also unproven, so trying to use this statement to distinguish the two makes no sense whatever.

That theories cannot be proven is logically correct, and has not been a matter of debate for at least a couple of hundred years. Theories necessarily fit the known evidence, and may be inductively judged to be correct, but that is far from the same as "proven". They are merely testable hypotheses that have -- so far -- passed the tests. History is replete with theories that have later been disproved... therefore they cannot be said to have been "proven" in the first place. They merely fit the evidence that is known at the time.

While I am unsure what may be a good, and correct, substitute for that sentence fragment (perhaps something like "a theory must be testable and has withstood known tests"), the phrase as currently used is just plain wrong. -- Jane Q. Public (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone want to propose a better last sentence?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at it again. This sentence is only in the current wording, and not in the older version described above, nor the newer proposal I made as a potential compromise, and which no one has really responded to. Perhaps I've left this discussion open too long. I shall be bold and put the compromise in.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article starts to touch on this public misunderstanding of the word "theory" by discussing "theoretical" but never quite reaches the colloquialism. This really should be addressed someplace since it is so often used. Student7 (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain in more detail what you mean. Are you talking about for example the case of people who say the theory of evolution is only a theory?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of thing. "Theoretical" touches on this but does not address the exact wording used by the public at large which has a different understanding of the term. Seems easy to insert but needs encyclopedia tone and references. Student7 (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing. I'm explaining alittle more along the lines of the article above. Isn't something called a theory, because that's what it is? Just a theory? Most people confuse "theory" with "fact". Like the Big Bang theory, or the theory of evolution. A Theory is something that could be true, not something that is true. The sad thing is, most schools are teaching theories like those above, as fact. I just wanted to make that clear.Carleen6 (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.= How do I get rid of the box surrounding my text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carleen6 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is the spaces at the start of each line doing it. Do you have a source for this distinction between facts and theories? I'd say that your position is a common misunderstanding. You are apparently making a statement about modern science, but modern science does not recognize absolute truth, so there is nothing qualitatively above a theory.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under References is listed the following book:

   Mohr, Johnathon (2008). "Revelations and Implications of the Failure of Pragmatism: 
   The Hijacking of Knowledge Creation by the Ivory Tower". New York: Ballantine Books. pp. 87–192.

Problem: The underlined reference to the author is a generic page on the name "Mohr", not a reference to the author.

Problem: A search of the internet using Google shows many Wiki references to this book, but no listing of the title or author.

Problem: A search at both Amazon.com and Biblio.com finds neither an author or title of the listed reference.

I believe that this entry dhould be corrected or removed.

Respectfully Submitted,

    Chip Griffin  
    September 6, 2011

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.103.97 (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it. I see no good purpose it was serving, and I also could not anything except an amazing number of obvious wiki mirrors. Have you also looked at the other works in the references?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting the reference error.

No, I did not check the other references, but they "seemed" valid from my earlier readings. When I find time, I will check them.

(It seems odd that none of them are underlined. This would indicate a link to the source. The notes above seem to have valid hypertext references.)

Chip Griffin September 7, 2011 at 1:20pm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.103.97 (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-deleted two passages from the article's section "Theories as models", after my original deletion was reverted without explanation.

First, it originally said that theories "explain, predict, and master phenomena", and I deleted "master". To explain or predict phenomena has a scientific meaning, whereas to "master" phenomena does not.

Second, I deleted the passage

[A scientific theory's] statements [can be thought of] as axioms of some axiomatic system.

That is not true. Some of a theory's statements are axioms, and some are not.

Third, I deleted

The aim of [a scientific theory's] construction is to create a formal system for which reality is the only model.

Reality is the model of the formal system? Nope. The formal system is a model of reality.

Fourth, I deleted

The world is an interpretation (or model) of such scientific theories, only insofar as the sciences are true.

No, the scientific theories are interpretations of the world, not vice versa. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect to claim that "a theory is an hypothesis that has survived extensive testing."

The difference between an hypothesis and a theory is one of kind, not of degree.

An hypothesis is a single testable statement. Any hypothesis can be restated as single question. A theory is a body of knowledge about a certain subject, organized according to a particular paradigm. A theory necessarily involves the exploration of how certain ideas relate to other ideas within the subject matter. A theory will normally have at its foundation multiple hypotheses. It is absurd to claim that an hypothesis can become a theory via extensive confirmation. To form a theory from an hypothesis requires not confirmation, but rather elaboration.

Theories can be revised as new evidence arises. Is it often possible to modify a small part of theory without requiring major changes to the theory as a whole. In contrast, an hypotheses is generally all or nothing - its either kept or replaced depending on how it fits with newly discovered evidence; incremental tweaking of an hypothesis is only rarely possible, thus failed hypotheses are normally replaced rather than modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waynemv (talk • contribs) 21:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your well-articulated explanation of the difference. I hope you like, or will improve on, my modification of that part of the article. Duoduoduo (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your modification is brilliant, and better stated than I could have done. Waynemv (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I move this remark to a new section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains a completely misleading idea that 'theory' is science while 'experiment' is technology. Not so at all. Scientific theories are put forward to explain natural phenomena in way that allows them to be understood and predicted. Testable theories are produced and refined until they are acceptably right. A good example is planetary orbits, for which theories were put forward and refined over a period of 2000 years, by people from Ptolemy to Einstein and others. As observational techniques advanced the theory was continually refined. Technology uses scientific theory to understand and design useful artefacts, for example the internal combustion engine which uses the science of thermodynamics. In scientific pursuits theory and experiment always go hand-in-hand, one is meaningless without the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historikeren (talk • contribs) 17:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the ancient Greek term given as the primary definition, instead of being in the "Ancient uses" section? Is the term still used in this way? Nearly the entire article is based on the definition a couple of sections down, "Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter." Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the old meaning is still used, depending what field you are in. There are many words like this one where an old word now has SEVERAL modern meanings that have almost no obvious connection unless you start by looking at the old meaning. The old meaning still does cover all or most of the new ones. I also think there is no uncontroversial way to argue that any of the specialized modern meanings have now taken priority over old meanings (as in the case of "species") because basically the word theory is still used very flexibly by most people in most fields. The minority of methodology folk who think the word should have a clear methodological definition do not even agree with each other. Concerning your remark that most of the article is about one aspect only, remember this is Wikipedia. All articles are just the result of whatever volunteers have had the time to work on. It can also be that some subjects just require more words to get them explained.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Which fields are those? Surely they deserve some mention in the article (if not in the lead). Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also made a couple of changes to clarify based on your explanation. Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original meaning, which is still used widely in philosophy and theology, is still the main meaning, also used in normal western languages on an every day basis, not only in specialist fields. When someone says "in theory" and contrasts it with "in practice" this is still the original meaning more or less, and this is the core of where the term comes from. I think this is reflected in the lead as it stands. Keep in mind that the lead also mentions the late 20th century methodological meanings which I think are the meanings most far from the original, but also the least used meanings, and the meaning least able to be defined in any way where we can say that a major mainstream field has reached a consensus. Anyway, all these ways of talking come from the basic idea that a theory is a reality seen by someone contemplating reality, not watching it directly, or to put it in typical modern term, theory is the model of reality. I see no big problem to be solved here. What seems to concern you is that the the methodological meaning is the one which gets the most discussion in the body? However, this is just maybe a reflection of reality: it probably does need the most explanation in the body of the article, because it is the most complex an misunderstood? Articles need to reflect messy reality. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to suggest there is a "big problem to be solved" - my concern was that the lead did not seem to reflect the article, mainly by describing the ancient definition not only as the definition from which the modern definitions are derived but also as the primary definition. (I then pointed out that the current composition of the article supports this interpretation.) For example, Wiktionary marks the ancient meaning as "obsolete." Where a word has changed meaning over time, the new meaning(s) should take precedence; where it has become "very flexible" as you put it, that should also be noted as part of the primary definition.

I'm also not sure how you conclude that the modern methodological meanings are the "least used" - the lead seems to make a very general statement that in modern contexts (both arts and science) theories are methodological. Is this a problem with the current lead? Certainly all scientific fields use the scientific meaning exclusively, and as it is taught in essentially all high schools, it is widely known outside of science as well. The everyday meanings are also not identical to the original, especially the definition of theory as "hypothesis" or "speculation."

Also, what was incorrect about my revision? I was only trying to emphasize that there also exist modern meanings which are not the same as the original one. I'm pretty sure from your first reply that you agree with that - is there a better phrasing you would like to use? Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I reverted is not all that bad, but I am not sure what it is aiming to achieve. How does it improve the article? I think on balance it makes the article slightly worse by exagerrating the contrast between an "Ancient Greek" distinction of theory and practice, versus all other uses of the term theory. I do believe that the distinction between theory and practice is still well-known, and should be explained in this article, and not as something which is no longer used.

As I explained already I fear you are trying to make the article more orderly than the reality which the article should be describing. What you are calling the Ancient Greek distinction between theory and practice is also connected to the core of the main meaning today, and in the Middle Ages, and pretty much everywhere where this distinction is part of the language. (Wiktionary is of course not a reliable source, but on the other hand it is not clear to me that it says that the distinction between theory and practice is obsolete.)

I do not deny that there are relatively important usages of the term today, such as when a theory is distinguished from a hypothesis, wherein it is hard to any longer see the connection to the old meaning, but the connection is still there. I think it is therefore natural to start at the original meaning and then build up discussion of other meanings. If the article is currently imbalanced, maybe this just means it needs more things added, not removed?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're talking past each other, as I don't see how your response addresses most of the points that I just made. I'm not suggesting that all mention of the ancient definition be erased from the lead, or that the distinction between theory and practice should be erased, or that the current definitions have no relation to the original one. I already described how the edit is meant to improve the article - by partially addressing my original concern. (Is it only the "ancient Greek" qualifier that you object to? The important part is the rest of it.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other sentence is Ok in isolation I think.Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've added it back. I had added the qualifier to try and improve clarity, mainly since my addition split the description of the theory/practice distinction from the example. It occurred to me that this could instead be fixed by switching the two statements (third and fourth sentences), so I've done so (and moved the theory/practice distinction to the beginning of the next paragraph). Feel free to switch it back while we're discussing if you prefer. :-)

Now, returning to my original concern about the definition, as I described above (that edit was only ever meant to be a partial and possibly temporary improvement). To be more concrete, my proposals would be something as follows:

1. At the least, the ancient definition should not be presented as primary without qualification. My impression, as I've explained, is that the methodological definition is predominant, but another approach would be to acknowledge the proliferation of definitions, which is what I had tried to do in a small way with the edit you reverted. I think the 3rd/4th sentence switch I performed comes much closer to what I would find reasonable for that second option, but I am concerned that the theory/practice distinction is no longer juxtaposed with the original definition. So if this break remains in the final version, I think the second paragraph should start with something like, "Under the ancient definition, which is still in use today, [etc]."

2. Related to the first point, I think the example given is also too long relative to its importance, and should be either moved to the "Ancient uses" section (which could be renamed if you don't like having it under that title), or should be shortened. My other concern about the example is that it seems to be making a statement about science, whereas the use of the word "theory" in that sentence (being distinguished from "practical") is not related to the scientific definition except to the extent that the definitions are related to each other. This could be fixed by substituting a different example, or making it clear that the example refers to ancient and not modern medicine. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That change is OK, although I still do not see it as a big improvement. But I think your new comments add to my impression that your bigger idea here is not one I am confident about, and so I hope we can keep working in small steps for now.

I think my concern can be encapsulated in just looking at the sentence you propose above: "the ancient definition, which is still in use today". Is it clearly best described as "ancient" if it is still in use today? You seem to be pushing for getting a message between the lines that the "ancient" use is still out there, but should not be. I say the classical ways of using the term theory are still the main uses today, and also still essential for understanding some of the new uses of the word. For example the distinction between theory and practice in medicine is still very normal, both amongst lay people and specialists. (I believe the classical medicine example should be in the lead, or at least in a quite prominent place where it will be seen as a general concept that readers should be familiar with in order to understand what theory is. I see it as classical in the true sense and not just as ancient.)

The distinction between theory and hypothesis is not as well known, and not as established. Not all scientists or philosophers of science see it as a critical point and the main place one seems to see it is in pointless internet arguments about whether the word theory in the "Theory of Evolution" means that the theory was never confirmed by observation. I think that the confusion of those types of arguments is a good thing to think about when we consider how this article can be improved. It shows what our readers might or might not understand.

The way I see it, theory in science still primarily means mental model (contemplation of things from afar, in general terms), not experimentally confirmed mental model (actual practical experience with actual individual things). (Of course I accept that it no longer means spectating, unless you are Greek, but this was already true in Roman times.) I think this is also the way the word is typically used. Using the word to mean experimentally confirmed or confirmable mental model is not however in direct conflict with this meaning as long as one is aware of the word history. That is because this secondary post Baconian usage is taking a proposed characteristic of a good or worthwhile theory as a way of defining a true theory, so to speak, which is a typical thing that happens in language. But that is why knowing the word history becomes important if we are to avoid turning this article into something like some of the debates about evolution on the internet.

I think that more generally if we want to be more clear about the breaking up of the term into different shades of meaning, then as is usual with more controversial subjects, we need better sourcing and/or talkpage discussion about the controversies and history of the word in recent generations. It is notable that this is an article which is still a bit un-polished and has an un-finished feel. This might indeed be one of the things missing, but it is likely to require some careful thought to get it right.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just violated my own proposal, and tried a major re-work of the lede. I started with some smaller changes but then noticed lots of things that might also be leading to some of your concerns. Maybe the connections are more flowing and the structure more clear? That is the hope.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like a lot of your changes, especially the first paragraph (e.g. your addition "based on the idea that a theory is a thoughtful and rational explanation of the general nature of things.") Some of them are actually better than what I had been imagining for the final version. :-)

The edits I made in return were:
- I reversed some of your changes to the final paragraph per BRD. My main impression is that "thoughtful and rational/cannot be purely speculative" minimizes the central role of experiment. I also think that "seen as" is unnecessary unless the sentence had said "the most reliable [etc] form of knowledge" and left out the word "scientific."
- I changed "philosophers and scientists" in the first paragraph to "natural philosophers," to make it clear that these are not modern scientists. (I also wouldn't mind simply saying "philosophers" here.)
- I think "as a normal work" in the first sentence is a typo for "word," so I fixed that.

I may have some more suggestions, but this will be my last long reply for a week or so as I'm going to be busy.

For the medical example, I am not saying that it cannot be in the lead, only that if it remains in the lead, it should be de-emphasized (which is achieved by placing later in a paragraph as you have done, but I still think that e.g. the second sentence could be dropped). Secondly, a distinction of the sort the text seems to imply no longer exists in medicine today. Medicine is a science, and as such there is only one meaning of "theory" in use. Another option (instead of making clear that it is a reference to ancient medicine) would be to replace "theory and theorizing" with "research." Medical researchers spend the vast majority of their time doing experiments: the distinctions made are between research and practice, and (separately) between theory and hypothesis.

Also, in modern science, the distinction between (scientific) theory and hypothesis is very well established (although you may hear otherwise from those trying to cast doubt on evolution etc). "Scientific theory" refers specifically to experimentally confirmed models, which you may call "mental" if you wish (and which I think you are calling the "secondary post Baconian usage"), that fulfill the necessary criteria. This does not mean that production of a scientific theory cannot be solely a mental exercise (such as if the data have already been collected, or if you are in theoretical physics which is a special case for several reasons) - but you still require the evidence. You can refer to the NAS and AAAS definitions later in the article, for example.

A few other things:
- I didn't mean to imply anything with the suggestion of "ancient definition," only to distinguish it from the others; "original definition" would work just as well.
- If I interpret "as a normal word" correctly, I think it would be clearer if we used "an everyday word" or "a common word" instead (my preference is for the former).
- In what sense are you using the word "politicians"? I find it hard to think of how even the ancient Greek politicians ever tried to explain the natural world, except insofar as they were also natural philosophers, unless maybe you mean to say sophists. Did the ancient distinction refer to "more practical ways of explaining things" or just simply "doing things" as opposed to explaining things? Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes seem fine to me. Trying to pick out further proposals from your post:

• Not sure I see dropping the second sentence of the second paragraph as helpful, because it removes reference to the contrast theory v practice in the lead, or in fact seems to imply this only happens in medicine?
• Also do not think replacing with research works. Actually research involving testing could be described as partly practical. Designing an experiment, or turning the results into generalized conclusions, is theoretical. So this opens a can of worms?
• Everyday or common word might indeed be better. Feel free.
• Yes perhaps we can replace politicians with statesmen or some other word. The "classical" point is that the aim of theorizing (and science) is to know what is really always true and what really always works, not just a tradition for example, or an instinctive "feeling". Some skilled people, for example craftsmen on the one hand, or skilled leaders, business people etc on the other, seem to get things right most of the time, and hence seem to "know" some real truths, but this is not necessarily through theory, and it is not necessarily the kind of truth a scientist wants to find. Having a theory of leather work, or a theory of business leadership is possible of course, but it is something extra to what is required to be a good leather worker or good business leader. A business leader might say he did what his mentor taught him, or what the bible says or whatever.

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• I meant the second sentence of the example, which is currently the last sentence of the second paragraph. However, this is a relatively minor point compared to the preceding sentence.
• In medicine (at least modern medicine), "practice" refers exclusively to what doctors do, and that's what I interpret when I read the sentence. (For example, this is why we use the term "general practitioner.") I agree that research is partly practical (in fact, the practical and theoretical are inseparable), but I can't think of a term that can be better described as "trying to understand the causes and nature of disease," as it's put in the text.

I have infrequently heard the term "medical theory" used to refer to medical literature (i.e. the knowledge produced by research), but this is less common than simply calling all of it research. A proposal: since "medical theory" redirects to "medical research" anyways, I think that linking it (and dropping "and theorizing") would resolve my concerns in this regard. However, it would still be juxtaposed with "theory involves no doing," and since that doesn't apply here, that would have to be resolved as well.

• Done.
• I agree that people can be good at doing something involving practical skill (like oration or governance), but I'm not sure how this means that they are explaining something as the text says. Arc de Ciel (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just homing in on the second point, I'd say theorizing is only part of what we mean by medical research. You may be right that we talk about research more often, and that is because we see modern people it is very important to combine theory with practical experience. We come after Francis Bacon, who was controversial for arguing exactly this point. But this article is about the less common word, and we need to try to explain that term. On the fourth point I see what you mean and I will try an edit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit seems reasonable (though I still need to think about that sentence more - recall that we never finished talking about the relative primacy of the definitions). I will focus for now on the medicine example: I don't really understand what you're trying to say in your last reply. My point is that the example as currently written is invalid - it existed in ancient times, but does not today. I've proposed several changes that would address this, some which would be complete fixes and some (like the most recent) which would only be partial. Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that your two remaining points of contention come down to the same point which is that you deny that the contrast between theory and practice is as commonly used and understood as the contrast between theory and hypothesis. But I can't see how you can hold this position unless you are taking the position, even for scientists and philosophers. You have not presented any evidence for it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must be failing in communication somewhere. I am not saying that a theory/practice contrast is not common (which, of course, is why I haven't presented any evidence for it!) I am saying that modern medicine is not an example of this contrast. Again, this is not to say that the example must be removed, but only that it needs appropriate clarification.

I've implemented the partial fix I proposed most recently, since you didn't object to it. As always, feel free to revert. Also, perhaps we should take a break from this discussion for a while after we resolve the example (in fact, we could temporarily leave it with the partial fix, but I would really prefer a better resolution). Arc de Ciel (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this edit is fine.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted an edit that put the etymology of the word into a new section and brought the scientific definition to the top. While I agree with the etymology issue and I think there are still improvements that could be made (which we've been discussing in the above section), there are still multiple definitions of the word "theory" in use today - the scientific definition is discussed in greater depth at scientific theory. Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, I want to make it clear that it is site policy to explain what the article's topic *is* before we say anything else about it, such as what it is *derived* from, or that it is "controversial" or "heterodox" or "mainstream", etc.

I think we ought to do both--make the etymology clear and also have the multiple definitions in the lede. So we could start with something like "A theory can refer to either (a) or (b).", or "A theory is (a) or (b)", or something similar. Then, we cover the etymology in the etymology section and not the lede. Is this acceptable? Byelf2007 (talk) July 15 2012

I definitely agree. I have been trying to convince User:Andrew Lancaster to agree on an appropriate first paragraph (among other things) for the last ~10 days. There have been improvements, e.g. the first paragraph now acknowledges the existence of multiple definitions, but there is still some way to go. I believe his position is that what you are calling the etymology is the (primary) definition. You can read some of his comments in the above discussion. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In principle it is hard to disagree with the idea of creating an etymology section, and moving out some of the opening sentence to there, even though to me that seems over-blown, and I still get the feeling that real aim of such edits is to push one meaning of theory as the true meaning. Anyway, back to what the lead should say, I can't see how we can justify making the lead open by just mentioning the special meaning of the word theory which is sacred to some methodology discussions. The words has more meanings than one, and they are linked meanings. To improve the lead we should work together to give the right balance.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you've probably gathered, I've now spent a few days thinking about the new version. :-) It's much better now that it starts with a specific definition. I had actually been visualizing something with the acknowledgement of multiple definitions in the first sentence (not "pushing one meaning as the true meaning," of course), but I think this definition is reasonable. (And while I think it's still possible something even broader might be produced, the definition is fairly inclusive as well.)

Anyways, I made a few tweaks. (The removal of "models" was only because it doesn't seem essential and I think the sentence would flow better, but I won't object if you want to put that one back in.) If you have no concerns about these latest changes, then let's continue the discussion another time, since I think we've both gotten somewhat tired of it. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legazpi - Moncloa

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140912175614/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0251:text=Praec.:section=1&highlight=medical%2Ctheory to http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0251:text=Praec.:section=1&highlight=medical%2Ctheory

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a section needs to be added to Scientific theories to address the difference between math theories and others (as is done for physics). Math theories (say, set theory) are collections of math techniques and concepts that fill in a disciplinary area, or something like that. Physical evidence (observations, data) aren't relevent, I think. I haven't the philosophical chops to put that together. SkoreKeep (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A theory is flat out misunderstood in the welcoming paragraph of the main page. It states the widespread, incorrect usage of "Theory" and pretends its true. A Theory is as close to a fact as you can get in Science. People are using the word, like it means hypothesis, it does not. Stop spreading this incorrect information. Fix this page!! TheCyndicate (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike other areas on the web, we put new posts at the bottom of the page. I have taken the liberty of moving your post to this position, I hope you don't mind. You would not have reached this false impression had you read as far as the fourth paragraph in the lead. You are clearly referring to what is called there a scientific theory, while the whole article is dealing with a broader topic of theories in general. In this broader context, non-scientific theories (in education, history, economics, etc.) do not carry the same weight that scientific ones do, and they are much closer to being merely hypotheses.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add here that your assertion that a scientific theory "is as close to a fact as you can get in science". That's not true; all scientific theories are always provisional and open to correction or scrapping when new data shows they are wrong, and it is never possible to claim you have a theory that covers all possible data. Facts (roughly, observations or data) are that which can be accepted as true by both sides of a controversy. Gravity is a fact, anyone can observe it. The theory of gravity is a theory; they are not the same things. Let's try to be a little less dogmatic about these things. SkoreKeep (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting the following recent addition to the lead section, for the following reasons:

It is possible to distinguish between three types of theories. Explanatory theory, also known as descriptive or empirical, helps to explain why and under what conditions, certain situations take place. The second type is interpretive theory or constitutive theory and this imposes meaning on events and issues with the objective to understand, instead of explaining, the world. The last one is called normative theory, also referred to as prescriptive, which prescribes values and standards of conduct: that means dealing with how the world should be instead of what it is.[4]

with a citation to a book called Global Politics. I think a book on international relations is too narrowly focused to be a source for categorization of theory as it occurs in a wide variety of contexts. And the categorization in this paragraph strikes me as not very sensible. First, why would "explanatory theory" be viewed as synonymous with "descriptive theory"? Description is not even theory, and explanation does not simply describe but rather states why we observe what has been described. Second, the paragraph says that interpretive theory strives to understand rather than to explain; but there's no substantive difference between explaining and understanding—explaining is both necessary and sufficient for understanding.Loraof (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article almost entirely focused on hard-science theories? That coverage is fine, but the article as a whole is grossly overbalanced toward the hard sciences; we have exactly fourteen sentences split among theories in social sciences and the humanities. The only section of this article in which anything other than hard science comes close to a balance is the List of notable theories section; elsewhere in the article is zero mention of such significant concepts as music theory, film theory, and literary theory, except in a single sentence listing kinds of theory. I came here expecting to find something about theoretical approaches to history, but the string histor appears only in an etymological discussion, applications of scientific theories in the real-time historical world, historical changes in our understanding of scientific phenomena, and the titles of two cited works. The article doesn't even mention Marx, who's been a major factor in historical theory, economic theory, political theory, and even linguistic theory! Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so. Please feel free to essay changes to the article to balance it where needed. SkoreKeep (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a discussion about this topic like most scientfic laws are derived by data. But some belive that by finding complete theory will give all results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.37.164.87 (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be several problems with this sentence, found in the introduction:

"The word theory or 'in theory' is more or less often used erroneously by people to explain something which they individually did not experience or tested before."

First, "... which they individually did not experience or tested before" is obviously not grammatically correct. I'm not quite sure what the author meant to say -- perhaps something like "... which they have neither experienced nor tested." That would at least be grammatically correct, but it doesn't seem to make sense in that it mixes testing -- presumably of the theory -- with experiencing -- presumably of the phenomenon to be explained.

In "The word theory or 'in theory' is ...," surely "theory" should be quoted, to be clear that we aren't talking about something called "word theory." Also, the construction is awkward, since "in theory" is not also a word.

Finally, in "is more or less often used erroneously" is "more or less" describing "often," or "used"? Should that be "is often used more or less erroneously"?

Wait, one more thing. It seems unnecessary (and a bit silly), when talking about words being used erroneously, to clarify that we are talking about words used "by people."

AmigoNico (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed some previous discussions on the topic, but it still appears to be missing some important distinctions especially in the areas of science/physics. The article does a good job at highlighting the extent of verification that a theory must undergo for it to be different than a hypothesis, but there really should be more of a distinction made between fact and theory. As it is currently worded, it world not be that difficult to confuse one with the other, which is obviously not the case. It might be helpful to make a very direct comparison of the two so that the average reader will be able to understand the difference (perhaps by supplying a small paragraph to this point alone). Simply searching through the article for the word ″fact″doesn't actually find a straight forward explanation. To test this, I've had two other people read through the page and then asked them what the difference between fact and theory was. The response was that there wasn't any. Granted, these were not individuals that had a great interest in science, but this is Wikipedia and they shouldn't have to be. It may simply be just taking concepts from different sections and putting them together more directly. Perhaps explaining how they are not interchangeable, how theories can be used to explain facts (again, by making a simple, direct reference to the word ″fact″) and that despite rigorous testing, theories can always be challenged and possibly corrected, if flawed. I think the article as a whole address these things, but I imagine that anyone reading it specially for this information would not feel confident that they understood the idea once they're done. Johnbo42 (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the "fact/theory" distinction would be something a lot of readers would be interested in. Perhaps the article could be made to better address the question. Unfortunately I, and many philosophers and scientists, would argue that fact and theory are equivalent! But that theories come in different levels of generality, predictive power, and certainty. I guess we could choose theories that we are sufficiently sure about facts if we liked. I imagine we can dig up a number texts that look into the question, quine comes to mind at the moment, but there are probably more modern things. I think a paragraph that discusses the difference between "theories" like "the boiling point of water is 100C", "quarks exist" and "separation of institutions increases political stability". I think some quiney philosophy, and a little economics history and sociology might make a nice mix here. Talpedia (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Definitions from scientific organizations", it also becomes a reference to that of atoms.

Here "... that matter is not composed of atoms", except that such a thing is perhaps only a simplification of real fact, when also the Periodic table.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table

More is perhaps needed for that of detail here, in order to be explaining.

Feilretter2468 (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ano Ang teorya 209.35.164.4 (talk) 09:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think these should be merged together as they have a lot of overlaps and currently, for some reason, the page shows quantum gravity and string theory in cosmology. Theories like Newton's theory of gravitation do fit the title of astronomy but are important in other areas of physics too. Angulon (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think "theories" like string theory, quantum gravity and multiverse theory should be removed from physics because as explained in the article, theories need to have testable predictions. These can instead by put separately somehow. Angulon (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]