NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been quietly amused by this whole thread and promised myself that I wouldn't get involved. And yet here I am.

I don't want to get into arguments; I'm not even going to claim that I'm responding to any individual. I'm not going to offer my opinion on anything that has been said here, because it would do nothing more than end up giving me a headache when I read the responses. In fact, I probably won't even read any responses, as I will forget I posted this and then not be able to find it when I remember.

My entire intent is to provide a definition of the word "theory" - as that seems to be a major hangup in all the discussions I've ever seen in a similar vein to this one. Because there is a rather large difference between the word "theory" as it is used in the scientific community and the word as it is used by the rest of the world. The rest of the world tries to foist their definition of "theory" onto Science's use of the word and thereby disprove what has been proven. But if they would stop for a moment and consider the scientific definition of "theory," they would see that this is just really mean - and horribly wrong.

Are you with me so far?

Oh, and why do I care? Well, I was an English major. Words are my life, and the misuse of those words is a source of endless frustration to me. As was stated in the recent V for Vendetta, "words offer the means to meaning and, for those who would listen, the enunciation of truth." But, to provide my own interpretation of the line, apropos to this post, if the meaning of the word is distorted, we have the means to misunderstanding, not truth.

So.

The dictionary on my desk at work (The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, if you care) has three definitions of the word "theory." The first deals with the way it is used in Science, which I'll get into in a bit. The second definition reads, "Abstract reasoning; speculation." The third defnition reads, "An assumption or guess based on limited information or knowledge."

Those last two definitions are how many people use the word. So when Uncle Joe says, "Oh, it's just a theory," he's saying, "It's just a guess." Which is fine if he's talking about the family's theory that the dog is the one who ate the Thanksgiving turkey while they were all watching football. But if he's referring to a scientific theory, he's belittling it - "Oh, they don't really know anything about evolution, they're just guessing."

The misunderstanding here stems from Uncle Joe not knowing how Science defines a theory and how much work goes into the development of that theory. It's Scientific Method 101. (Apologies for any mistakes I commit in what follows; it's been a while since I had to memorize the Scientific Method's steps. This is just an overview to make my point.)

1) All scientific theories begin life as a bouncing baby hypothesis. A hypothesis (going back to the dictionary) is "something that is taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; assumption" (hey, it's Society's "guess" definition of "theory") - also, "an explanation that accounts for a set of facts and that can be tested by further investigation."

2) "Tested by further investigation" - this is indeed Step 2 of the Scientific Method. Dr. Smith comes up with his hypothesis ("I observed this happens, and I think it's caused by that."), and then he proceeds to test it. And retest it. And test it again. And if all his results are falling within a reasonable margin of error, he claims that he has proven his hypothesis and publishes a paper. But it doesn't stop there.

3) Colleagues of Dr. Smith - as well as archenemies who would love to see him fail and be laughed out of the Physics Department's social gatherings - pummel Smith's Hypothesis with more testing to see if they get the same results. If they can't replicate his results, Dr. Smith has to go back to the drawing board. But if they can...

4) Smith's Hypothesis becomes Smith's Theory. A ticker-tape parade is held in his honor. People dance in the street. Dr. Smith signs a merchandising contract with Reebok and Wheaties..... Oops, sorry. That's what happens when you score the winning touchdown of the Super Bowl. No one cares when Science comes up with a new theory.

5) So it's done, over, right? Nope. Smith's Theory is still open to debate, testing, heated arguments over tea. IF someone someday definitively disproves it, then we have a problem. A Theory is not necessarily Fact; because Science, unlike many Religions, admits that it's fallible and that there's a potential for mistakes or misinterpretation.

Now, it is true that some theories have been around so long without ever being disproven that they are generally accepted as fact. But who knows what new discoveries could be right around the corner?

To sum up, a Scientific Theory is a rigorously tested and retested hypothesis that has not yet been disproven. Much different than a "guess."

That's me done, then. I hope I educated and entertained. If you read all my blather, I thank you. If you didn't, *shrug*. If nothing else, I entertained myself and made an honest attempt to share a little knowledge and iron out a minor detail that screws up a lot of "debates" between Religion and Science.

I thank you.

The people of Rapa Nui may not have been the original constructors.
The people of Rapa Nui may have lost their technology and writing.



And maybe that's what happend with the culture of this neolithic farming communities in Southern England as well.
We simply don't know.
I'm suggesting that they had no script, for the simple reason that we have no evidence of it. The earliest evidence we have of script native to the British Isles are the Ogham stones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogham) (I may be wrong, if I am please correct me). It seems based on an older script, but no evidence of that has been uncovered yet.

Personally, I would assume that the construction of Stonehenge depended much more on experience, observation and craftsmanship gained from constructing numerous other henges and stone cricles (they're not that uncommon in Southern England) than complicated calculation and architectural theory.

You are viewing the henge and all similar buildings from a modern point of view. If someone today wants to build something, he sits down with pen and paper and makes plans and calculations first.
People in the past didn't do that. If something was to be built, you gathered material and followed tradition and experience. That's how houses were built. That's how churches were built, even the grand Gothic cathedrals of Europe. At most, you may have made a wooden model of the building first.

You are viewing the henge and all similar buildings from a modern point of view. If someone today wants to build something, he sits down with pen and paper and makes plans and calculations first.
People in the past didn't do that. If something was to be built, you gathered material and followed tradition and experience. That's how houses were built. That's how churches were built, even the grand Gothic cathedrals of Europe. At most, you may have made a wooden model of the building first.

In fact, this is precisely why guild membership was so important to a trade. There were no books to go to that would explain how to build something. The masons kept trade secrets for years so that no one else could take over their business. They didn't generally write these things down and make them available. Instead, a young tradesman would be apprenticed to an older tradesman and would learn the trade by doing.

In fact, this is precisely why guild membership was so important to a trade. There were no books to go to that would explain how to build something. The masons kept trade secrets for years so that no one else could take over their business. They didn't generally write these things down and make them available. Instead, a young tradesman would be apprenticed to an older tradesman and would learn the trade by doing.

WHich is exaclty why so many of the old methods were lost and difficultto reproduce.

In fact, this is precisely why guild membership was so important to a trade. There were no books to go to that would explain how to build something. The masons kept trade secrets for years so that no one else could take over their business. They didn't generally write these things down and make them available. Instead, a young tradesman would be apprenticed to an older tradesman and would learn the trade by doing.

Freemasons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemason), anyone? ;)
That would be precisely how they came into being.