I confess I believe I have been tricked. I think nearly all of us have.
In the title, I employ a term some may not know.
http://www.answers.com/vaporwaren.
New software that has been announced or marketed but has not been produced.
One of the single most fundamental assumptions we make is that some sort of "theory" of evolution exists. Clearly this is something that we should not have to assume. If it exists, it should be available. Indeed, it must be available if it is to be tested. It must have been available in the past, if it has been tested already, right?
I would like to read it. I may be mistaken, and I may learn something. At this moment, I do not believe there is an actual "theory" of evolution. I used to take it for granted; now I stop taking it for granted. Until I see an actual "theory", I shall consider it vaporware.
If a "theory" should be presented, I intend to evaluate it. I intend to determine whether or not it is subject to experimental falsification, and meets the proper criteria. A candidate "theory" should be stated as a theory, and clearly recognizable.
We are continually bombarded with "the theory of evolution says" or "does not say" such-and-such. There's an easy way to find out what it says, if it exists.
To those who would sell evolution, here's your chance to present your "theory". I think it's reasonable to ask to see the product, and one might even expect some degree of enthusiasm on the part of the sales staff.
IMPORTANT
I am fully aware that many people believe such a "theory" exists, and they write about what they imagine. Such does not demonstrate the existence of an actual "theory". Such writings can be found anywhere. Anyone wasting my time linking me to talk about a "theory", rather than a "theory" itself should reconsider.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution#Modern_synthesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_biologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesisNone of those contain the "theory" itself. I may have missed something, but I do not find it in Darwin's ramblings either.
-----------------------------
A phrase to avoid:
"can explain" or "can be explained by"
This is simply claiming a theory can be formulated which will explain something. Duh! That's why we have theories. A theory which simply claims theories are possible is redundant and meaningless.
Candidates containing these phrases, or their kinsmen, should not be presented.
--------------------------------------------------------
"News theory"
http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/theoryc/"Car and tractor theory"
http://www.dsa.gov.uk/"Music theory"
http://library.thinkquest.org/15413/theory/theory.htm"Feminist theory"
http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/Enough with the sources.
"Opening theory"
"Number theory"
"Particle theory"
"Graph theory"
"Game theory"
The dictionary doesn't make a critical distinction when it defines 'theory'. The meaning of the term changes depending on placement.
"The theory of X" refers to a single, specific theory. "X theory" refers to a collection of ideas. This is the loosest of all known definitions, even looser than the common "any old idea" definition. "X theory" can incorporate real, make-believe, and even contradictory ideas.
Does "Evolution theory" exist? Certainly. Is there a scientific "Theory of Evolution"? No. Some evolutionists point to the dictionary, and a definition. It does indeed differ from "any old idea". But it is not scientific. It is improperly employed when the claim is made that a "Theory of Evolution" exists. Perhaps some dictionaries make the distinction. I would like to see it.
But the Language itself takes precedence over dictionaries in any case. Their job is not to dictate, but to report.
I admit in advance that I do not possess universal knowledge, and I make mistakes. By nature, my claim relies upon universal observation. If a properly scientific "theory of evolution" should be discovered - not some partial element, but the whole thing - what I said would be falsified.
But I wouldn't be saying what I say if I weren't confident.
---------------------------------------------------
I want to point out one more thing. When using the posterior application of the term 'theory', the implication is neutral as to scientific validity.
Germ theory is valid. Why then is it not "the theory of germs"? Because there's actually a separate theory for each germ.
But particle theory is what it is. It cannot all be true because some of the ideas are inconsistent with each other.
I maintain some of the things we see called "X theory" are scientifically without merit (see the list above). I'd name names, but I prefer to stay on topic.
The only time 'theory' connotes merit in experimental science is when an hypothesis withstands scrutiny and testing. Such cases are called "so-and-so's theory of such-and-such". The placement of the term differs.
In order to meet this standard, and experimentally testable, and falsifiable hypothesis must exist.
If I'm mistaken about how our Language works, I'd like to see some counter-examples. I prefer older ones because skills, knowledge. and respect have been declining steadily when you're talking about English.
-----------------------------------------
How can that which does not exist be falsifiable? How can it be subjected to experimental testing?
150 years of vaporware has to be a record! Perhaps some sort of celebration is in order?
