"Theory" and "hypothesis"

[Francois Tremblay]

This pisses me off, especially when talking to Creationists. Few people understand what a theory and hypothesis is, on the scientific meaning of it (and as I think it should be common usage also - at least I try). This also betrays a misunderstanding of the scientific method, since this distinction is at its heart. Our education system and outlook has it backwards - we should teach method first, ideas second.

[butswana]

Yes. Another equally frustrating misconception is this steaming crock of shit, people call common sense. It is just that; common. It isn't based on any validated body of knowledge either.

[Berthold]

The question does go a bit deeper than the understanding of terminology. Science is a continuing process, whereas religion asserts to have access to absolute, unchanging truth.

[LambdaCalculator]

Our education system and outlook has it backwards - we should teach method first, ideas second.

I'm all for teaching Science and Skepticism classes in shool. In fact, I think it's something that we desperately need.

[Al Chemist]

Part of the problem is that the word "theory" in common usage means almost the opposite of what it really means in science. In common usage, the words "theory" and "guess" are almost interchangeable*, while in science "theory" and "guess" are almost complete opposites.

*Guess and Levis, of course, are completely interchangeable. :D

[BioBeing]

This thread was started two years ago, and we often close resurrected threads. However, I will leave this open to see if a useful discussion can ensue.

BioBeing,
S&S Moderator

[Majestyk]

Language is a fluid thing. Perhaps if, "Theory" having a popular usage opposed to its definition as a scientific terminology, the scientific community should adopt another term to replace it? "The Theory of Evolution" becomes, perhaps " The Model of Evolution" or "The Evolutionary Model". Something along those lines.

Leave the Creationists and other fantasy mongerers with "Theory" defined as its common usage, unsupported speculation.

[Rhaedas]

I'm all for teaching Science and Skepticism classes in shool. In fact, I think it's something that we desperately need.

Teach a man to fish...

Teach a child how to reason...

Same lesson.

[simian]

What most people do not have a good handle on is jargon, there are words that mean something entirely different in "everday" use instead of jargon. For example, if I say somebody is under a lot of pressure, do I mean they are experiencing far more than the 0.101 MPa most of us are under, or do I mean there person is under a lot of stress - and by stress do I mean an emotionally volitile situation, or do I mean they are either in compression, tension (or perhaps under torsion)? Theory in the jargon of science and theory in everyday use are entirely different words.

Simian

[BioBeing]

Teach a man to fish... ... and he'll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

[Majestyk]

Give a man a beer and he'll be drunk for a day.

Teach a man to brew and he'll be a drunkard for life.

[simian]

Teach a man to fish...

Teach a child how to reason...

Same lesson.


So... If you teach 1,000 children how to reason, the lake will be emptied of fish? :huh:

(we can't be serious all the time)

Simian

[KeithHarwood]

Language is a fluid thing. Perhaps if, "Theory" having a popular usage opposed to its definition as a scientific terminology, the scientific community should adopt another term to replace it? "The Theory of Evolution" becomes, perhaps " The Model of Evolution" or "The Evolutionary Model". Something along those lines.

Leave the Creationists and other fantasy mongerers with "Theory" defined as its common usage, unsupported speculation.

`Model' is not a good word here. In science it is usually used for a mathematical model whose underpinnings are physically doubtful or even unobservable in principle. The scientific theory associated with the model is that the model agrees with observation at those points where the model predicts something that is in principle observable. Scientists are usually careful to distinguish between models and theories, a theory being a well supported hypothesis about the real world, a model being a means of calculating consequences of a theory,

[Majestyk]

Okay. 'Model' is out. How about, "The Suigglyboo of General Realativity"?

[UnderStudy]

I have a theory about the OP :D

Precision words are a thing of the future. Certain words will be reserved for particular uses like quark, proton, electron and neutron. Then again my hypothesis may be off because of the advent of creole. For example the neutron dance which played in one of Eddie Murphy's movies highlights ordinary folk using specialized words to fatten their lives.

I think when the right gang hears a specialized word and they roll it on their tongues and create a private meaning which eventually may become public if the conditions are correct, then the cycle of varying meanings will return if we remember words like booty and kamasutra.

Well that's my theory anyway. :D

[McGargoyle]

Certain words will be reserved for particular uses like quark, proton, electron and neutron. Then again my hypothesis may be off because of the advent of creole. For example the neutron dance which played in one of Eddie Murphy's movies highlights ordinary folk using specialized words to fatten their lives.
Did you see the Star Trek TNG episode "Starship mine", where a routine maintenance procedure involved removing the baryon-particles from the hull?
Imagine a starship consisting solely of electrons...
And don't get me started about quantum-this and quantum-that or, better yet, a polarized neutrino beam.
Even the most precisely defined scientific terms will eventually become corrupted by someone using them to peddle some pseudoscientific crap. Case in point: creationism becoming creation science

[wstaylor]

Greetings All,

Frankly, I believe the usage of these two words (theory and hypothesis) is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. From what I have personally witnessed, the vast majority of people are sorely lacking in critical thinking (logic/reasoning) skills. Therefore, word choice is only a symptom of a much larger and complex issue. Many of the people (good, honest, and with average to above average intelligence) that I come into contact with on a regular, or semi-regular, basis cannot understand the simplest logical fallacies, even when it is explained to them. Most people simply cannot recognize a sound argument from an unsound one. Given this, along with certain groups motivated to use this particular shortcoming to further their own goals, I am not too surprised at the level of problems we (as a nation, or world) have with science and religion (both together and as separate issues).

Cheers,
Scott

[breathilizer]

I agree with wstaylor. We need to teach formal logic at an early age, perhaps around the same time children learn things like multiplicaiton and long division, since formal logic is so much like math in structure. For some reason, I find it odd that a logic courses are strictly college subjects. If people haven't learned why A->B does not equal B->A by the time they reach college, it isn't going to stick.

[Shake]

I agree with wstaylor. We need to teach formal logic at an early age, perhaps around the same time children learn things like multiplicaiton and long division, since formal logic is so much like math in structure. For some reason, I find it odd that a logic courses are strictly college subjects. If people haven't learned why A->B does not equal B->A by the time they reach college, it isn't going to stick.
For me, logic was covered in the 10th grade level mathematics, with the introduction of formal systems and doing geometric proofs. We spent a good deal of the year on those, too. While it could get quite tedious, it was a good tool to learn reasoning. It was, unfortunately, something I didn't really revisit until my college years, in both mathematics and philosophy classes.

It's something (logic, that is) that comes up again in physics if you get into electronic principles (digital circuits) and of course, computer operation. I got yet another rehash of this in my Air Force training of digital circuits (gates, counters, etc.).

Anyway, this semantics things is, I think, easier to distinguish in writing. An idea of mine about something in politics or why the car won't start is a theory, while I could choose to discuss Evolutionary Theory or Relativity Theory if I wanted. In short, to me:

theory = hypothesis (i.e. Creationism)
Theory = well proven and tested scientific body of knowledge (see above examples)

It is a bit more difficult in verbal communication to make this distinction. Even in writing sometimes, people will still confuse the two.

[Majestyk]

Perhaps what should be taught at the earliest levels of education, after the basics of written language and mathematics, is our predisposition to believe we can intuit or reason the nature of a subject diminishes as we gain experience and knowledge of the subject. The more experience and knowledge we acquire on a subject, decreases our arrogance of assuming we can extend that competence thru intuition or reason alone.

In other words; the less we know, the more likely it is that we think we know and that we will be wrong. So, we should always assume that unless we have verification, we just don't know.

Every student should be drilled in this concept. Repeated like an oath at the beginning of every school day.

I'm confident that this is the right way to go. ;)

[Bob K]

Yes. Another equally frustrating misconception is [snip] common sense. It is just that; common. It isn't based on any validated body of knowledge either.

Common sense is a phrase used for the body of knowledge many individuals collectively build inre developing accurate concepts [mental representations of objects] and principles [mental representations of causal relationships between or among objects] and practical [effective] techniques for solving problems [achieving desires {achieving wanted people/objects/events}/avoiding fears {avoiding not-wanted people/objects/events}].

What is common is the practical experiences which produced in various individuals the same result.

Example: Fire burns/hurts.

Example: Antagonizing a wild bear is generally not a good idea.

Where we normally do not observe/are not contacted by space aliens when we hear someone claim he/she was abducted by space aliens our common sense radar warns us that the claim is extraordinary and does not fit common experiences/common sense.

Inre religion, many of us have been born into a religious culture and have been taught by people we love and trust that gods exist and have rules and regulations they--the gods--expect humans to follow and that there is a reward of an afterlife for good behavior on Earth, etc., and, therefore, unfortunately, this common experience becomes a part of our culture's collective common sense, and it is only when we as individuals begin to develop the concepts/principles/techniques of rational thinking that we begin to realize that religion is unverifiable/unfalsifiable/unverified and therefore we need to take an agnostic position inre gods/religion until conclusive proof is discovered which can tell us if or not gods exist and care about humans, but, unfortunately, the only acceptable proof is physical evidence, which would require capturing a god and torturing it until it confesses it is a god and then we would have to force it to perform stunts which prove it has greater knowledge and capabilities than man/mankind collectively and therefore it truly is a god (how could we take the word of a god that it is a god?).

So, the line between (A) common sense inre developing accurate concepts/principles and practical techniques [for using the concepts/principles and solving problems] and (B) common sense inre concepts/principles inre religion we have been taught by those we love/trust becomes distorted in many well-intentioned individuals.

Unfortunately, religionists have had a fear of education which could produce rational people who would not accept and thereby support religion/religionists with the result that throughout history religionists have had a tendency to either eliminate education or restrict the concepts/principles/techniques taught inre various subjects including philosophy [the science of the development of accurate concepts/principles and practical techniques for using the concepts/principles]. In contemporary times we see religionists cowering in fear of science, particularly the field of biology, which includes evolution, and the result is that religionists are attempting to eliminate or otherwise restrict the teaching of evolution in public schools despite the fact that the physical evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Religionists' fears of science are producing restrictions on embryonic stem cell research which will prevent US companies from developing the ESC concepts/principles/techniques which would ultimately benefit--profit--US people including shareholders in ESCR companies and sufferers who could benefit from the technologies which might be produced by ESCR.

Enlightenment comes through education which produces the development of the skills/techniques for rational thought. That education could--and should--be accomplished at the public school level.

[sti1es]

there's a lot of scientistic statements in the replies above... a lot of strong feelings about theories and the need for method, skills, logic, the need to drill kids on how to think scientifically...

think about this... Newton was an alchemist...

yep, the Universal Law of Gravity was progressively developed from the his studies of the Tabula Smiragdina and other hermetic texts... an artful blend of religion and observation, you might say... Hooke of course thought Newton was joking... basing his work on the occult... rather than the proven method of hypothesis and testing... to which Newton replied hypothesis non fingo...

its an important example of the aesthetic moment... key to every great discovery... of that i feel pretty certain...

there is a guy named duschel... and he said it pretty much... science education is dominated by the quest for certainty... the desire for warrant... since the late fifties, teachers have spent an enormous amount of effort toward teaching kids how to justify things... sure, in the past 20 or so years, educators have batted around inquiry as the proper way to teach science to kids... but they are kidding themselves in thinking they are doing anything different from their predecessors... they are still teaching kids how to become good technicians and laborers...

duschel's point is that we need to teach kids how to discover... i am not talking about hands-on, seeing-is believing crap that is being taught schools today... but how to think creatively... to search for alternative meanings, possibilities... to think aesthetically...

a lot of people have trouble coming up with a good definition for theory... actually, there is really no hard and fast definition... there are different ways of grouping theories... but all of them are essentially about relationships... and it's this aspect of science that a lot people get confused... they confuse logic/argument with the aesthetic moment, which is at the heart of theorizing... and they forget that history and cultural traditions, through their codes, symbols, and practices, trialectically reinforce the ontologies that we commonly take for granted but which have been proven time and time again to be quite arbitrary... makes you think that beyond the aesthetic moment, that ethics, politics, and yes spiritual are likely to factor and probably should factor into our ontic musings...

i go back to Newton...

This pisses me off, especially when talking to Creationists. Few people understand what a theory and hypothesis is, on the scientific meaning of it (and as I think it should be common usage also - at least I try). This also betrays a misunderstanding of the scientific method, since this distinction is at its heart. Our education system and outlook has it backwards - we should teach method first, ideas second.

in Newton's version of gravity... God actually had to push the planets back into their orbits... being an Aryan Christian, Newton was cool with this...

[Bob K]

[snip]

[Newton's] Universal Law of Gravity was progressively developed from the his studies of the Tabula Smiragdina and other hermetic texts... an artful blend of religion and observation, you might say... Hooke of course thought Newton was joking... basing his work on the occult... rather than the proven method of hypothesis and testing... to which Newton replied hypothesis non fingo...

How about a translation of hypothesis non fingo?

[Also bad manners to not do the work necessary to capitalize words which are traditionally capitalized.]

its an important example of the aesthetic moment... key to every great discovery... of that i feel pretty certain...

'Sorry, great discoveries evolve from curiosities and/or necessities, aesthetics be damned!

[snip]

[snip]

a lot of people have trouble coming up with a good definition for theory... actually, there is really no hard and fast definition... there are different ways of grouping theories... but all of them are essentially about relationships... and it's this aspect of science that a lot people get confused... they confuse logic/argument with the aesthetic moment, which is at the heart of theorizing... and they forget that history and cultural traditions, through their codes, symbols, and practices, trialectically reinforce the ontologies that we commonly take for granted but which have been proven time and time again to be quite arbitrary... makes you think that beyond the aesthetic moment, that ethics, politics, and yes spiritual are likely to factor and probably should factor into our ontic musings...

If YOU are having trouble defining/understanding theory/theories not many of the rest of us are.

[quote]Charles Proteus Steinmetz: The Fundamental Law of Physics

Charles Proteus Steinmetz.
Four Lectures on Relativity and Space.
Dover Publications, Inc., 180 Varick Street, New York, NY 10014 1967
pp. 49–50.

The fundamental law of physics is the law of inertia. "A body keeps the same state as long as there is no cause to change its state." That is, it remains at rest or continues the same kind of motion—that is, motion with the same velocity in the same direction—until some cause changes it, and such cause we call a 'force.' "

This is really not merely a law of physics, but it is the fundamental law of logic. It is the law of cause and effect: "Any effect must have a cause, and without cause there can be no effect." This is axiomatic and is the fundamental conception of all knowledge, because all knowledge consists in finding the cause of some effect or the effect of some cause, and therefore must presuppose that every effect has some cause, and inversely. [Quotes in the original but not attributed to anyone.]

We thus see in Steinmetz's thinking how it is that causality is the heart of physics but also logic and explanation.

With this understanding of the importance of causality a theory of theories can be developed.

http://www.bobkwebsite.com/theoryoftheories.html

[b]The Theory of Theories

A theory is an explanation of the causality of people/things/events by a logical argument which includes verifiable/falsifiable premises which lead to a conclusion which is valid if relevant to the premises and which is true if the premises are verified by proof.

Causality is causes causing effects--people/things/events comprised of matter/energy as causes causing people/things/events also comprised of matter/energy as effects.

Matter/energy has been proven by the conservation of matter and the conservation of energy (from thermodynamics and chemistry) and by experimental confirmation of E = mc2 and m = E/c2 of Einstein's theory of relativity to be indestructible and therefore infinite in duration.

Causality, being people/things/events comprised of matter/energy as causes causing people/things/events comprised of matter/energy as effects, is infinite in duration and thus had no beginning and will have no ending. Thus, there is no chain of causality leading back to a first cause.

The source of causality is therefore matter/energy. Causality, being matter/energy, is therefore a never-begun and never-ending process.

An explanation is therefore a description of the causality of a person/thing/event.

An explanation should predict people/things/events who/which are causes to cause people/things/events who/which are effects, the results of causes.

Proof consists of (A) physical evidence (people/things/events comprised of matter/energy); (B) eyewitness reports containing no contradictions or factual errors, of physical evidence, and presented by credible eyewitnesses, individuals who are not known to lie or deceive, who are not known to have a motivation for lying/deceiving, and whose claims are corroborated by credible corroborators; (C) logical arguments consisting of verifiable/falsifiable/verifed premises leading to conclusions which are valid if relevant to the premises and true if the premised are verified.

A theorist's conclusions are challenged by challenging his premises.

Thus, a theory requires verifiable/falsifiable/verified (by physical evidence) premises -> conclusions, i.e., a logical argument whose premises are factual, aesthetics be damned--if necessary! An aesthetically beautiful theory can be an invalid/false theory if its conclusion is not relevant to the premises and its premises are not verifiable/falsifiable/verified (by physical evidence), or if its conclusion is falsified by the premises and conclusions of other theories.

in Newton's version of gravity... God actually had to push the planets back into their orbits... being an Aryan Christian, Newton was cool with this...

Newton never proved--nor has any man/woman/child/etc.--that gods exist, therefore his inclusion of gods in his physics theories was one of his scientific sins, and the inclusion of gods in scientific theories/science will remain a scientific sin so long as no one can prove the existence of gods--by defining a god to be a transcendant (not an immanent) being who/which has greater knowledge and capabilities for using that knowledge than humans/mankind, and capturing one (we may need the services of Captain Kirk, Spock, and all the other members of the Enterprise crew to do this--I think they outwitted a god in one of the recent Star Trek movies), and torturing it until it confesses it is a god, then forcing it to perform stunts that prove it has greater knowledge and capabilities for using that knowledge than humans/mankind and that it is, therefore, a god.

In contemporary times, there are few--if any--serious scientists totally dedicated to including gods in science/scientific theories. Causal explanations eliminate, and thus far have eliminated, the need for gods.

[Clutch]

I agree with wstaylor. We need to teach formal logic at an early age, perhaps around the same time children learn things like multiplicaiton and long division, since formal logic is so much like math in structure. For some reason, I find it odd that a logic courses are strictly college subjects. If people haven't learned why A->B does not equal B->A by the time they reach college, it isn't going to stick.

And yet in at least a wide class of cases it does stick. But in a wide class of those cases, competence in the propositional calculus itself does not amount to competence in recognizing when and how to apply the logic to situations.

It is a serious mistake to assimilate critical thinking and scientific literacy to competence in formal logic. The latter is at most an element of the former, and, depending on the kind of logic learned, can even inhibit it in some respects.

As for teaching critical thinking in grade school, I am a proponent in principle, an opponent in practice. If taught by those who are themselves competent, it may well be beneficial. But when taught in a half-assed way as an afterthought -- as a short section of some other class, or as a special elective taught by the guy who teaches gym and needs to pick up another class here and there -- it is likely to do more harm than good.

[sti1es]

hypothesis non fingo... quite simply means that Newton did not feign a hypothesis about the mechanism of gravity... i.e. his theory wasn't based in causal reasoning... if you examine his work closely, you see that there is a striking parallel between his scientific papers and his alchemical papers/notes... so like Copernicus... here you have a guy, studying the texts of the man-god Hermes Trismegitus (Moses/Thoth/Hermes)... and importing the aesthetic relations of hermeticism into his science... that's why Leibniz accused Newton introducing occult properties into his theory...

today... a lot of positivist/post-positivist folks... most teachers... a lot of 'scientists' whitewash over this aspect of Newton's work... they want you to believe that there is a Method of Truth...

that's why BOB K can say without doubt that causal reasoning is the way... but you don't have to read very far to know causal reasoning is what empiricists do... and that empiricism is not good science...

great scientists... those scientists who have discovered something novel... i.e. realized the existence of a world unseen before through the power of their mind... which in my estimate is the pentacle of the scientific endeavor... these folks think critically about what has been assumed about the world... their critical thinking produces a novel insight contingent on the an alternative vision of relations... i.e. aesthetics...

this is what Enstein did... w/o his alternative vision of space-time, no one would have thought to measure the bending of star light as it passed through the gravitational field of the sun...

this is what Dirac did with his version of Special Relativity... without his emphisis on dual symmetry (an aesthetic move), no one would have thought to take a cloud chamber to the top of a mountain and see if they could find any evidence of anti-matter...

name a great scientist... any field... i will tell you the aesthetic move they made...

something that people are going to have to come to grips with... is that science education in the united states is not very good... because science educators... and most scientists lack any substansive education with repect to history and philosophy of science... they have a really limited view of what science is... and how it can work in conjunction with other modes of reasoning... they are for the most part bent on keeping science neatly defined within the post-positivist paradigm... because they are confortable with empiricism... because they are confortable with couching science within techno-economic language and drilling kids with the so-called scientific habits of mind until we have produced a nation of logical, efficient technicians...

in my opinion, now this may sound a little whacked, there is a link between poor science education, i.e. the traditional empirical, seeing-is believing inquiry crap taught in schools, and the nation's inabililty to apply scientific reasoning to social problems...

e.g. skepticism alone should have kept us from trusting 'intelligence' and putting 'faith' in the presidents 'claims'... why didn't it? my hunch: because most people don't know how to think critically, i.e. question assumptions... they are unable to seek/demand evidence and/or imagine alternative explanations...

e.g. while there are boatloads of evidence pertaining to cause and effects of global warming, it really is a non-issue within the united states... instead we see people responding... 'it is just a theory'... i believe it's because the notion of theory is taught from an empiricist's perspective which fiegns detachment and objectivity, which in a stange way allows folks to discount the reality of a theory... and when it's convenient, detachment and objectivity really allows people to see the world the way they prefer to see the world... wasn't this what Pope Urban VIII did in his dealings with Galileo? i.e. in Dialogues Galileo had to present his "theory" as "hypothesis"... rather than reality...?

[BioBeing]

great scientists... those scientists who have discovered something novel... i.e. realized the existence of a world unseen before through the power of their mind... which in my estimate is the pentacle of the scientific endeavor... these folks think critically about what has been assumed about the world... their critical thinking produces a novel insight contingent on the an alternative vision of relations... i.e. aesthetics...
"Thinking outside the box" is another term that could be used... I was taught this was how the great minds worked when I was in school, but it is not something that can necessarily be taught in and of itself. Critical thinking in general is definitely lacking though, and should be taught more.

[Bob K]

hypothesis non fingo... quite simply means that Newton did not feign a hypothesis about the mechanism of gravity... i.e. his theory wasn't based in causal reasoning... if you examine his work closely, you see that there is a striking parallel between his scientific papers and his alchemical papers/notes... so like Copernicus... here you have a guy, studying the texts of the man-god Hermes Trismegitus (Moses/Thoth/Hermes)... and importing the aesthetic relations of hermeticism into his science... that's why Leibniz accused Newton introducing occult properties into his theory...

You obviously do not understand what is causality.

Causality = People/Objects/Events as causes causing people/objects/events as effects.

Restated: People/Objects/Events = Causes -> Effects = People/Objects/Events.

Any scientific/objective explanation is therefore a description of the causality between/among people/objects/events.

If gods are claimed to be the causes of people/objects/events who/which are effects, that claim as an explanation is a description of the causality by which the gods caused/created the named people/objects/events.

If there is one and only one Universe and the Universe is considered to be comprised of three realities--(1) The Spatial Reality/Space, a pure vacuum of infinite size, describable by x + i wherein x = any finite volume (x-volume) of x radius/diameter (a length as a unit of measurement), i = the infinite volume (the i-volume) which surrounds any and all x-volumes, wherein i - x < 0 (i minus x is always greater than zero; the infinite minus the finite is always greater than zero); (2) The Temporal Reality/Time, a process by which a duration (cycle, periodic motion) is chosen to be a time-interval and the unit of measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events (a temporal unit of measurement); and (3) The Physical Reality/Physics, Matter/Energy, the people/objects/events who/which are comprised of matter/energy (wherein mass is the unit of measurement) and who/which are causes of effects--other people/objects/events, who/which are forces/use forces to cause changes of inertial states of people/objects/events, with matter/energy being indestructible and infinite in existence and therefore without beginning nor ending, then we see that the only reality in which causality occurs is the physical reality--physics, matter/energy.

The problem is determining if there is a class of objects which can be called 'gods' who/which are/are not comprised of matter/energy.

Thus far, no human being has ever produced acceptable proof--physical evidence, credible eyewitness reports, logical arguments (consisting of verifiable/falsifiable/verified--by physical evidence--premises leading to conclusions which are valid if relevant to the premises and true if the premises are true)--of the existence of gods, therefore any claims that gods exist are irrelevant to any serious discussion of causality/ causes of the people/objects/events who/which are causes of other people/objects/events, i.e. are causes of changes of the inertial states of people/objects/events.

And, thus far, no human has ever produced proof of the existence of a spiritual reality which exists independently of the spatial, temporal and physical realities. Thus, the gods do not exist as spiritual entities.

If the gods do not exist as space or time, then they could only exist as physical objects or events--as transcendent or immanent beings comprised of matter/energy.

We expect the gods to have greater knowledge than the knowledge of mankind and greater capabilities for using their knowledge than the capabilities of mankind, and for them to have 'caused' part or all of the current matter/energy configuration of the universe, but thus far we have no proof--physical evidence, the gods themselves--of their existence, therefore, again, gods are irrelevant to discussions of causality, of explanations for observable/observed people/objects/events.

If Newton claimed gods were the causes of gravity, then he is claiming there is causality for gravity--the gods did it, or, in xn lingo, 'Goddidit!!!'

But, again, there is a requirement/mantra--"He who asserts must prove!!!"--which must be obeyed, and if Newton claimed 'Godsdidit' then Newton must first prove gods exist, which he did not.

Your argument would fare better if you would present the precise text(s) as examples of a striking parallel between his [Newton's] scientific papers and his alchemical papers/notes and the texts of the man-god Hermes Trismegitus (Moses/Thoth/Hermes) and the aesthetic relations of hermeticism into his science and occult properties theory.

And your argument would fare better if you presented operational definitions of aesthetic relations and [hermeticism. Since you used these terms you are required to provide operational definitions; I am not required, as a reader of your words, to look up/Google/whatever the operational definitions of the terms/phrases you use.

See the following for a definition/description of what is an operational definition:

http://www.bobkwebsite.com/opdefs.html

today... a lot of positivist/post-positivist folks... most teachers... a lot of 'scientists' whitewash over this aspect of Newton's work... they want you to believe that there is a Method of Truth...

There is a method for determining the Truth--the scientific method, which is guided by The Code of Science.

http://www.bobkwebsite.com/thecodeofscience.html

Thus, in science, no claims are accepted as Truth unless those claims are supported by physical evidence--people/objects/events comprised of matter/energy who/which are causes of changes of inertial states of other people/objects/events.

that's why BOB K can say without doubt that causal reasoning is the way... but you don't have to read very far to know causal reasoning is what empiricists do... and that empiricism is not good science...

Empiricism--basing concepts/principles/techniques primarily upon observation by the perceptual senses of sight/hearing/touch/smell/taste and organization by common sense and the use of inductive and deductive methods of thinking--is indeed, justifiably, at the heart of science. Adventures into spiritualities or subjectivism/solipsism are not permitted in science/by scientists.

great scientists... those scientists who have discovered something novel... i.e. realized the existence of a world unseen before through the power of their mind... which in my estimate is the pentacle of the scientific endeavor... these folks think critically about what has been assumed about the world... their critical thinking produces a novel insight contingent on the an alternative vision of relations... i.e. aesthetics...

p-i-n-n-a-c-l-e (pinnacle)?

Or p-e-n-t-a-c-l-e, as in the topmost corner of a pentagram, a five-sided geometrical figure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagram

You are now describing people/things/events who/which are relevant to your term aesthetics: aesthetics = novel insight/alternative vision of relations/realizing the existence of a world unseen, all of which is accomplished 'through the power of their (great scientists') mind[s].'

Here is a proposal for an operational definition of aesthetics based upon my interpretation of your terminology and using the operational definition form _____ [term/phrase being defined operationally] is when _____ [description of the people/objects/events relevant to the term/phrase being operationally defined].

[i]Aesthetics is when people (great scientists) use the power of their minds to generate a novel insight/alternative vision/realization of the existence of a world unseen.

If you disagree with this proposed operational definition of aesthetics then you ought to provide your own.

What do other people define aesthetics to be?

Here is what wikipedia has under aesthetics


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Aesthetics (or esthetics) is a branch of philosophy dealing with the definition of beauty. The word aesthetics was first used by German philosopher Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten, who helped to establish the study of aesthetics as a separate philosophical field of study.

The word aesthetic can be used as a noun meaning "that which appeals to the senses." Someone's aesthetic has a lot to do with their artistic judgement. For example, an individual who wears flowered clothing, drives a flowered car, and paints their home with flowers has a particular aesthetic.

Some of the meaning of aesthetic as an adjective can be illuminated by comparing it to anaesthetic, which is by construction an antonym of aesthetic. If something is anaesthetic, it tends to dull the senses or cause sleepiness. In contrast, aesthetic may be thought of as anything that tends to enliven or invigorate or wake one up.

The philosophy of aesthetics

This study of aesthetics is well-developed in theology, e.g. "water, greenery, and a beautiful face" were identified by Muhammad, founder and Prophet of Islam, as the key things that any person could differentiate from the background.

It is particularly important to the study of the individual's moral core, which is formed by epigenetics and examples through his or her lifetime, but has a common human foundation explored in cognitive science, anthropology and primatology.

Since actions or behavior can be said to have beauty beyond sensory appeal, aesthetics and ethics often overlap to the degree that this impression is embodied in a moral code or ethical code. Schopenhauer's aesthetics is one developed variation on this theme; Schopenhauer contrasted the contemplation of beauty against the evil world of the Will.

The theory of surrealist automatism is extra-aesthetic in that it is supposed to be practiced without (conscious) moral or aesthetic self-censorship.

The writer Ayn Rand assumed a hierarchical nature of philosophy that builds in complexity & dependence from metaphysics through epistemology, ethics & politics to aesthetics ("Philosophy, Who Needs It?", 1974).

Aesthetic arguments usually proceed from one of several possible perspectives, i.e.: art is defined by the intention of the artist (as Dewey); art is in the response/emotion of the viewer (as Tolstoy); art is a character of the item itself; art is a function of an object's context (as Danto); or art is imitation (as Plato).

The elements that contribute to the aesthetic appeal of an object depend upon the medium under design; some elements are listed below.

Aesthetics in art

Of course art appreciation is in the eyes of the beholder, although there are certain elements that we can define across a group of paintings that can be generalized or delineated, and hence discussed and analyzed on their own merits.

Generally, art adheres to the aesthetic principles of symmetry/asymmetry, focal point, pattern, contrast, perspective, 3D dimensionality, movement, rhythm, unity/Gestalt, and proportion.

You can't take a sample of artwork, lay it down, critique it across aesthetic dimensions, and reach some kind of quantitative judgement as to its quality. Great paintings touch our souls; they may violate some guidelines or lend different weights to various aesthetic principles (sometimes a piece of art veers violently from an aesthetic principle specifically for effect). Yet the principle of aesthetics gives us a basis for discussion.

Aesthetics in music

Music has the ability to affect our emotions, intellect, and our psychology; lyrics can assuage our loneliness or incite our passions. As such music is a powerful art form, and its aesthetic appeal is highly dependent upon the culture where it is practiced.

Some of the aesthetic elements expressed in music include lyricism, harmony, hypnotism, emotiveness, temporal dynamics, resonance, playfulness, and colour.

Aesthetics in architecture

Applying aesthetics to buildings and related architectural structures is complex, as factors extrinsic to visual design (such as structural integrity, cost, the nature of building materials, and the functional utility of the building) contribute heavily to the design process.

Notwithstanding, architectural designers can still apply the aesthetic principles of ornamentation, edge deliniation, texture, flow, solemnity, symmetry, color, granularity, the interaction of sunlight and shadows, transcendence, and harmony.

Aesthetics in the performing arts

Performing artists appeal to our aesthetics of storytelling, grace, balance, class, timing, strength, shock, humor, costume, irony, beauty, and sensuality.

Aesthetics in literature

Encompassing poetry, short stories, novels, and non-fiction, authors use a variety of techniques to appeal to our aesthetic values. Depending on the type of writing an author may employ rhythm, illustrations, structure, time shifting, juxtaposition, dualism, imagery, fantasy, suspense, analysis, humor/cynicism, and thinking aloud.

Aesthetics in landscape design

Landscape designers use natural and artificial materials scaling from the size of a person to the expanse of a golf course. They may employ water (in pools, streams, or fountains), color, plants, reflection, seasonal variance, stonework, fragrance, variance of viewing expansiveness (depth of field?), exterior lighting, repetition, statues, and lawns as aesthetic elements.

Culinary aesthetics

Although food is a basic and frequently experienced commodity, careful attention to the aesthetic possibilities of foodstuffs can turn eating into dining. Chefs inspire our gastronomy with regionalism, spices, diversity/contrast, anticipation, seduction, and decoration/garnishes.

Nowhere in this definition/description of aesthetics do we find any reference to science, i.e. of science as being somehow aesthetic.

Nor do we find in this definition/description any terms/phrases suggesting that aesthetics = [i]novel insight/alternative vision/etc.

Instead, we find aesthetics to defined as a person's judgment/standards of beauty, style, etc.

Note the following wiki quote which focuses upon the general definition of aesthetics and thereby supports my contention of the previous paragraph.

Aesthetics (or esthetics) is a branch of philosophy dealing with the definition of beauty. The word aesthetics was first used by German philosopher Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten, who helped to establish the study of aesthetics as a separate philosophical field of study.

The word aesthetic can be used as a noun meaning "that which appeals to the senses." Someone's aesthetic has a lot to do with their artistic judgement. For example, an individual who wears flowered clothing, drives a flowered car, and paints their home with flowers has a particular aesthetic.

Some of the meaning of aesthetic as an adjective can be illuminated by comparing it to anaesthetic, which is by construction an antonym of aesthetic. If something is anaesthetic, it tends to dull the senses or cause sleepiness. In contrast, aesthetic may be thought of as anything that tends to enliven or invigorate or wake one up.

this is what Einstein did... w/o his alternative vision of space-time, no one would have thought to measure the bending of star light as it passed through the gravitational field of the sun...

this is what Dirac did with his version of Special Relativity... without his emphisis on dual symmetry (an aesthetic move), no one would have thought to take a cloud chamber to the top of a mountain and see if they could find any evidence of anti-matter...

name a great scientist... any field... i will tell you the aesthetic move they made...

Herein you are giving examples of your concept/principle that aesthetics = novel ideas/alternative visions/etc.

The problem is that the thinking involved, although 'novel' and producing 'alternative visions' of reality, was not called 'aesthetics'.

Instead, the thought processes were considered to be subsumed under 'scientific thinking'.

something that people are going to have to come to grips with... is that science education in the united states is not very good... because science educators... and most scientists lack any substansive education with repect to history and philosophy of science... they have a really limited view of what science is... and how it can work in conjunction with other modes of reasoning... they are for the most part bent on keeping science neatly defined within the post-positivist paradigm... because they are confortable with empiricism... because they are confortable with couching science within techno-economic language and drilling kids with the so-called scientific habits of mind until we have produced a nation of logical, efficient technicians...

Science deals/scientists deal with facts regardless of their 'beauty.'

If religious fundies think that evolution is somehow 'not beautiful' because it conflicts with their concepts/principles inre gods causing speciation and because it is 'not beautiful' evolution is therefore false/untrue then they make their judgment based upon subjective thinking and not objective thinking--dealing with real-world observations via the scientific method under the Code of Science.

Evolution is supported by too many facts for any rational/objective person to claim it is false--especially when the creationist alternative requires the existence of the gods, the unobserved unobservables who/which have not been proven to exist, and who/which cannot be proven to exist by any fundie refutation of evolution.

Therefore, regardless of anyone's opinion of the aesthetics of evolution, evolution stands as a scientific theory, i.e., the best description of the observed facts.

Religious fundies are known to whine and snivel inre the teaching of the scientific method as the means of obtaining objective information inre speciation, whereby verifiable/falsifiable/verified--by physical evidence--premises lead to the conclusion that speciation can occur through natural/non-god causal relationships between/among people/objects/events comprised of matter/energy because the fact is that the scientific method--which requires objective/observable verifiability/falsifiability/verification of premises--leads people to conclude that fundie religionist claims of the existence of gods and the causality of speciation as necessarily that of/by the gods are nonsense and therefore a threat to the existence of religion in general.

Philosophy--the science or discipline which studies/deals with the development of true/accurate concepts [mental representations of people/objects]/principles [mental representations of events--causal relationships between or among people/objects]/techniques [applications of concepts/principles], when properly taught, provides the concepts/principles/techniques for logical thinking, rational, objective thinking--the inductive and deductive methods of thought, of developing true/accurate concepts/principles/techniques for other genres/disciplines of human thought including science, politics, economics, psychology, sociology, medicine, etc. I.e., when properly taught, philosophy provides an individual with the baloney detection kit (Carl Sagan) he needs to determine what's true/false inre the claims of other people.

Philosophy, as described, should be taught in every public school regardless of the aesthetics of religious fundies.

in my opinion, now this may sound a little whacked, there is a link between poor science education, i.e. the traditional empirical, seeing-is believing inquiry crap taught in schools, and the nation's inabililty to apply scientific reasoning to social problems...

e.g. skepticism alone should have kept us from trusting 'intelligence' and putting 'faith' in the presidents 'claims'... why didn't it? my hunch: because most people don't know how to think critically, i.e. question assumptions... they are unable to seek/demand evidence and/or imagine alternative explanations...

e.g. while there are boatloads of evidence pertaining to cause and effects of global warming, it really is a non-issue within the united states... instead we see people responding... 'it is just a theory'... i believe it's because the notion of theory is taught from an empiricist's perspective which feigns detachment and objectivity, which in a strange way allows folks to discount the reality of a theory... and when it's convenient, detachment and objectivity really allows people to see the world the way they prefer to see the world... wasn't this what Pope Urban VIII did in his dealings with Galileo? i.e. in [I]Dialogues Galileo had to present his "theory" as "hypothesis"... rather than reality...?

I agree that physical evidence must be obtained--through objective observation--inre various political issues such as global warming, abortion, etc., and this is where philosophy ought to be taught in public schools--so people can have their own baloney detection kits.

Again, religious fundies are the primary reason why philosophy and science are not taught properly in public schools here in the USA.

You are making a claim of fact--that physical evidence exists which supports the claim that the Earth's generalized weather trend is towards warming and not towards cooling, and if you continue with this claim then, under the mantra "He who asserts must prove!!!", you are obligated to cite the physical evidence which verifies your claim of global warming.

If, however, by "e.g. skepticism alone should have kept us from trusting 'intelligence' and putting 'faith' in the presidents 'claims'..." you are referring to the belief in the existence of Iraqi WMDs as justification for the defense of the US by means of the liberation of the Iraqi people you are required to consider President Bush's statements that the British had intelligence which supported that claim, and the fact that President Klingon also held the same conclusion of the existence of Iraqi WMDs based upon various intelligence sources, etc., and, therefore, any claim that Iraqi WMDs were BS must be discounted, especially when the alternative vision exists of the possibility that Iraqi WMDs could have been/were moved out of Iraq prior to/during the liberation. I.e., when a President tells us that he relied upon intelligence from other nations as premises in a logical argument leading to a political/military/economic/social decision, then, although we can apply the baloney kit to that intelligence from other nations, there is only so far as we might be able to go in obtaining the physical evidence/eyewitness reports/etc. of what may essentially be spies [we may not be able to rationally justify 'outing' every spy who provided the reports which we used for making political decisions out of respect for, and fear of, the possibility that such outing would either cause the death of the spy or the loss of his effectiveness, and best guess estimates may have to be used to make decisions which ultimately defend us and those we care about from terrorism/acts of war.

These are obviously subjects for another forum, yet at their heart is the use of philosophical concepts/principles/techniques for developing premises to be used in logical arguments to be used for making decisions and thereby solving problems.