Redefining truth.
When you ask someone what a theory is, you will get a dance around truth. Explainations that imply truth, but never fully commited to what truth really is. That is why the pic above is such an eye opener. And only a few people will actually commit to saying a scientific theory is truth. So what is a theory really? Is it fiction that someone wants to be true? Or is it just fiction, that will always remain fiction, because it can never become completely true? Adding truth to what cannot be proven does not make the rest of what is said true. Let's see just how science contridicts itself through it's own definitions of what a theory is. Now notice how truth and fact are implied, but never committed to actually saying. It's like the person who defines it wants you to believe it's true, while all along amitting it's also a lie. So what do we have? True lies? Or degrees of truth?
Theory:
| A well-substantiated explianation* of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory". http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory |
1) Well-substantiated=Truth implied but never committed. But notice the word explaination*. Explaination: the act of explaining... Which more or less means a bunch of talk. Then it says: "of some of the aspects of the natural world". Why not change the word "some" to "all". Here again, truth is implied but never commited to.
2) Organized system of accepted knowledge=This phrase is probably the best explaination of a theory I have ever seen. But let's break it down for meaning. "Organized" means someone, or something arranged it (thought it up). In this case, those in science designed this method of trying to figure things out. "System" means that it is a separate system from what already existed (truth and non-truth). And is the very reason it is called a system because it requires separation from the norm, and belongs to a separate area of thought. "Accepted knowledge", Now this is a leap of faith that is implying that "everyone" accepts this. Actually they just want everyone to accept this.
3) True in fact and theory=Now here's where, after they have actually dodged saying a theory is true, they now come out and imply it to a point to try and make you accept that it is true. By the use of the word "and", theory automatically becomes connected with the other two words that are to imply what they want you to believe about what a theory is. But, if you point out that these words are used in the definition of a theory. They will point out the rest of the definition that never commits to being truth. Smart huh?
So who decides about things being accepted as theories?
This definition of a theory gives the answer:
| A comprehensive explanation of a given set of data that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation and has gained general acceptance within the scientific community but has not yet been decisively proven. |
Notice the dance around truth: "Confirmed-but yet not decisively proven".
