"Eric Pepke" wrote in message
om...

A theory, however, is a kind of logical and rational
tool. It
takes a set of input statements and uses logic, reason,
mathematics, etc. to get a set of output statements.


As you've given the definition, there's nothing that says
"science," since it is still true that GIGO. She floats,
therefore is a witch.

For example, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is a
theory
because it takes input statements (such as the idea that
the laws
of physics should be the same for all intertial observers)
and
produced output statements (time dilation, Lorentz
contraction,
etc.)


No, the real reason it's a theory is that Einstein said it
was a Theorie in German, and it got translated to "theory"
in English.



The idea that the laws of physics should be the same for
all
inertial observers is due to POINCARE, not EINSTEIN. So
why
don't we talk about Poincare's theory of relativity?


Because Poincare was French? A trick question?

Einstein put in some stuff about lightspeed invarience also
(this doesn't follow from physical law invarience).

In my view
and definition of "theory," it's because it wasn't a
theory. It
was just an assertion, usable as a hypothesis or as an
input
statement to a theory. It's pretty simple. You'd have to
come
up with some other reason why Poincare's assertion is not
called a theory.

See above.



However, I'm defining "theory" in a way that I think is
consistent
with the way most modern scientists use the term and is
also
consistent with the half-century-old distinction between
theoretical
and experimental physics. I've worked with a lot of
theoretical
physicists, and as far as I can tell, they take hypotheses
that they
get from experimentalists or else just make up themselves,
put
them through the rational process that I have called
making a
theory, and produce output statements that can be used as
hypotheses.


As do experimentalists. But experimentalists take data and
separate it from noise, whereas theorists have to rely on
somebody else to do that for them. The difference lies not
not in what theorists do, but in what they don't do.
It's sort of like the difference between surgeons and other
kinds of doctors.


You're welcome to argue that I'm wrong, that a theory is
really
just a glorified hypothesis or something, but it would be
a lot
more persuasive if there were some referent to your
argument.


Burdon is really on you. "Theory" as a term has not been
used consistently over the years, even by physicists. I'm
sorry about that. You can't fix it.

SBH