One argument that I am annoyed by immensely is the argument - "X may be true in theory, but is not true in practice."
Let me pose this question - if it does not work in practice, then why? There must be reasons for this.
These reasons are either: A. Unrelated to X; therefore it still works in theory and can work in practice - it's a correlation issue in this case. B. An inherent flaw in X - in this case there is something wrong with the theory.
Newton's corpuscular theory of light. While correct in many ways - it was the modern concept of the photon - it too was supplanted by the dual wave-particle theory of light that explains all aspects of it.
Newton's Laws of Motion (which were improved upon by Einstein - while not really proved wrong, the were shown to be not quite right either. For example in relativity or on the very small scale they don't hold).
I'm having a communication problem, this morning. I'm really arguing semantics. By definition, theory says:
: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2 : abstract thought : speculation 3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory> 4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances â"often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all> 5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light> 6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
I feel like there are some problems with all these definitions as a whole. I need a dang meta-language to explain this! I'm going to step back a little bit and re-gather my thoughts. I can't seem to convey what I'm thinking.
Well, as far as my experience goes, the frase listed at the beggining of the topic is just a commonly used fallacy, to try to win an argument by making a pseudo-logical point. As for the cases that a 'erfectly' elaborated theory goes wrong in the practice... I would say that either one of the parametres was input wrongly, or an external factor hasn't been considered, oftenly a human factor. Very poorly explained, all because of my English
Newton's corpuscular theory of light. While correct in many ways - it was the modern concept of the photon - it too was supplanted by the dual wave-particle theory of light that explains all aspects of it.
Newton's Laws of Motion (which were improved upon by Einstein - while not really proved wrong, the were shown to be not quite right either. For example in relativity or on the very small scale they don't hold).
Both laws are not "erfect" - they can be reduced through theories and be improved. The imperfection must lie both in theory and in practice.
