Trial Question (1 Viewer)

[untouchablecuz]

Using appropriate examples to support your answer, comment on the statement that "a theory is useless unless it has supporting evidence".

This statement is in most instances correct. A theory with no evidence to support it is an ad hoc explanation of phenomenon. It in no way can be validated and proven to be correct, and in most instances can be misleading. This is embodied in the theory of the ether. It was proposed that the ether was a hypothetical substance that permeated the entire universe, allowing for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation. This theory however, did not have any supporting evidence i.e. the existence of the ether could not be experimentally or empirically backed. This theory, which lacked experimental support, suffered a further blow when the Michaelson Morley experiment failed to produce data in support of it. Thus a theory without supporting evidence is superfluous and not useful.

regardless of your views on the matter, do you think this is a 5/5 response?

 

[k02033]

It in no way can be validated and proven to be correct,

well to be pedantic, we cant prove any of the theories of physics, bio or chemistry. The only scientific field where theories can be proven, is mathematics. theories of physics can only be tested against observations. ie F=ma cant be proven. when a theory can explain the observations time again and again and people are happy with it, they accept it as physical law. and when this happens, we cant guarantee that there will be no future observations that will break this physics law. In contrast, the area of a circle will always be pi r square and all integers can be factored into primes, even if the universe is collapsing, who know what will happen to relativity at that time.

I guess pedantic might not a suitable word to use here since the idea here is not so trivial.. but rather is a key difference between maths and other sciences. I would use WeAllKnowIts Maths>Phys>bio>chem as the title, but it doesnt fit

 

[untouchablecuz]

would it be more correct to say:

"It in no way can be validated and deemed an applicable model of the physical world"
​

 

[untouchablecuz]

well to be pedantic, we cant prove any of the theories of physics, bio or chemistry. The only scientific field where theories can be proven, is mathematics. theories of physics can only be tested against observations. ie F=ma cant be proven. when a theory can explain the observations time again and again and people are happy with it, they accept it as physical law. and when this happens, we cant guarantee that there will be no future observations that will break this physics law. In contrast, the area of a circle will always be pi r square and all integers can be factored into primes, even if the universe is collapsing, who know what will happen to relativity at that time.

I guess pedantic might not a suitable word to use here since the idea here is not so trivial.. but rather is a key difference between maths and other sciences. I would use WeAllKnowIts Maths>Phys>bio>chem as the title, but it doesnt fit

so F=ma can be considered axiomatic?

 

[Bank$]

well to be pedantic, we cant prove any of the theories of physics, bio or chemistry. The only scientific field where theories can be proven, is mathematics. theories of physics can only be tested against observations. ie F=ma cant be proven. when a theory can explain the observations time again and again and people are happy with it, they accept it as physical law. and when this happens, we cant guarantee that there will be no future observations that will break this physics law. In contrast, the area of a circle will always be pi r square and all integers can be factored into primes, even if the universe is collapsing, who know what will happen to relativity at that time.

I guess pedantic might not a suitable word to use here since the idea here is not so trivial.. but rather is a key difference between maths and other sciences. I would use WeAllKnowIts Maths>Phys>bio>chem as the title, but it doesnt fit

Exactly, maybe even include the fact that theories are derived from models (they like that word lol). So despite not have evidence if it suites the current model then it can have some use to explain phenomena.

 

[Bank$]

so F=ma can be considered axiomatic?

No lol,

In science its all about 'models'. We define the terms 'Newtons' 'Joules' 'Volts' etc and give them relationships to one another. If we can make sense of these relationships then we use that current model.

 

[untouchablecuz]

alrighty, thanks

on another note: how do you find engineering at Usyd? is it as bad as everyone says?

 

[Bank$]

alrighty, thanks

No worries mate : )

on another note: how do you find engineering at Usyd? is it as bad as everyone says?

The only people who say that are the ones who cant get into USYD engineering (jks lol I dont want a massive cyber fight XD).

Its either as good or even better than UNSW engineering. Easy to get to and a degree from USYD is highly respected. Unless you live really close to another good uni, I would say go for it !

 

[k02033]

hey you visit the forums regularly now, awesome