The common definition of a theory is not the same as the scientific definition of a theory:

Quote:However, the definition of a scientific theory is far different. Scientific theories are not just hunches. A scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. Once the hypothesis has gone through extensive testing by multiple groups of scientists, it can become a theory, but only if the results of all of the testing support the original idea. So a scientific theory isn’t “just a theory,” it’s a theory! And that is a big deal.

Let me repeat that, since "it's just a theory" is uttered at least three times a week on this board:

Quote:However, the definition of a scientific theory is far different. Scientific theories are not just hunches. A scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. Once the hypothesis has gone through extensive testing by multiple groups of scientists, it can become a theory, but only if the results of all of the testing support the original idea. So a scientific theory isn’t “just a theory,” it’s a theory! And that is a big deal.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/arts_life...245e8.html

By that definition, which I agree is appropriate, even scientists often use the term in a different manner. For example, in particle physics, much of cutting edge work is dedicated to string theory, where the use of theory is clearly in odds with the above. Heck, there are a several versions of string theory, all of which can not be correct. But you don't find scientists who work on string hypotheses. Even evolution had two competing theories during the 19th century.

So if scientists use theory loosely, how can you expect a higher standard for a sports board.

(12-11-2015 05:20 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  By that definition, which I agree is appropriate, even scientists often use the term in a different manner. For example, in particle physics, much of cutting edge work is dedicated to string theory, where the use of theory is clearly in odds with the above. Heck, there are a several versions of string theory, all of which can not be correct. But you don't find scientists who work on string hypotheses. Even evolution had two competing theories during the 19th century.

So if scientists use theory loosely, how can you expect a higher standard for a sports board.

Quote:The word "Theory" has an entirely different meaning in Mathematics than it does in Science and since current investigation into String Theory is essentially if not entirely Mathematical in nature, I would suggest that the use of the word "Theory" in the mathematical context is appropriate.

(12-11-2015 05:36 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 05:20 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  By that definition, which I agree is appropriate, even scientists often use the term in a different manner. For example, in particle physics, much of cutting edge work is dedicated to string theory, where the use of theory is clearly in odds with the above. Heck, there are a several versions of string theory, all of which can not be correct. But you don't find scientists who work on string hypotheses. Even evolution had two competing theories during the 19th century.

So if scientists use theory loosely, how can you expect a higher standard for a sports board.

Quote:The word "Theory" has an entirely different meaning in Mathematics than it does in Science and since current investigation into String Theory is essentially if not entirely Mathematical in nature, I would suggest that the use of the word "Theory" in the mathematical context is appropriate.

Exactly. There are different definitions.

But I concur, many on here use it incorrectly.