Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeRPG
A mongrelization of the term for rhetorical purposes. The only defining feature is the delineating factor between theory and law/fact; a scientific fact or law must be true for all cases with no exception. Which means there can be no contradicting evidence, if there is the theory requires revision.
Your use of the word destroys the meaning of theory. Scientific law dictates all theories are inherently invalid and once proven true become fact and are no longer theory. To describe any one area of theory as more real than another shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the prime delineating factor.
|
Sure thing Peter.
The bolded part. Scientific theory is always under test, which is why theory and law are many times interchangeable. Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Even thought both have been proven to be demonstrably consistent in outcomes, they still remain theory. Undetermination of scientific theory suggests that there are no laws because we don't know what we don't know. Einstein's theory of special relativity determines the laws of physics as they pertain to objects, but those laws could be broken if the theory proves to be wrong, meaning those laws are really nothing more than theory based on what we accept we know about our universe.
In your little world, a conspiracy theory exists because you allow for it to exist. You refute the existence of knowledge that would destroy the theory. You refuse to be flexible in your understanding of the world around you, allowing you to challenge the fraudulent beliefs you maintain. This is how conspiracy theories exist, and why they don't become conspiracy laws.
