Is It Necessary to Disprove Other Theories in Order to Prove One Correct?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter scott_sieger
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of proving theories in physics, specifically whether proving a theory correct necessitates disproving other theories. Participants explore the processes involved in theoretical work, the relationship between new and existing theories, and the implications of experimental evidence on the validity of theories.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether proving a theory correct requires disproving all other theories, suggesting this may be a common misconception.
  • Another participant argues that new theoretical work typically builds on existing theories rather than solely attempting to disprove them.
  • A third participant provides definitions of hypothesis, theory, and law, indicating that theories can be wrong and often require refinement rather than outright falsification.
  • It is suggested that a theory must comply with and explain observed behavior, implying that experimental agreement is crucial for a theory's validity.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of a theory not agreeing with experiments, questioning whether it would be considered falsified.
  • One participant asserts that a theory cannot be proved correct, only proved false, emphasizing the limitations of proving theories in physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of disproving other theories to validate a new theory. While some argue that existing theories are foundational for new theories, others maintain that proving a theory correct is not contingent upon disproving others. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of experimental evidence on the validity of theories.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of experimental evidence in evaluating theories, but there is no consensus on how this evidence interacts with the process of proving or disproving theories. Additionally, the definitions of theoretical terms are discussed, but their implications are not fully agreed upon.

scott_sieger
Hi guys, just seeking opinions and discussion,

As I am new to the realms of conventional physics I just thought I'd ask a question to help me understand the processes.

To prove a theory correct means that you have to prove every one elses theories wrong. Is this a true statement?

If so then most of the theoretical work you have to do is pulling other theories apart and disproving them.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Originally posted by scott_sieger
As I am new to the realms of conventional physics I just thought I'd ask a question to help me understand the processes.
No.
If so then most of the theoretical work you have to do is pulling other theories apart and disproving them.
No.

The vast majority of new theoretical work builds on existing theories. If only at the most basic level, a new theory MUST start with some existing theory.
 
A good describtion of a theory is here:

http://www.wilstar.net/theories.htm

Also: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hypothesis

HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>.
THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the theory of evolution>.
LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions <the law of gravitation>. LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature.

So, theories can be wrong but then a lot of former proof needs to be falsified or explained in a logical different way. Most of the time theories are just refined. Some theories can be questioned but are usually well protected by skeptics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just to put in some aspect that you're theory should have: it should comply with and explain some observed behaviour. In other words it has to agree with experiments. Setting up a theory that shows that superconductors can't exist is obviously a dumb theory since I can show you a superconductor in my lab.
 
and if you didn't have a superconductor in your lab? You wouldn't know whether it was dumb or not.
 
So theories have to comply with and explain some observed behaviour and would have to agree with experiments.

Now what if a theory is not agreeing with experiments, would it be falsified?
 
To prove a theory correct means that you have to prove every one elses theories wrong. Is this a true statement?

No. A theory cannot be proved correct. It can only be proved false.
 
Originally posted by scott_sieger
and if you didn't have a superconductor in your lab? You wouldn't know whether it was dumb or not.
If you didn't have a superconductor in your lab, you'd still be well advised to consider what others who DO have superconductors have to say on the matter before attempting to prove they can't exist.

So again - you may want to try to learn some of conventional physics before attempting to create your own.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
9K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
14K