# Theories--- Are they ever proven? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 31, 2003, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theories-are-they-ever-proven/178719 "2003-05-31T04:30:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theories-are-they-ever-proven/178719/21 "2003-05-31T22:55:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Adman \* > \*\*What we know to be facts today have to start out somewhere before today, right? If what was thought to be a theory turns out to be the actual outcome of an activity, it has been a theory that has been proven. \*\* Well, yes and no. The devil is in the details. For example, when Newton formulated his theory of gravity and developed the equations that govern planetary motion, those equations gave answers that appreared to agree quite nicely with reality, give the accuracy of available measuring instruments at the time, so his theory was considered “proven”. As measurement accuracy improved, it was noticed that the orbit of Mercury didn’t quite match prediction. Then along comes Einstein and General Relativity and once again agreement with experiment and reality, and Relativity is thus “proven”. Then cosmologists working on black hole theory encountered strange mathematics when applying the equations of General Relativity to them: infinities popped up everywhere. Infinities are the equations’ way of telling us something is wrong. Enter superstiring and M-Theories. The new equations these new ways of looking at the universe brought to us once again make the mathematics behave, and the infinities disappear. So, is M-Theory “proven”? Maybe. Maybe not. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theories-are-they-ever-proven/178719/22 "2003-05-31T22:56:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Adman \* > \*\*What we know to be facts today have to start out somewhere before today, right? If what was thought to be a theory turns out to be the actual outcome of an activity, it has been a theory that has been proven. \*\* I think you’re confusing your terminology. The meaning of “theory” as used in science is a bit different than how the word is used by a layperson. The observable outcome of an activity would be predicted by a _hypothesis_, not a theory. Theories are not proven. Ever. Science doesn’t work that way. Everything in science is always open to being shown as incorrect. If it were proven, that would mean that it would be impossible to be shown as incorrect, and it would thus not be open for examination. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theories-are-they-ever-proven/178719/23 "2003-05-31T23:16:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joe Random \* > \*\*The observable outcome of an activity would be predicted by a _hypothesis_, not a theory. \*\* Some clarification. Theories make general predictions. The predicted outcome itself is the hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Kentzel-Griffin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ccd318/32.png) [@John\_Kentzel-Griffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Kentzel-Griffin)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2003, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theories-are-they-ever-proven/178719/24 "2003-06-01T00:02:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by \*\*\*Joe Random \*\* > Theories make general predictions. The predicted outcome itself is the hypothesis. No, that would be called a prediction. The difference between hypothesis and theory (and law) is the amount of support it enjoys. > [@](#): > > _from [Meriam Webster Online](http://www.m-w.com)_ > hy·poth·e·sis > . . . > 2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences > . . . > **synonyms** HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation \. THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth \. LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions \. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2003, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theories-are-they-ever-proven/178719/25 "2003-06-01T02:38:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrMatrix \* > \*\*No, that would be called a prediction. The difference between hypothesis and theory (and law) is the amount of support it enjoys. \*\* Well, if I _must_ admit defeat, at least it’s to a moderator 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theories-are-they-ever-proven/178719.md?page=1)