Theory 1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine. Theory | Define Theory at Dictionary.com Hypothesis 1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts. One can not have a "theory" to explain non-facts. One has a "theory" in a scientific sense to make sense of facts or trends in evidence. In this case, there is no evidence. This isn't my opinion on what the words mean, it is what they mean. Walk into any biology department on any college campus and try to make a case for a scientific theory on bigfoot's ability to survive in North America undetected. They'll look at you like you just grew an extra head. Even a hypothesis is supposed to be an educated guess based on observation. Hypothesizing based on the sketchy reports of big foot enthusiasts alone would be stretching it. But tell me I am just closed-minded and never would have found the giant squid because I insist on observation.
The oral traditions of tree spirits and "Coyote" must not be dismissed. Clearly coyotes are sentient tricksters who can speak and impregnate our women. For there are oral traditions of it. The Great Lakes were not formed by glaciation, but rather by Paul Bunyon. The proof is the oral traditions of him making them with his footprints.
I imagine that you skipped the second definition at the same site, because it does not support your opinion. I imagine that you thought I wouldn't notice? Theory | Define Theory at Dictionary.com As I said previously, theory has several connotations. Theory is the above. It is conjectural and subject to experimentation. It has a very unique synonym, can you spot it? What you quoted was scientific theory. It has a qualifier, as I stated earlier. I imagine that you read the definition and immediately ignored it, though I'm not sure why. Do you not think theory means the above, and that scientific theory is what you denoted? If not, then yea, that is your opinion. And you can have theory without facts, you simply cannot have scientific theory without facts. Again, a qualifier. Again, observation can be quantitative (DNA from Bigfoot) or qualitative (what was seen and reported by others). As to the walking into the Biology department and making a case for Bigfoot, I did. Well, for Orang Pandek. It went rather like what I have already stated, except that my fellow biologists understood that which I'm apparently having to explain to a geologist.
You don't even know what point you are trying to make anymore, do you? I'll simply ask: Why do you think I mentioned the oral tradition? If your response is because you attempted to imply that the 30 million or so Native Americans living in North America would have encountered Bigfoot, if they did in fact have a larger habitat prior to encroachment of unsettled lands by settlers, thus reducing the natural habitat and forcing them into a smaller area, then I will say you are still with the conversation. However, any other answer and I'll begin to think you aren't quite following this discussion.
1. No self-respecting scientist would let you use the word theory in that regard if they are worth their weight in shit. The whole time I've been specifying "scientific." It is right here in the thread in black-and-white. 2. I didn't overlook that definition, it isn't the scientific one. See how it is synonymous with "hypothesis?" That is because the definition you posted is how it is used in the common vernacular-- not science. I'm getting tired of this. If you want to disagree, have at it. Meanwhile, bigfoot will continue to not exist and theorizing about how he lives undetected will continue to be unscientific. I have an aunt in Vermont who swears to God that she saw Champ once. Obviously, I think she is mistaken.
Actually, only self respecting scientists use scientific theory when discussing science. As Bigfoot is not science, and has not been presented as a study in science, using the word theory is absolutely acceptable, because those who can distinguish science from non-science know what definition of theory is being used. It is called context. In the definition you provide, there is an example given. Examples are used to help people put the word into context. The example given for your definition is a scientific theory, thus putting that definition into context. This is why I had no problem using the word theory in my presentation, because even though I was talking to scientists, I wasn't discussing a scientific theory. They were able to understand. I'm sure your department will come along, eventually.
No, I don't think so. My department is in the business of educating, not listen to folks give theories about bigfoot.
Really? I have an experiment for you, walk around your campus and conduct a poll. Find out how many people think Geology is a science. Maybe start there with the education...
Discredit scientific field Believes in giant forest monkey based off hokey old stories from people that believed rocks had souls
Is that what I said? Because I'm pretty sure I said you should ask how many people think Geology is a science. You'll find that fewer than you think do, which is why I suggested starting your education there. In other words, I wouldn't be so uppity about my field if it wasn't even viewed as a hard science, even though it is, by so many people. That's okay, though. Someday we'll buy you guys your own Nobel title.
Is it similar to the shooting range fight between beat cops and detectives? Or is that different since beat cops don't get to shoot more than 50 rounds a year?
