Tunguska - the latest

[Nearly Sane]

Good summary of the theories on the Tunguska explosion. I well remember seeing the pictures of the trees in a reference book in the library in 1974, intrigued in the way that 10 year olds do.


http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160706-in-siberia-in-1908-a-huge-explosion-came-out-of-nowhere

[Walter]

Good summary of the theories on the Tunguska explosion. I well remember seeing the pictures of the trees in a reference book in the library in 1974, intrigued in the way that 10 year olds do.


http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160706-in-siberia-in-1908-a-huge-explosion-came-out-of-nowhere

fascinating stuff NS

however I do get aggravated by the misuse of the word 'theory' in the piece from someone who should know better. It is not helpful to the furthering of the public understanding of science.

[Shaker]

I've been fascinated by the Tunguska event ever since I first came across it in Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World when I was about eight. Weird stuff.

[Hope]

fascinating stuff NS

however I do get aggravated by the misuse of the word 'theory' in the piece from someone who should know better. It is not helpful to the furthering of the public understanding of science.

Except that theories are exactly what existed in this situation - there were no firm explanations until recently.

[Shaker]

Except that theories are exactly what exist in this situation - there are no firm explanations.

Hypotheses, to be precise.

[Nearly Sane]

fascinating stuff NS

however I do get aggravated by the misuse of the word 'theory' in the piece from someone who should know better. It is not helpful to the furthering of the public understanding of science.

Except in terms of this by its nature, they are not going to be theories in the full scientific sense. English has context and your aggravation shows a basic misunderstanding of the context for the uses of the term theory. 

[Walter]

Except in terms of this by its nature, they are not going to be theories in the full scientific sense. English has context and your aggravation shows a basic misunderstanding of the context for the uses of the term theory.

In your arrogance you attempt to show my inferior understanding of context, however the link refers to a piece written by a BBC EARTH journalist  who should know when to use .'theory 'and hypothesis ' to describe what she's writing about . If you don't know the difference I suggest you look it up .

[Nearly Sane]

In your arrogance you attempt to show my inferior understanding of context, however the link refers to a piece written by a BBC EARTH journalist  who should know when to use .'theory 'and hypothesis ' to describe what she's writing about . If you don't know the difference I suggest you look it up .

No, you are just confused here in thinking that a theory in its less constrained sense does not cover exactly the theory for a single phenomenon. There is nothing here which is about predictability which a 'scientific theory' would need. That it is by BBC Earth journalist has no import. 

[Nearly Sane]

Hypotheses, to be precise.

No, this is the same mistake Walter is making. The theories about Tunguska are not scientific theories in the sense of evolution or gravity. They are theories in the more colloquial sense of a possible explanation of a set of circumstances. Since there is no attempt to make these theories  about predictability in a general sense the theory/hypothesis distinction is effectively invalid.

[Walter]

No, this is the same mistake Walter is making. The theories about Tunguska are not scientific theories in the sense of evolution or gravity. They are theories in the more colloquial sense of a possible explanation of a set of circumstances. Since there is no attempt to make these theories  about predictability in a general sense the theory/hypothesis distinction is effectively invalid.

I am making NO MISTAKE , this is an article of a scientific nature and the terminology used therein should respect the  scientific usage of the terms . If not the misunderstanding of those particular terms will continue, as exhibited on this thread by Hope and that is the point I'm making here.

[Nearly Sane]

I am making NO MISTAKE , this is an article of a scientific nature and the terminology used therein should respect the  scientific usage of the terms . If not the misunderstanding of those particular terms will continue, as exhibited on this thread by Hope and that is the point I'm making here.

that it is about a set of facts that can be investigated by scientific means does not mean that it is talking about a scientific theory in specific sense such as evolution. The specificity of the phenomenon removes the predictive element. That there is a widespread misunderstanding of the term scientific theory as opposed to a theory, is something that your confused reading here is unhelpful in avoiding.

[Walter]

that it is about a set of facts that can be investigated by scientific means does not mean that it is talking about a scientific theory in specific sense such as evolution. The specificity of the phenomenon removes the predictive element. That there is a widespread misunderstanding of the term scientific theory as opposed to a theory, is something that your confused reading here is unhelpful in avoiding.

ok ill say this one more time then you can do with it what you will .

My reading  is not confused and   neither do I have a misunderstanding  but the fact that you are tying yourself up in knots trying to explain away your error in the matter only serves to show your inability to admit that on this occasion you are simply wrong.

[wigginhall]

It's a journalistic piece, actually.  Normally, in such writing you get the colloquial use of 'theory', as NS indicated.   For example, 'I have a theory that blondes have the fun, brunettes have the cash'.     But people use 'theory' like this, even when talking about science, to mean 'idea'. 

It's no good wishing that the colloquial sense would go away, as it's not going to.   

[Walter]

It's a journalistic piece, actually.  Normally, in such writing you get the colloquial use of 'theory', as NS indicated.   For example, 'I have a theory that blondes have the fun, brunettes have the cash'.     But people use 'theory' like this, even when talking about science, to mean 'idea'. 

It's no good wishing that the colloquial sense would go away, as it's not going to.

if they mean 'idea' they should write idea.

eg; I think you're a twat.

but what I really mean is,

I think you're a delight.

perhaps a definition of terms at the beginning of a piece would be helpful, especially to someone like me.

best wishes 

[wigginhall]

if they mean 'idea' they should write idea.

eg; I think you're a twat.

but what I really mean is,

I think you're a delight.

perhaps a definition of terms at the beginning of a piece would be helpful, especially to someone like me.

best wishes

Your example of twat/delight is wide of the mark, since the colloquial meaning of 'theory' is very common.   I heard someone today say 'I have a theory that Theresa May is a man'.     The full scientific meaning is quite rare I would think.   There's no need to define ordinary words at the beginning of every piece.   Every time someone writes 'conspiracy theory', you don't seriously expect them to add, 'please note, 'theory' here doesn't mean scientific theory', do you?

[Walter]

Your example of twat/delight is wide of the mark, since the colloquial meaning of 'theory' is very common.   I heard someone today say 'I have a theory that Theresa May is a man'.     The full scientific meaning is quite rare I would think.   There's no need to define ordinary words at the beginning of every piece.   Every time someone writes 'conspiracy theory', you don't seriously expect them to add, 'please note, 'theory' here doesn't mean scientific theory', do you?

ive got my gorgeous daughter with me today so I'm in an exceptionally good mood
No more arguing for me
Have a nice day

[Hope]

It's no good wishing that the colloquial sense would go away, as it's not going to.

Wiggi, Walter won't be the first or the last poster to wish that the colloquial meaning of a word would disappear 

[Nearly Sane]

Wiggi, Walter won't be the first or the last poster to wish that the colloquial meaning of a word would disappear 

He hasn't said that.