[peterv]

It's the axioms that can't be proven, not the theories. Theories are proven from axioms.

[terran_emperor]

The one truth of the universe is "Sod's Law"- "anything that can go wrong, will go wrong"

[General Battuta]

It's the axioms that can't be proven, not the theories. Theories are proven from axioms.

Erm?

Have you ever seen a theory proven?

[peterv]

Again: It's the axioms that can't be proven, not the theories. Theories are proven from axioms.

Edit: I love sundays 

[Mobius]

They need to be plausible, though...they're Mathematics' version of a religious dogma but are much more plausible than them...

[peterv]

Exactly 

[Mobius]

It's quite hard to beat the dogma of Mary's virginity in terms of unplausibility...

[peterv]

In religions, marxism and neo-liberalism it is impossible to beat any dogma in any terms. 
This is a theory based on experience, not axioms 

[captain-custard]

It's quite hard to beat the dogma of Mary's virginity in terms of unplausibility...

its not difficult if we take social and cultural history into the equation

at the said period after people were betrothed (married ) the women held the title of virgin ......

so culturaly she was a virgin

as for ibeing a virgin in the medical sence of the word only the easter bunny knows

[General Battuta]

Again: It's the axioms that can't be proven, not the theories. Theories are proven from axioms.

Edit: I love sundays 

Okay, I guess we're just approaching this from different angles. Theories make predictions, which are then tested by data.

Theories can't be proven, which is why theories can't be proven from axioms.

[karajorma]

No, even that was fun up until the point when TrashMan and kara started their usual thing again.

TM: blah blah blah big bang is wrong blah blah blah
Kara: blah blah blah big bang is not wrong blah blah your logic is flawed
TM: blah blah blah I never said big bang was wrong blah blah blah you're insulting me blah blah blah
Kara: blah blah blah blah yes you did blah blah blah blah smart remark with gratuitous ( )
TM: blah blah blah ualealelaleale blah blah
Kara: blah blah blah monkey!

Except I'm not monkeying him this time so we can see the natural conclusion.

Anyway he proved with his last post that he's not even reading what I wrote before saying I'm wrong so I'm out.

[General Battuta]

I think Trash is actually being pretty reasonable now (although, yes, not really absorbing what we're saying), but I concur, this debate probably isn't going to go anywhere productive.

[kalnaren]

Remember that the scientific definition of 'theory' and the layman's definition of 'theory' are two completely different things.

A scientific theory is a model derived from observable and provable facts, with the remainder filled in by equations or models that, based on our current understanding, are correct but cannot yet be prooven or disprooven.

Just because a scientific model is labled a "theory" does not make it any less correct. All it means is that, at present, we are unable to disprove certain parts of it.

Many scientific theories will always be theories. Heck, 'flight', or rather how exactly an airfoil works, is still a theory (hence why it's called "Theory of Flight" and not the "Law of Flight"). We are still unable to prove, scientifically, how all aspects of flight occur. Doesn't mean "flight" is incorrect and an impossibility.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Trashman, do you know what dark energy is?

       Oooh! Oooh!
       I know I know, that's the **** the emperor was shooting Luke with. Damn that stuff's gotta hurt.

[Ghostavo]

Again: It's the axioms that can't be proven, not the theories. Theories are proven from axioms.

Edit: I love sundays 

You mean Theorems are proven from axioms... whole different field.

Here's what you are confused about.

[TrashMan]

but I concur, this debate probably isn't going to go anywhere productive.

One very wise person once said "The inability to ever convince the opponent is what distinguishes a useful debate from a pointless argument".
And I agree. Given that everyone knows chances that either me or kaj will change opinion are...microscopic....there's really no point in continuing.

not to mention that were way off topic.

[General Battuta]

Remember that the scientific definition of 'theory' and the layman's definition of 'theory' are two completely different things.

A scientific theory is a model derived from observable and provable facts, with the remainder filled in by equations or models that, based on our current understanding, are correct but cannot yet be prooven or disprooven.

Just because a scientific model is labled a "theory" does not make it any less correct. All it means is that, at present, we are unable to disprove certain parts of it.

Many scientific theories will always be theories. Heck, 'flight', or rather how exactly an airfoil works, is still a theory (hence why it's called "Theory of Flight" and not the "Law of Flight"). We are still unable to prove, scientifically, how all aspects of flight occur. Doesn't mean "flight" is incorrect and an impossibility.

This.

Trashman, do you know what dark energy is?

       Oooh! Oooh!
       I know I know, that's the **** the emperor was shooting Luke with. Damn that stuff's gotta hurt.

Absolute, unlimited powerrrrrrrrr.

[peterv]

You mean Theorems are proven from axioms... whole different field.

Here's what you are confused about.

Axioms and theorems are subgroups of a theory. To describe a theory analytically you have to use them both.
However it is a confusing term because "theory" comes from a greek word whith many readings. I will not insist on this because i just read in wiki that "... even inside the sciences the word theory picks out several different concepts dependent on the context."   

[Ghostavo]

You mean Theorems are proven from axioms... whole different field.

Here's what you are confused about.

Axioms and theorems are subgroups of a theory. To describe a theory analytically you have to use them both.
However it is a confusing term because "theory" comes from a greek word whith many readings. I will not insist on this because i just read in wiki that "... even inside the sciences the word theory picks out several different concepts dependent on the context."   

But in mathematics, theories are subdivisions of knowledge. You cannot prove or disprove theories anymore than you can prove/disprove numbers and operators. And the minute you pick the word axioms, science (physical sciences for those who are pedantic about it) is out of context.

[Mongoose]

as for ibeing a virgin in the medical sence of the word only the easter bunny knows

...what's your Easter Bunny about, then?