Is Our Children Learning Part III: The universe began with a huge explosion.

It's based off of facts. Theories are a coherent group of propositions that explain the facts. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no implication of certainty or uncertainty in that definition. The theories that don't eventually falter to the facts, and in fact make predictions that are testable, are the ones that last.

But it is simply a fallacy to say that direct observation is the only way to know something. For instance, if a woman was pregnant 200 years ago, you could say that she had sex. In terms that we are speaking, that would be the Sex Theory for pregnancy. You may not have actually seen the copulation, but it doesn't mean that the facts don't support your assertion. And just because our explanation is called a theory, doesn't change the fact that she had sex.

Similarly, we can not go back and see the big bang. However, the facts support the assertion.

I know what you're saying. But even the Theory is flawed, they still can't explain how the universe came about or formed. And now, we apparently have alternate/parallel universes. It's a concept that just makes it easy for us to comprehend, and it is close to fact, but it will never be fact. The theory like you said is the closest representation to what is fact.. I'm just saying it will probably be hundreds of years before the theory is classified as fact or it gets caved in on itself. Right now it's just a theory of what would make sense.

I know what you're saying. But even the Theory is flawed, they still can't explain how the universe came about or formed. And now, we apparently have alternate/parallel universes. It's a concept that just makes it easy for us to comprehend, and it is close to fact, but it will never be fact. The theory like you said is the closest representation to what is fact.. I'm just saying it will probably be hundreds of years before the theory is classified as fact or it gets caved in on itself. Right now it's just a theory of what would make sense.

The theory will never be classified as facts. There isn't some continuum from guess to hypothesis to theory to fact. Theories, though related, are compltely distinct entities from facts. Theories never become facts, no matter how much evidence they have in their favor.

And oh my fucking god, the theory is flawed because it doesn't explain the origin of something? Where have I heard this before? Oh yea, evolution is flawed because it doesn't explain the origin of life!!!!!!! Riiight.

I know what you're saying. But even the Theory is flawed, they still can't explain how the universe came about or formed. And now, we apparently have alternate/parallel universes. It's a concept that just makes it easy for us to comprehend, and it is close to fact, but it will never be fact. The theory like you said is the closest representation to what is fact.. I'm just saying it will probably be hundreds of years before the theory is classified as fact or it gets caved in on itself. Right now it's just a theory of what would make sense.

The theory is now that there's infinite alternate universes. New universes are born from collisions between universes. Because of the sheer number of universes there could be billions of universes like ours but with very subtle differences. Or we could be somewhat unique ...although the odds are against it :P.

You don't have to have sex to get pregnant. It's certainly the most likely way, but just because someone is pregnant doesn't mean they had sex.

You don't have to have sex to get pregnant. It's certainly the most likely way, but just because someone is pregnant doesn't mean they had sex.

Fine, bad example. I'm sure you can think of a better one that demonstrates my point.

I'll try and point out my actual point later when I get a chance, it's hard to elaborate while i'm at work.

No, I think it perfectly demonstrates your point.

No, I think it perfectly demonstrates your point.

It could be better. We could have one with even more certainty.

It perfectly illustrates the uncertainty in your assertion.

It perfectly illustrates the uncertainty in your assertion.

Right, but the point I was trying to illustrate was that the term theory does not insinuate uncertainty. For instance, the theory of evolution encompasses a number of facts. One of these facts is that we share a common ancestor with other apes. There is absolutely no uncertainty about this. Technicalities in the theory of evolution may be modified, but the overlying structure of the theory will not change. Similarly, the big bang theory is well enough established to assert that new discoveries may modify the technicalities of the theory, but the overall structure of the theory will remain.