This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I had removed this i.m.o. vague and incomprehensible (and unsourced) phrase which was inserted by Environnement2100 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Environnement2100 re-inserted the phrase and left this on my talk page. This message didn't clear up, nor explain much, let alone provide a source. I also think that the statement is just wrong, after all, we all know that theories can at best falsified, but never proven true. Edit-warring is not really on priority list, but I think this phrase should be removed again.
Comments? DVdm ( talk) 22:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
As mentioned above this article certainly needs discussion of the theory/practice distinction which is the basis of the whole meaning of this word in modern European languages. There is also no discussion of practice in any Wikipedia article. I think there is no point having two articles, as the two terms make sense in contrast to each other.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I recently looked and found the page praxis (process) on a specific notion of the relationship between theory and practice. Seems relevant to theory to me. User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Can some things be theoretical and also non-theoretical (i.e. actual?)? If so, then there may need to be such a distinction as "theoretical-only" or similar, making it clear that certain things cannot exist or won't exist, or probably don't exist. Or maybe all three of those things from the last sentence could do with a distinctive name, or maybe I'm completely missing the point. For example, the ideal gas article refers to molecules of zero mass. Can this exist? I'd suspect not, therefore, some acknowledgement of that along-side the word "theoretical" might be useful. A good idea? -- Rebroad ( talk) 09:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in, but there is a long-simmering conflict between how scientists use the word "theory" and laypeople understand it which has led to endless confusion. What I did is check dictionary definitions and considered basic understandings. What's written is a suggestion for development. Another thing to consider is that some people don't read beyond the first paragraph(s) so that first paragraph should function as an abstract or a brief overview. Margaret9mary ( talk) 22:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
In philosophy, theory (from ancient Greek theoria, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding") refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action. [1] Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a concept that in its original Aristotelian context referred to actions done for their own sake, but can also refer to "technical" actions instrumental to some other aim, such as the making of tools or houses. " Theoria" is also a word still used in theological contexts.
A classical example uses the discipline of medicine to explain the distinction: Medical theory and theorizing involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked. [2]
The word θεωρία apparently developed special uses early in the Greek language. In the book, From Religion to Philosophy, Francis Cornford suggests that the Orphics used the word "theory" to mean 'passionate sympathetic contemplation'. [3] Pythagoras changed the word to mean a passionate sympathetic contemplation of mathematical and scientific knowledge. This was because Pythagoras considered such intellectual pursuits the way to reach the highest plane of existence. Pythagoras emphasized subduing emotions and bodily desires in order to enable the intellect to function at the higher plane of theory. Thus it was Pythagoras who gave the word "theory" the specific meaning which leads to the classical and modern concept of a distinction between theory as uninvolved, neutral thinking, and practice. [4]
While theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and not easily observable empirical phenomena, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or " falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science.
The word theory, when used by scientists, refers to an explanation of reality that has been thoroughly tested so that most scientists agree on it. It can be changed if new information is found. Theory is different from a working
hypothesis, which is a theory that hasn't been fully tested; that is, a hypothesis is an unproven theory.
The word theory also distinguishes ideas from practice. The words
empirical and
clinical are also used to distinguish theory from practice.
This is different from laypeople's use of the word theory which is usually used to mean an idea that isn't certain, that is not reality.
In philosophy, theory (from ancient Greek theoria, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding") refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action. [5] Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a concept that in its original Aristotelian context referred to actions done for their own sake, but can also refer to "technical" actions instrumental to some other aim, such as the making of tools or houses. " Theoria" is also a word still used in theological contexts.
A classical example uses the discipline of medicine to explain the distinction: Medical theory and theorizing involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked. [6]
The word θεωρία apparently developed special uses early in the Greek language. In the book, From Religion to Philosophy, Francis Cornford suggests that the Orphics used the word "theory" to mean 'passionate sympathetic contemplation'. [7] Pythagoras changed the word to mean a passionate sympathetic contemplation of mathematical and scientific knowledge. This was because Pythagoras considered such intellectual pursuits the way to reach the highest plane of existence. Pythagoras emphasized subduing emotions and bodily desires in order to enable the intellect to function at the higher plane of theory. Thus it was Pythagoras who gave the word "theory" the specific meaning which leads to the classical and modern concept of a distinction between theory as uninvolved, neutral thinking, and practice. [8]
While theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and not easily observable empirical phenomena, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or " falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science.
Originally the word theory is a technical term from Ancient Greek. It is derived from theoria, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding") refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action. [9] Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a concept that in its original Aristotelian context referred to actions done for their own sake, but can also refer to "technical" actions instrumental to some other aim, such as the making of tools or houses. " Theoria" is also a word still used in theological contexts.
A classical example uses the discipline of medicine to explain the distinction: Medical theory and theorizing involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked. [10]
While theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and not easily observable empirical phenomena, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or " falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science. A distinction is often made in science between theories and hypotheses, which are theories that are not considered to have been satisfactorily tested or proven.
The word θεωρία apparently developed special uses early in the Greek language. In the book, From Religion to Philosophy, Francis Cornford suggests that the Orphics used the word "theory" to mean 'passionate sympathetic contemplation'. [11] Pythagoras changed the word to mean a passionate sympathetic contemplation of mathematical and scientific knowledge. This was because Pythagoras considered such intellectual pursuits the way to reach the highest plane of existence. Pythagoras emphasized subduing emotions and bodily desires in order to enable the intellect to function at the higher plane of theory. Thus it was Pythagoras who gave the word "theory" the specific meaning which leads to the classical and modern concept of a distinction between theory as uninvolved, neutral thinking, and practice. [12]
Comments please? The above is based on the latest proposal and the most recent version before it.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 12:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The article starts to touch on this public misunderstanding of the word "theory" by discussing "theoretical" but never quite reaches the colloquialism. This really should be addressed someplace since it is so often used. Student7 ( talk) 21:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Just one thing. I'm explaining alittle more along the lines of the article above. Isn't something called a theory, because that's what it is? Just a theory? Most people confuse "theory" with "fact". Like the Big Bang theory, or the theory of evolution. A Theory is something that could be true, not something that is true. The sad thing is, most schools are teaching theories like those above, as fact. I just wanted to make that clear. Carleen6 ( talk) 20:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
P.S.= How do I get rid of the box surrounding my text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carleen6 ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It is the spaces at the start of each line doing it. Do you have a source for this distinction between facts and theories? I'd say that your position is a common misunderstanding. You are apparently making a statement about modern science, but modern science does not recognize absolute truth, so there is nothing qualitatively above a theory.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 21:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Under References is listed the following book:
Mohr, Johnathon (2008). "Revelations and Implications of the Failure of Pragmatism: The Hijacking of Knowledge Creation by the Ivory Tower". New York: Ballantine Books. pp. 87–192.
Problem: The underlined reference to the author is a generic page on the name "Mohr", not a reference to the author.
Problem: A search of the internet using Google shows many Wiki references to this book, but no listing of the title or author.
Problem: A search at both Amazon.com and Biblio.com finds neither an author or title of the listed reference.
I believe that this entry dhould be corrected or removed.
Respectfully Submitted,
Chip Griffin September 6, 2011
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.103.97 ( talk) 04:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting the reference error.
No, I did not check the other references, but they "seemed" valid from my earlier readings. When I find time, I will check them.
(It seems odd that none of them are underlined. This would indicate a link to the source. The notes above seem to have valid hypertext references.)
Chip Griffin September 7, 2011 at 1:20pm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.103.97 ( talk) 20:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I have re-deleted two passages from the article's section "Theories as models", after my original deletion was reverted without explanation.
First, it originally said that theories "explain, predict, and master phenomena", and I deleted "master". To explain or predict phenomena has a scientific meaning, whereas to "master" phenomena does not.
Second, I deleted the passage
That is not true. Some of a theory's statements are axioms, and some are not.
Third, I deleted
Reality is the model of the formal system? Nope. The formal system is a model of reality.
Fourth, I deleted
No, the scientific theories are interpretations of the world, not vice versa. Duoduoduo ( talk) 20:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
It is incorrect to claim that "a theory is an hypothesis that has survived extensive testing."
The difference between an hypothesis and a theory is one of kind, not of degree.
An hypothesis is a single testable statement. Any hypothesis can be restated as single question. A theory is a body of knowledge about a certain subject, organized according to a particular paradigm. A theory necessarily involves the exploration of how certain ideas relate to other ideas within the subject matter. A theory will normally have at its foundation multiple hypotheses. It is absurd to claim that an hypothesis can become a theory via extensive confirmation. To form a theory from an hypothesis requires not confirmation, but rather elaboration.
Theories can be revised as new evidence arises. Is it often possible to modify a small part of theory without requiring major changes to the theory as a whole. In contrast, an hypotheses is generally all or nothing - its either kept or replaced depending on how it fits with newly discovered evidence; incremental tweaking of an hypothesis is only rarely possible, thus failed hypotheses are normally replaced rather than modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waynemv ( talk • contribs) 21:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I move this remark to a new section.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 19:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The article contains a completely misleading idea that 'theory' is science while 'experiment' is technology. Not so at all. Scientific theories are put forward to explain natural phenomena in way that allows them to be understood and predicted. Testable theories are produced and refined until they are acceptably right. A good example is planetary orbits, for which theories were put forward and refined over a period of 2000 years, by people from Ptolemy to Einstein and others. As observational techniques advanced the theory was continually refined. Technology uses scientific theory to understand and design useful artefacts, for example the internal combustion engine which uses the science of thermodynamics. In scientific pursuits theory and experiment always go hand-in-hand, one is meaningless without the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historikeren ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Why is the ancient Greek term given as the primary definition, instead of being in the "Ancient uses" section? Is the term still used in this way? Nearly the entire article is based on the definition a couple of sections down, "Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter." Arc de Ciel ( talk) 04:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've added it back. I had added the qualifier to try and improve clarity, mainly since my addition split the description of the theory/practice distinction from the example. It occurred to me that this could instead be fixed by switching the two statements (third and fourth sentences), so I've done so (and moved the theory/practice distinction to the beginning of the next paragraph). Feel free to switch it back while we're discussing if you prefer. :-)
Now, returning to my original concern about the definition, as I described above (that edit was only ever meant to be a partial and possibly temporary improvement). To be more concrete, my proposals would be something as follows:
1. At the least, the ancient definition should not be presented as primary without qualification. My impression, as I've explained, is that the methodological definition is predominant, but another approach would be to acknowledge the proliferation of definitions, which is what I had tried to do in a small way with the edit you reverted. I think the 3rd/4th sentence switch I performed comes much closer to what I would find reasonable for that second option, but I am concerned that the theory/practice distinction is no longer juxtaposed with the original definition. So if this break remains in the final version, I think the second paragraph should start with something like, "Under the ancient definition, which is still in use today, [etc]."
2. Related to the first point, I think the example given is also too long relative to its importance, and should be either moved to the "Ancient uses" section (which could be renamed if you don't like having it under that title), or should be shortened. My other concern about the example is that it seems to be making a statement about science, whereas the use of the word "theory" in that sentence (being distinguished from "practical") is not related to the scientific definition except to the extent that the definitions are related to each other. This could be fixed by substituting a different example, or making it clear that the example refers to ancient and not modern medicine. Arc de Ciel ( talk) 04:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I like a lot of your changes, especially the first paragraph (e.g. your addition "based on the idea that a theory is a thoughtful and rational explanation of the general nature of things.") Some of them are actually better than what I had been imagining for the final version. :-)
The edits I made in return were:
- I reversed some of your changes to the final paragraph per BRD. My main impression is that "thoughtful and rational/cannot be purely speculative" minimizes the central role of experiment. I also think that "seen as" is unnecessary unless the sentence had said "the most reliable [etc] form of knowledge" and left out the word "scientific."
- I changed "philosophers and scientists" in the first paragraph to "natural philosophers," to make it clear that these are not modern scientists. (I also wouldn't mind simply saying "philosophers" here.)
- I think "as a normal work" in the first sentence is a typo for "word," so I fixed that.
I may have some more suggestions, but this will be my last long reply for a week or so as I'm going to be busy.
For the medical example, I am not saying that it cannot be in the lead, only that if it remains in the lead, it should be de-emphasized (which is achieved by placing later in a paragraph as you have done, but I still think that e.g. the second sentence could be dropped). Secondly, a distinction of the sort the text seems to imply no longer exists in medicine today. Medicine is a science, and as such there is only one meaning of "theory" in use. Another option (instead of making clear that it is a reference to ancient medicine) would be to replace "theory and theorizing" with "research." Medical researchers spend the vast majority of their time doing experiments: the distinctions made are between research and practice, and (separately) between theory and hypothesis.
Also, in modern science, the distinction between (scientific) theory and hypothesis is very well established (although you may hear otherwise from those trying to cast doubt on evolution etc). "Scientific theory" refers specifically to experimentally confirmed models, which you may call "mental" if you wish (and which I think you are calling the "secondary post Baconian usage"), that fulfill the necessary criteria. This does not mean that production of a scientific theory cannot be solely a mental exercise (such as if the data have already been collected, or if you are in theoretical physics which is a special case for several reasons) - but you still require the evidence. You can refer to the NAS and AAAS definitions later in the article, for example.
A few other things:
- I didn't mean to imply anything with the suggestion of "ancient definition," only to distinguish it from the others; "original definition" would work just as well.
- If I interpret "as a normal word" correctly, I think it would be clearer if we used "an everyday word" or "a common word" instead (my preference is for the former).
- In what sense are you using the word "politicians"? I find it hard to think of how even the ancient Greek politicians ever tried to explain the natural world, except insofar as they were also natural philosophers, unless maybe you mean to say
sophists. Did the ancient distinction refer to "more practical ways of explaining things" or just simply "doing things" as opposed to explaining things?
Arc de Ciel (
talk)
06:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I reverted an edit that put the etymology of the word into a new section and brought the scientific definition to the top. While I agree with the etymology issue and I think there are still improvements that could be made (which we've been discussing in the above section), there are still multiple definitions of the word "theory" in use today - the scientific definition is discussed in greater depth at scientific theory. Arc de Ciel ( talk) 20:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
As you've probably gathered, I've now spent a few days thinking about the new version. :-) It's much better now that it starts with a specific definition. I had actually been visualizing something with the acknowledgement of multiple definitions in the first sentence (not "pushing one meaning as the true meaning," of course), but I think this definition is reasonable. (And while I think it's still possible something even broader might be produced, the definition is fairly inclusive as well.)
Anyways, I made a few tweaks. (The removal of "models" was only because it doesn't seem essential and I think the sentence would flow better, but I won't object if you want to put that one back in.) If you have no concerns about these latest changes, then let's continue the discussion another time, since I think we've both gotten somewhat tired of it. :-) Arc de Ciel ( talk) 01:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Legazpi - Moncloa
![]() |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Theory. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I think a section needs to be added to Scientific theories to address the difference between math theories and others (as is done for physics). Math theories (say, set theory) are collections of math techniques and concepts that fill in a disciplinary area, or something like that. Physical evidence (observations, data) aren't relevent, I think. I haven't the philosophical chops to put that together. SkoreKeep ( talk) 07:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
A theory is flat out misunderstood in the welcoming paragraph of the main page. It states the widespread, incorrect usage of "Theory" and pretends its true. A Theory is as close to a fact as you can get in Science. People are using the word, like it means hypothesis, it does not. Stop spreading this incorrect information. Fix this page!! TheCyndicate ( talk) 01:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm reverting the following recent addition to the lead section, for the following reasons:
with a citation to a book called Global Politics. I think a book on international relations is too narrowly focused to be a source for categorization of theory as it occurs in a wide variety of contexts. And the categorization in this paragraph strikes me as not very sensible. First, why would "explanatory theory" be viewed as synonymous with "descriptive theory"? Description is not even theory, and explanation does not simply describe but rather states why we observe what has been described. Second, the paragraph says that interpretive theory strives to understand rather than to explain; but there's no substantive difference between explaining and understanding—explaining is both necessary and sufficient for understanding. Loraof ( talk) 23:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Why is this article almost entirely focused on hard-science theories? That coverage is fine, but the article as a whole is grossly overbalanced toward the hard sciences; we have exactly fourteen sentences split among theories in social sciences and the humanities. The only section of this article in which anything other than hard science comes close to a balance is the List of notable theories section; elsewhere in the article is zero mention of such significant concepts as music theory, film theory, and literary theory, except in a single sentence listing kinds of theory. I came here expecting to find something about theoretical approaches to history, but the string histor appears only in an etymological discussion, applications of scientific theories in the real-time historical world, historical changes in our understanding of scientific phenomena, and the titles of two cited works. The article doesn't even mention Marx, who's been a major factor in historical theory, economic theory, political theory, and even linguistic theory! Nyttend ( talk) 00:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I think there is a discussion about this topic like most scientfic laws are derived by data. But some belive that by finding complete theory will give all results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.37.164.87 ( talk) 17:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
There seem to be several problems with this sentence, found in the introduction:
"The word theory or 'in theory' is more or less often used erroneously by people to explain something which they individually did not experience or tested before."
First, "... which they individually did not experience or tested before" is obviously not grammatically correct. I'm not quite sure what the author meant to say -- perhaps something like "... which they have neither experienced nor tested." That would at least be grammatically correct, but it doesn't seem to make sense in that it mixes testing -- presumably of the theory -- with experiencing -- presumably of the phenomenon to be explained.
In "The word theory or 'in theory' is ...," surely "theory" should be quoted, to be clear that we aren't talking about something called "word theory." Also, the construction is awkward, since "in theory" is not also a word.
Finally, in "is more or less often used erroneously" is "more or less" describing "often," or "used"? Should that be "is often used more or less erroneously"?
Wait, one more thing. It seems unnecessary (and a bit silly), when talking about words being used erroneously, to clarify that we are talking about words used "by people."
AmigoNico ( talk) 23:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed some previous discussions on the topic, but it still appears to be missing some important distinctions especially in the areas of science/physics. The article does a good job at highlighting the extent of verification that a theory must undergo for it to be different than a hypothesis, but there really should be more of a distinction made between fact and theory. As it is currently worded, it world not be that difficult to confuse one with the other, which is obviously not the case. It might be helpful to make a very direct comparison of the two so that the average reader will be able to understand the difference (perhaps by supplying a small paragraph to this point alone). Simply searching through the article for the word ″fact″doesn't actually find a straight forward explanation. To test this, I've had two other people read through the page and then asked them what the difference between fact and theory was. The response was that there wasn't any. Granted, these were not individuals that had a great interest in science, but this is Wikipedia and they shouldn't have to be. It may simply be just taking concepts from different sections and putting them together more directly. Perhaps explaining how they are not interchangeable, how theories can be used to explain facts (again, by making a simple, direct reference to the word ″fact″) and that despite rigorous testing, theories can always be challenged and possibly corrected, if flawed. I think the article as a whole address these things, but I imagine that anyone reading it specially for this information would not feel confident that they understood the idea once they're done. Johnbo42 ( talk) 00:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
In the section "Definitions from scientific organizations", it also becomes a reference to that of atoms.
Here "... that matter is not composed of atoms", except that such a thing is perhaps only a simplification of real fact, when also the Periodic table.
/info/en/?search=Periodic_table
More is perhaps needed for that of detail here, in order to be explaining.
Feilretter2468 ( talk) 16:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Ano Ang teorya 209.35.164.4 ( talk) 09:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I think these should be merged together as they have a lot of overlaps and currently, for some reason, the page shows quantum gravity and string theory in cosmology. Theories like Newton's theory of gravitation do fit the title of astronomy but are important in other areas of physics too. Angulon ( talk) 21:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I think "theories" like string theory, quantum gravity and multiverse theory should be removed from physics because as explained in the article, theories need to have testable predictions. These can instead by put separately somehow. Angulon ( talk) 21:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)