Can one theory disprove another, or...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

...is it the information used to prove one theory is also useful in disproving another. I'm asking if two theories can have near equal status without disproving the other?

[FBM]

Yes.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes.

Good. Now to find a Jersey swamp to ditch the body.

[FBM]

Maybe you ought to consider dumping the body yourself. Not sure a Jersey swamp would want to do it for you, unless you paid it in lots of small, unmarked bills...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Maybe you ought to consider dumping the body yourself. Not sure a Jersey swamp would want to do it for you, unless you paid it in lots of small, unmarked bills...

I go to the same gym as the Swamp Thing.

[Svartalf]

One theory does not disprove another. Period.

If facts disprove one theory, and another accounts for them and allows predictable finds, then it replaces the first

If two theories are in competition, eventually the one that explains facts the best and allows prediction of finds or experimental results most often will dominate.

[Mr.Samsa]

...is it the information used to prove one theory is also useful in disproving another.

Yes, it's the latter here. Theories are just frameworks of knowledge, or explanations for a vast range of data and information. So they can't really "disprove" one another, instead the observations and predictions made either support or weaken our theories. So if I came up with a theory which made the prediction that objects should not fall to the ground when dropped, the theory of gravity would not disprove my theory, but rather the observation that when I drop an object it hits the ground would be what disproves my theory.

I'm asking if two theories can have near equal status without disproving the other?

Yes, this happens all the time. Usually what happens is that the two competing theories will account for different sets of data, or they will make predictions about different things, and so they are both useful to us but ultimately incomparable. The story that is told to science students and enthusiasts is that scientists will uncover new evidence which will disprove one theory and the other one will be "proven" or accepted, but in reality what happens a lot of the time is that the scientists who supported one of the theories get older and die out, and the dominance of a theory is transferred simply as a result of a lack of a challenger. In other cases, there is no empirical way to distinguish between two competing theories, and we have to rely on philosophical notions to choose between the two; for example, one might be more parsimonious than the other, or one might have greater plausibility in terms of its core variable, etc etc.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Thanks!

[FBM]

I'd like to make a slight modification on my initial response: no.

[Azathoth]

...is it the information used to prove one theory is also useful in disproving another.

Yes, it's the latter here. Theories are just frameworks of knowledge, or explanations for a vast range of data and information. So they can't really "disprove" one another, instead the observations and predictions made either support or weaken our theories. So if I came up with a theory which made the prediction that objects should not fall to the ground when dropped, the theory of gravity would not disprove my theory, but rather the observation that when I drop an object it hits the ground would be what disproves my theory.

I'm asking if two theories can have near equal status without disproving the other?

Yes, this happens all the time. Usually what happens is that the two competing theories will account for different sets of data, or they will make predictions about different things, and so they are both useful to us but ultimately incomparable. The story that is told to science students and enthusiasts is that scientists will uncover new evidence which will disprove one theory and the other one will be "proven" or accepted, but in reality what happens a lot of the time is that the scientists who supported one of the theories get older and die out, and the dominance of a theory is transferred simply as a result of a lack of a challenger. In other cases, there is no empirical way to distinguish between two competing theories, and we have to rely on philosophical notions to choose between the two; for example, one might be more parsimonious than the other, or one might have greater plausibility in terms of its core variable, etc etc.

The eminence of a scientist is measured by the length of time he holds up progress in his field.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The eminence of a scientist is measured by the length of time he holds up progress in his field.

Einstein, for example.

[Tero]

Einstein does not disprove Newton. Ina snail paced world, the numbers of Einstein become Newton numbers.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Einstein does not disprove Newton. Ina snail paced world, the numbers of Einstein become Newton numbers.

Albert did make it "disreputable" to talk about black holes.

[Svartalf]

Well, Hawking made us want to plunge into them.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well, Hawking made us want to plunge into them.

He's pretty much passe now, he doesn't make the "Top Ten" lists for grad students anymore.