what would you think of a theory that cannot be proven but also cant be disproven...?

Answer 1

BY DEFINITION, anything that cannot either be proven or disproven is MEANINGLESS. It will have no effect on anything whatsoever. Those who wish to entertain such ideas do so therefore only for their own amusement... like any work of fiction. Calling such things 'theories' is (at best) a misnomer.

Answer 2

That is called "A general existence statement" which you should learn in PHIL 101.

Any general existence statement cannot be disproven (or proven).

A non-controversial exercise of the general existence statement is claiming that Santa Claus exists.

Santa Claus has a mountain of evidence to support his existence: photographs, drawings, eye-witnesses, tons of mail, statues and other physical representations, entire novels and stories about his life, and a huge following. Even in a court of law the existence of Santa Claus can be proven (circumstantial evidence is allowed in court). So it is this General Existence Statement which justifies the belief in Santa Claus even though he has never appeared in real life.

There are many controversial examples, such as God exists, which can and cannot be disproven, and that is what justifies the existence of Priests and Scientists.

Answer 3

I would think that the person trying to prove the theory has a reason to believe in whatever it is and even if it is difficult to conclude, the theory is still a theory unless proven otherwise!

Answer 4

It is very hard to disprove - Prove to me that masses of invisible hamsters do not exist in London.

As for a theory that cannot be proven then look at the evidence and the statistical probiblility.

Answer 5

The Buddha refused to be drawn into a net of theories, speculations, and dogmas. He said that it was because he was free of bondage to all theories that he had attained liberation. Such speculations, he said, are attended by fever, unease, bewilderment, and suffering, and it is by freeing oneself of them that one achieves liberation.

To me this is a theory in and of itself about theory. But being that the Buddha desired to free himself of all theory to achieve liberation he had to either: 1) Not acknowledge his teachings as involving theory (which probably wasn't a problem since no one was questioning him on it at the time, but alas we know now that his teachings are the basis of an entire belief system let alone a theoretical construct), or 2) Free himself from his own thought, which would create your paradox presented here: theory that couldn't be proven or disproven.

I would therefore answer your question by saying that I would think the theory would involve belief that is based in faith: something that you know to be true but that you cannot prove to another.

Answer 6

Gravity wasn't proven for a while, but we know it's there. We are a theoretical people, striving to see and prove the unknown. Look at history, look at now, are we here or just someones theory.

Answer 7

Well, really a theory as is a hypothesis, is an educated guess, based on possible evidence, yet a lack of final concluded 'proof'.

Answer 8

No, because evolution has evidence for it, and evolution is per evidence, so it may easily be disproved if evidence antagonistic to evolution were to be presented. And atheists do not declare God as a negative, we declare the shortcoming of perception in God as a negative, meaning we do no longer ought to provide evidence for our stance a minimum of until eventually those who genuinely have self assurance in the God (the postive stance) cutting-edge some evidence, which has yet to be finished in the finest 4000 years on the grounds that human beings invented the Biblical God.

Answer 9

I would consider the theory, look at the available evidence,
and make up my mind if I could do so in a reasonable manner.

Answer 10

I'm not sure it would really qualify as a theory. It may qualify as an axiom, or an item of a priori knowledge, or an analytic statement. Not a theory, though.