<p>"<em>AHEM</em> The law of diminishing marginal returns..."</p>
<p>ROFL. theory, law. relative, difinite. its all textbook. =)</p>
<p>Com'on, understanding and applying the principles is what matters. Remembering the name only helps me to get an A+ on a test.</p>
<p>Yeah, but...well...</p>
<p>Yeah.</p>
<p>To be precise, theory is something that will NEVER be proven correct, but can be proven wrong, and is also its purpose. We find a theory which best fits reality to use it for explanation, and improve upon it until we find a new one. Law is something that is built into the nature and can NEVER be proven wrong. </p>
<p>I'm glad you can score an A+ merely by memorization in your business education, if it serves your purpose.I never deal with memorization of concepts in my quantitive degree, but to me as a semi-scientist, the difference is there, they're not merely interchangable terms.</p>
<p>I don't expect business students to understand such difference. Infact, I would be suprise if any do. Memorization of terms is the key part of their education and the key to A+, 4Ps in marketing, SWOP analysis, all those nice terms. Yet they don't even take it seriously.</p>
<p>abcboy70,</p>
<p>You're not even really being that precise.</p>
<p>You're assuming that a theory is like a fact-- it can be proven right or be proven wrong. A theory "is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation."</p>
<p>To that end, a theory can be demonstrated to be correct. The theory of gravity, for example, has been proven correct many many times. In science, nothing becomes a "theory" until it has overwhelming evidence to demonstrate so. But a theory will never become a "fact." This is because a theory is not meant to be a "fact." But neither is a law.</p>
<p>A law is not necessarily something that "is built into nature." A law is a "a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior." To that end, the law of gravity and the theory of gravity are two different things. But both must be understood to truly understand the interactions of gravity with the physical world.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I never deal with memorization of concepts in my quantitive degree
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I find this VERY hard to believe. You never have to memorize formulae?</p>
<p>"The theory of gravity, for example, has been proven correct many many times."</p>
<p>... let me tell you what Theory of Gravity is. It's something that's now proven wrong amd replaced with something better. A more improved version has been proposed by Einstein and accepted but not 100% perceise thus not call a law. This is call General Theory of Relativity. Again, it's call a THEORY. Einstein himself said further down the road someone will propose a better theory in explaining "gravity", he even tried himself late in his life but he died before he finished it.</p>
<p>Now 90% of the physicists are trying to improve Einstein's theory, perhaps M-theory, String Theory and the theory of parallel universe. If "Theory of Gravity" is correct, why the heck would we praise Einstein so much, and why the heck are physicsts working on new stuff to replace something "proven right", as you proposed.</p>
<p>And no, my friend, I don't meorize formulas. If you requires formulas, you're not doing math, or proofs as we call them.</p>
<p>Well, I'll rephrase this:</p>
<p>Many theories of gravity have been demonstrated to be significantly predictive in nature. It's only with the intersection of quantum physics that the theories have become increasingly difficult. However, it's hard to argue that Nordstr</p>
<p>exactly, buddy, it has been "demonstrated to be significantly predictive in nature", where the hell is it prove CORRECT? It's not correct, it's a close approxmiation to reality and thus we call it THEORY.</p>
<p>Again, I don't expect business students to understand difference between theory/law, let alone the difference between "proven correct" or "improved predictiveness".</p>
<p>abcboy,</p>
<p>For one, I'm not a business student. I don't know where you go that one from.</p>
<p>However, you're missing the point. A theory is not even adopted until it has some proven worth. "Theory" in science and "theory" in common parlance mean vastly different things.</p>
<p>For example, if I construct a theory that doesn't predict anything, then it's incorrect. A theory is only valuable if it's predictive in nature.</p>
<p>Stop trying to cover your ignorance. I've already stated the defination of theory in the scientific sense, not common sense (something business students are accustomed to in their 4 years in college education). Theory is something that best describes the current phenonmena. You see the word BEST, that's what I meant if you still don't get it. Thus that mean if I spend 20 minutes making up some theory explaining gravity, it's not considered a theory until it's proven ACCURATE (not correct). Do you get the difference?</p>
<p>On the other hand, you're claiming Newton's version of G is PROVEN CORRECT. This is claiming 9.8km/s/s is actually CORRECT. No, it's not, it's an approximation. A VERY CLOSE approximation, thus it's a THEORY.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you requires formulas, you're not doing math, or proofs as we call them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're kidding me, right? Physics is chock full of formulas. As is chemistry...</p>
<p>When did I say I'm a physics major, or chemistry. Don't make false claims, there has been enough of these from you today.</p>
<p>You said "I never deal with memorization of concepts in my quantitive degree." It seemed to me that you were implying that quantitative degrees were completely immune from rote memorization. It seems to me that even in math there is plenty of memorization of concepts, but that last sentence was cut off, as happened with another post of mine.</p>
<p>I meant to say You're kidding me, right? Physics is chock full of formulas. As is chemistry...and even mathematics (depending on the field you study)!</p>
<p>anyhow, I sent you a final PM since you bombard my PM box full of messages, go read it and try to digest it, if you can. Again, good luck and get educated. :)</p>
<p>b4 I go, I wanna post this link since I know you're "too lazy" or anything to look up:</p>
<p>here's a good statement:</p>
<p>Scientific theories are seldom, if ever, "right" or "wrong" in an ABSOLUTE sense.</p>
<p>abcboy70,</p>
<p>I'm too lazy to look things up? Give me a break. You do realize that I'm a graduate student, right? </p>
<p>Look, I never said that this was cut and dried. Not even. However, there are eminent scientists who will refer to theories in the "correct" or "incorrect" manner. Brian Greene, for example, regularly uses the word "correct" in regards to theories, as did Stephen Jay Gould.</p>
<p>i just love debate</p>
<p>Abcboy,</p>
<p>you mad doggie?</p>
<p>The investment banking industry purposely restricts the supply of its factor market because that allows them to charge high fees. If there were many investment bankers in the industry willing to offer themselves for smaller underwriting fees, there would be two problems for the current industry: 1. quality of labor diminishes as unqualified people try to break into the industry 2. supply of bankers shifts right and bankers will receive lower bonuses when their firms become less profitable.</p>
<p>note to everyone: clients don't make last second calls to meet next day deadlines often. The projects that M&A groups have to complete are begun weeks in advance.</p>