Flash is dying, sure, but it's far from dead (1 in 4 websites use Flash)
Of course, it will live on as Air -- which is basically Flash -- which Adobe is committed to on the desktop and mobile space. (A fun fact that Slashdot loves to ignore!)
Again, talk to me when Flash is actually irrelevant. It's still important to the web Today.
What are these sites that don't work? Yahoo's web player and Newgrounds is all you've got?
I never mentioned newgrounds -- though I did mention other things, such as springboard. I've also mentioned specific sites like pandora and grooveshark that you need an app to use, unlike people with tablets that are more complete (these don't count in your mind). As I've already explained to you, I mentioned Yahoo's audio component because it's widely used on a great number of sites for embedding audio. If you want more, look at any site that uses springboard or vimeo or countless other video players for that type of content. You'll find that lots of sites use these flash-dependent components.
You mention "facebook, twitter, gmail, cnn, espn" With the exception of Twitter, You can't actually access all of the content on those sites without Flash! Sorry, but they're examples of websites that make use of Flash for actual content!
Please list these websites (other than flash games) that any reasonable fraction of the world cares about that REQUIRE flash.
Why? You'll just say that because you don't use them or are satisfied with the portion of those sites that do not use flash that they're irrelevant. It's a waste of my time. I've provided more than adequate examples already.
1 in 4 websites use Flash. You seem to think that that 25% of websites are all unpopular or don't use Flash in any meaningful way. It should be pretty obvious by now how ridiculous that fact-free belief of yours actually is. Again, if you want me to take that seriously, you're going to need to back it up with some facts. (It doesn't look likely, considering the popularity of the components I've already mentioned.)
Sorry, Flash is still relevant. Get over it. You can still enjoy your iPad even if it can't handle the web as well as competing offerings. You seem happy enough to not have flash support, after all.
Or is that it? You can't be happy unless the iPad is clearly the best product on the market? If that's the case, I'm certainly not in a position to help you.
Lol, too funny. I'm done with you. If you can't support your own assertion with actual facts, I honestly don't care what you think. Enjoy your iPad -- It's a shame that you're missing out on so much, but if that makes you happy, so be it.
Sure, take a look at iPhone and iPad sales. Apple is the largest company on the planet and most of their revenue comes from selling mobile computing devices that don't support flash
McDonald's sells the most hamburgers and is the most successful hamburger joint on the planet. They must be the best, right?
I'll wait patiently for your counterpoint as to how flash is critical and these devices aren't successful and useful.
What? I said that Flash is still relevant to the web today. No wonder you're talking nonsense, you just didn't bother to read what I had actually written!
Yeah, Apple can sell a half-baked product missing essential features and their customers will happily apologize for them or even tell other how not being able to do x,y and z is totally awesome. Q. E. D.
Apples ability to move products has nothing to do with the fact that Flash is relevant to the web today.
Yahoo still exists? There is literally nothing in this world I could care less about than Yahoo's "webplayer".
It's a component that lot's of other websites use for audio. It's really quite common. I picked that on as it's likely one you've encountered before. Again, you'll be hard pressed to find a site that doesn't use flash for embedding audio players -- everything from news to podcasts. Flash is even used by a number of popular JS libraries that provide sound/audio API's.
The problem with your argument is the empirical evidence that TENS OF MILLIONS of people continue to buy iOS devices that do not have flash.
How many of those even know what Flash is? How many wonder why some of their sites don't work on their iPad? How many just accept that fact and "just use them on their computer" not knowing that a different tablet would let them use those sites instead?
Besides, Those tens of millions of iPad's make up an VERY small fraction of web users. Of those, a vanishingly small portion use only an iPad to access the web.
Sorry, but you haven't offered anything to show that flash is irrelevant. The numbers I have suggest that Flash is still very much relevant today.
Okay, if you want me to take your "point" seriously, provide some real numbers. Otherwise, it's just idle speculation.
As for Google, the use of flash in a number of their sites and services, such as gmail, to ad functionality they wouldn't otherwise be able to reasonably provide. Ads are not something that Google uses flash for.
What exactly am I doing on an iPad that I need a filesystem for?
Nothing. As you don't have a file system, you can't do anything that requires one. Really, it's that simple:) Again, this has nothing to do with flash. I have absolutely no idea why you keep bringing up this particular missing feature. Do you think that NOT having features is a good thing?
Anyhow, let me know if you find something to support your parroted assertion that flash is irrelevant to the web today. Otherwise, I don't really care to continue the back and forth, it's just dull.
So because you don't play flash games on your tablet, no one else wants to? Lol, okay. You seem to think that you, a Linux user, are completely representative of web users!
Too funny!
Just off the top of my head, any site that use Yahoo's audio player component won't work (hell, most sites that have a built-in audio player won't work! They're just about all written in flash!). Sites that use Springboard for video won't work. Zillions of games sites won't work. I could very easily go on.
What is it, maybe 1% of the web that I actually CARE about that I'm missing?
That's for you to figure out. Even if I got lucky and hit a site that you really wished worked on your iPad, you'd just claim that it wasn't important. That's not a game I'm willing to play.
The point is that Flash is not irrelevant to the web today. That doesn't mean that it's relevant to you but to the millions of other web users! Like I said, maybe in a few years it'll actually be irrelevant. Until then, enjoy your severely abbreviated web experience. I'll continue to enjoy a desktop browsing experience with great Flash and HTML 5 support. (Apple doesn't seem to care about HTML5 any more -- I wonder why?)
Yes, I ignored your "counterpoint" essentially "teh flash is all ads, lol" which is unsubstantiated nonsense.
And, yes, there are innumerable things that my tablet is capable of that the iPad is not, merely because of the iPad's lack of flash support. This isn't something that you can debate -- the facts are in evidence.
You also inexplicably bring up another point, a major deficiency of the iPad: The lack of a file system. Of course, that's a totally different issue unrelated to the relevance of Flash on the web. Why would mention this?
Again, you can pretend all you want that flash is irrelevant. Is Flash dying? Sure. But it's far from dead, and will likely be a major part of the web for a few more years.
Until flash is irrelevant, not having flash is a huge missing feature. It's undoubtedly still relevant today, considering the large number of sites that make heavy use of flash -- many are even totally dependent on it. (Right or wrong, that's the way things are.)
Sigh... I give you facts, you ignore them. Oh, well. You just can't reason with some people.
Of course, I guess if you don't mind downloading an app for every site you use and don't mind losing access to thousands of video and music sites and not being able to play hundreds of thousands of games, and are okay with losing out on the advanced features on sites that use Flash to make up for the deficiencies in current web standards, then that's cool. I'll keep watching all the video that you don't have access to and I'll happily listen to streaming podcasts and music on sites pandora and grooveshark without needing to install a useless app.
Honestly, it takes some serious denial to believe that Flash is irrelevant to the web today.
I know Steve said that HTML 5 is the future, still, you'd think that with Apples supposed commitment to HTML 5 that they could do at least as good as RIM's browser when it comes to HTML5 support. The margin is pretty wide.
Like I said, keep on pretending if it makes you feel better, but I strongly recommend reality -- it's a lot cooler.
Sigh... Give you facts, you ignore them. Oh, well.
It's a shame that you can't access the majority of video and music sites that use flash like pandora and grooveshark (I don't need a useless app, thanks), or play the hundreds of thousands of flash games. It's also sad that you can't take advantage of all the sites that use flash to make up for deficiencies in current web standards or otherwise improve the user experience when doing things like uploading files.
It takes some serious denial to believe that Flash is irrelevant today. What ever happened to the old "Apple is doing good by hastening the demise of Flash" excuse?
That's a pretty big chunk of the web, by any reasonable definition. But keep on pretending that Flash is irrelevant today if it makes you feel better about using your iPad. I don't mind. It doesn't stop me from enjoying a desktop browsing experience on a more full-featured tablet.
My guess is that because a very large hunk of the web still uses or depends on Flash -- and likely will continue to use or depend on it longer than the expected life of the current iPad.
I disagree. Specifically with the qualifiers "tested" and "commonly regarded as correct"; neither of which are necessary for a theory to be valid. (By valid I mean "is a theory in the scientific sense of the word".)
I used phlogiston as my example because most people are familiar with it and it is, as you point out, obsolete. It was probably a bad example for me to use, considering your response. In this case, it once met your "tested" bit, but now fails the "commonly regarded as correct" bit. The point, of course, was that it is valid as a scientific theory even though the predictions it made did not ultimately square with the new data -- a possibility for any proper theory.
To be scientific, a theory must meet certain criteria. That much we agree on. So what makes a theory scientific? It must be falsifiable, which means that it must make predictions that are subject to empirical investigation. Rather than "tested" the criteria would be "able to be tested" -- that's the difference.
Being "commonly regarded as correct" never enters in to it at all. If that were the case, we'd never see any progress -- any new theory would immediately fail the "commonly regarded as correct" criteria and could be dismissed immediately as being unscientific! (The criteria confuses the process of science with the institution -- which are very obviously distinct!)
Really, this bizarre notion that a theory is a grand achievement or that there is some sort of hierarchy by which ideas move along until they achieve the "theory" status is a new phenomenon. I suspect that it's a reaction to the creation/evolution debate intended to address the infamous "it's only a theory" criticism.
It's this same reaction that leads to other misunderstandings about science and the scope of science in the public consciousness. Things that were once taken for granted are now taboo. I can't say once obvious things like "the epidemiological scope of science is bounded" or "Science does not progress iteratively toward truth" without fear of retaliation by the so-called rationalist community as they're terrified that knowing or admitting the well-known limitations of scientific inquiry will give the creationists/mystics/whomever free reign or even permission to dismiss the whole enterprise and substitute their preferred system.
It's terribly irrational to pretend that science is more than it is or can accomplish more than it's scope allows. To do that is to abandon science entirely by turning it into an ideology.
Or don't bother, I'm sure some random arrogant/. poster knows SO much more than the *real* scientists doing the research, lecturing, and writing the textbooks.
Unlike the scientifically illiterate slashdot crowd, I actually do have a research degree.
As for your nonsense quote, I can pull at least two text-books off my shelf that define an hypothesis as a "guess". It's undoubtedly wrong, but there it is.
Get over yourself and stop spreading nonsense! You're doing more harm than good!
Yes, I do disagree with that nonsense definition -- which anyone with even a cursory knowledge of philosophy of science would agree is total nonsense.
I offered a couple very simple definitions that that completely accurate if a bit incomplete to counter the load of nonsense that non-scientist science cheerleaders have been spreading since the Dover trial.
If a theory is thoroughly proven wrong, it's rejected, and is no longer relevant as a theory in a scientific sense, just a historical sense.
Nonsense. While it's true that such a theory will be rejected, it is still a theory in the scientific sense.
This is driving me absolutely insane. No, that is not what a theory is! Hell, you can't even test a theory, only the predictions that it makes!
I've posted this a couple times already, a simple short set of definitions that you can use: A theory is a predictive model. An hypothesis is a testable prediction.
creationists want to define the term as an educated guess, whereas scientists define it as an explanation that has been supported by extensive facts and observations
And those scientists would be totally wrong. (It's not your fault -- I blame the ACA for putting that nonsense definition in your head.)
Here's the sound bite version: A theory is a predictive model. An hypothesis is a testable prediction.
Theories make predictions that are then tested. A hypothesis can be supported or not supported by the data. If a theory makes lots of predictions that are supported by the data, we say that the theory is good. If it makes lots of predictions that are not supported by the data, we say that the theory is poor/inadequate/etc.
A theory can be "wrong" and still be a theory in the scientific sense.
One definition of the word theory is: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.
Nice try. A shame that you're totally wrong. A theory can be totally wrong, commonly regarded as wrong, be completely untested, and still be a theory in the scientific sense. While not meeting all of my negative criteria, phlogiston theory is a fine example of a theory in the scientific sense that is no longer commonly accepted. The theory was abandoned when the predictions that it made were no longer supported by the data. Yet, it's still a scientific theory.
I think this whole thing comes down to a lot of people not understanding this definition of the word "theory."
Slashdot Mirror
There's always the PlayBook, a fantastic OS, solid hardware, and a brilliant user interface.
Aside from a limited selection of apps, it's fantastic. The over-all user experience is undoubtedly better than the iPad.
Flash is dying, sure, but it's far from dead (1 in 4 websites use Flash)
Of course, it will live on as Air -- which is basically Flash -- which Adobe is committed to on the desktop and mobile space. (A fun fact that Slashdot loves to ignore!)
Again, talk to me when Flash is actually irrelevant. It's still important to the web Today.
If by "perfectly well" you mean "without all the features of the full site".
The rest of the world has already moved on.
Except the facts say otherwise. 1 in 4 websites still uses Flash as of March 2012, including major sites like Google and Facebook.
What are these sites that don't work? Yahoo's web player and Newgrounds is all you've got?
I never mentioned newgrounds -- though I did mention other things, such as springboard. I've also mentioned specific sites like pandora and grooveshark that you need an app to use, unlike people with tablets that are more complete (these don't count in your mind). As I've already explained to you, I mentioned Yahoo's audio component because it's widely used on a great number of sites for embedding audio. If you want more, look at any site that uses springboard or vimeo or countless other video players for that type of content. You'll find that lots of sites use these flash-dependent components.
You mention "facebook, twitter, gmail, cnn, espn" With the exception of Twitter, You can't actually access all of the content on those sites without Flash! Sorry, but they're examples of websites that make use of Flash for actual content!
Please list these websites (other than flash games) that any reasonable fraction of the world cares about that REQUIRE flash.
Why? You'll just say that because you don't use them or are satisfied with the portion of those sites that do not use flash that they're irrelevant. It's a waste of my time. I've provided more than adequate examples already.
1 in 4 websites use Flash. You seem to think that that 25% of websites are all unpopular or don't use Flash in any meaningful way. It should be pretty obvious by now how ridiculous that fact-free belief of yours actually is. Again, if you want me to take that seriously, you're going to need to back it up with some facts. (It doesn't look likely, considering the popularity of the components I've already mentioned.)
Sorry, Flash is still relevant. Get over it. You can still enjoy your iPad even if it can't handle the web as well as competing offerings. You seem happy enough to not have flash support, after all.
Or is that it? You can't be happy unless the iPad is clearly the best product on the market? If that's the case, I'm certainly not in a position to help you.
Lol, too funny. I'm done with you. If you can't support your own assertion with actual facts, I honestly don't care what you think. Enjoy your iPad -- It's a shame that you're missing out on so much, but if that makes you happy, so be it.
Sure, take a look at iPhone and iPad sales. Apple is the largest company on the planet and most of their revenue comes from selling mobile computing devices that don't support flash
McDonald's sells the most hamburgers and is the most successful hamburger joint on the planet. They must be the best, right?
I'll wait patiently for your counterpoint as to how flash is critical and these devices aren't successful and useful.
What? I said that Flash is still relevant to the web today. No wonder you're talking nonsense, you just didn't bother to read what I had actually written!
Yeah, Apple can sell a half-baked product missing essential features and their customers will happily apologize for them or even tell other how not being able to do x,y and z is totally awesome. Q. E. D.
Apples ability to move products has nothing to do with the fact that Flash is relevant to the web today.
Yahoo still exists? There is literally nothing in this world I could care less about than Yahoo's "webplayer".
It's a component that lot's of other websites use for audio. It's really quite common. I picked that on as it's likely one you've encountered before. Again, you'll be hard pressed to find a site that doesn't use flash for embedding audio players -- everything from news to podcasts. Flash is even used by a number of popular JS libraries that provide sound/audio API's.
The problem with your argument is the empirical evidence that TENS OF MILLIONS of people continue to buy iOS devices that do not have flash.
How many of those even know what Flash is? How many wonder why some of their sites don't work on their iPad? How many just accept that fact and "just use them on their computer" not knowing that a different tablet would let them use those sites instead?
Besides, Those tens of millions of iPad's make up an VERY small fraction of web users. Of those, a vanishingly small portion use only an iPad to access the web.
Sorry, but you haven't offered anything to show that flash is irrelevant. The numbers I have suggest that Flash is still very much relevant today.
Get over it.
Okay, if you want me to take your "point" seriously, provide some real numbers. Otherwise, it's just idle speculation.
As for Google, the use of flash in a number of their sites and services, such as gmail, to ad functionality they wouldn't otherwise be able to reasonably provide. Ads are not something that Google uses flash for.
What exactly am I doing on an iPad that I need a filesystem for?
Nothing. As you don't have a file system, you can't do anything that requires one. Really, it's that simple :) Again, this has nothing to do with flash. I have absolutely no idea why you keep bringing up this particular missing feature. Do you think that NOT having features is a good thing?
Anyhow, let me know if you find something to support your parroted assertion that flash is irrelevant to the web today. Otherwise, I don't really care to continue the back and forth, it's just dull.
So because you don't play flash games on your tablet, no one else wants to? Lol, okay. You seem to think that you, a Linux user, are completely representative of web users!
Too funny!
Just off the top of my head, any site that use Yahoo's audio player component won't work (hell, most sites that have a built-in audio player won't work! They're just about all written in flash!). Sites that use Springboard for video won't work. Zillions of games sites won't work. I could very easily go on.
What is it, maybe 1% of the web that I actually CARE about that I'm missing?
That's for you to figure out. Even if I got lucky and hit a site that you really wished worked on your iPad, you'd just claim that it wasn't important. That's not a game I'm willing to play.
The point is that Flash is not irrelevant to the web today. That doesn't mean that it's relevant to you but to the millions of other web users! Like I said, maybe in a few years it'll actually be irrelevant. Until then, enjoy your severely abbreviated web experience. I'll continue to enjoy a desktop browsing experience with great Flash and HTML 5 support. (Apple doesn't seem to care about HTML5 any more -- I wonder why?)
Yes, I ignored your "counterpoint" essentially "teh flash is all ads, lol" which is unsubstantiated nonsense.
And, yes, there are innumerable things that my tablet is capable of that the iPad is not, merely because of the iPad's lack of flash support. This isn't something that you can debate -- the facts are in evidence.
You also inexplicably bring up another point, a major deficiency of the iPad: The lack of a file system. Of course, that's a totally different issue unrelated to the relevance of Flash on the web. Why would mention this?
Again, you can pretend all you want that flash is irrelevant. Is Flash dying? Sure. But it's far from dead, and will likely be a major part of the web for a few more years.
Until flash is irrelevant, not having flash is a huge missing feature. It's undoubtedly still relevant today, considering the large number of sites that make heavy use of flash -- many are even totally dependent on it. (Right or wrong, that's the way things are.)
Get over it.
Sigh... I give you facts, you ignore them. Oh, well. You just can't reason with some people.
Of course, I guess if you don't mind downloading an app for every site you use and don't mind losing access to thousands of video and music sites and not being able to play hundreds of thousands of games, and are okay with losing out on the advanced features on sites that use Flash to make up for the deficiencies in current web standards, then that's cool. I'll keep watching all the video that you don't have access to and I'll happily listen to streaming podcasts and music on sites pandora and grooveshark without needing to install a useless app.
Honestly, it takes some serious denial to believe that Flash is irrelevant to the web today.
I know Steve said that HTML 5 is the future, still, you'd think that with Apples supposed commitment to HTML 5 that they could do at least as good as RIM's browser when it comes to HTML5 support. The margin is pretty wide.
Like I said, keep on pretending if it makes you feel better, but I strongly recommend reality -- it's a lot cooler.
Sigh... Give you facts, you ignore them. Oh, well.
It's a shame that you can't access the majority of video and music sites that use flash like pandora and grooveshark (I don't need a useless app, thanks), or play the hundreds of thousands of flash games. It's also sad that you can't take advantage of all the sites that use flash to make up for deficiencies in current web standards or otherwise improve the user experience when doing things like uploading files.
It takes some serious denial to believe that Flash is irrelevant today. What ever happened to the old "Apple is doing good by hastening the demise of Flash" excuse?
Besides, you'd think with Apples "commitment" to HTML 5, that they'd have better HTML 5 support than RIM! (The margin is pretty wide, by the way).
As of March 2012? About 1 in 4 websites use Flash.
That's a pretty big chunk of the web, by any reasonable definition. But keep on pretending that Flash is irrelevant today if it makes you feel better about using your iPad. I don't mind. It doesn't stop me from enjoying a desktop browsing experience on a more full-featured tablet.
No, he can't. But let's not spoil his game of play-pretend. It's really really important to him.
customers looking for the best experience will get an iPad 3
A shame, really. They can get a much better user experience from other tablets on the market for much less.
My guess is that because a very large hunk of the web still uses or depends on Flash -- and likely will continue to use or depend on it longer than the expected life of the current iPad.
Call me when Flash is ACTUALLY irrelevant.
That's obscure?
I disagree. Specifically with the qualifiers "tested" and "commonly regarded as correct"; neither of which are necessary for a theory to be valid. (By valid I mean "is a theory in the scientific sense of the word".)
I used phlogiston as my example because most people are familiar with it and it is, as you point out, obsolete. It was probably a bad example for me to use, considering your response. In this case, it once met your "tested" bit, but now fails the "commonly regarded as correct" bit. The point, of course, was that it is valid as a scientific theory even though the predictions it made did not ultimately square with the new data -- a possibility for any proper theory.
To be scientific, a theory must meet certain criteria. That much we agree on. So what makes a theory scientific? It must be falsifiable, which means that it must make predictions that are subject to empirical investigation. Rather than "tested" the criteria would be "able to be tested" -- that's the difference.
Being "commonly regarded as correct" never enters in to it at all. If that were the case, we'd never see any progress -- any new theory would immediately fail the "commonly regarded as correct" criteria and could be dismissed immediately as being unscientific! (The criteria confuses the process of science with the institution -- which are very obviously distinct!)
Really, this bizarre notion that a theory is a grand achievement or that there is some sort of hierarchy by which ideas move along until they achieve the "theory" status is a new phenomenon. I suspect that it's a reaction to the creation/evolution debate intended to address the infamous "it's only a theory" criticism.
It's this same reaction that leads to other misunderstandings about science and the scope of science in the public consciousness. Things that were once taken for granted are now taboo. I can't say once obvious things like "the epidemiological scope of science is bounded" or "Science does not progress iteratively toward truth" without fear of retaliation by the so-called rationalist community as they're terrified that knowing or admitting the well-known limitations of scientific inquiry will give the creationists/mystics/whomever free reign or even permission to dismiss the whole enterprise and substitute their preferred system.
It's terribly irrational to pretend that science is more than it is or can accomplish more than it's scope allows. To do that is to abandon science entirely by turning it into an ideology.
So, yes, I disagree with your definition.
Or don't bother, I'm sure some random arrogant /. poster knows SO much more than the *real* scientists doing the research, lecturing, and writing the textbooks.
Unlike the scientifically illiterate slashdot crowd, I actually do have a research degree.
As for your nonsense quote, I can pull at least two text-books off my shelf that define an hypothesis as a "guess". It's undoubtedly wrong, but there it is.
Get over yourself and stop spreading nonsense! You're doing more harm than good!
Yes, I do disagree with that nonsense definition -- which anyone with even a cursory knowledge of philosophy of science would agree is total nonsense.
I offered a couple very simple definitions that that completely accurate if a bit incomplete to counter the load of nonsense that non-scientist science cheerleaders have been spreading since the Dover trial.
If a theory is thoroughly proven wrong, it's rejected, and is no longer relevant as a theory in a scientific sense, just a historical sense.
Nonsense. While it's true that such a theory will be rejected, it is still a theory in the scientific sense.
Go read a book.
it is a tested explanation of observations
This is driving me absolutely insane. No, that is not what a theory is! Hell, you can't even test a theory, only the predictions that it makes!
I've posted this a couple times already, a simple short set of definitions that you can use: A theory is a predictive model. An hypothesis is a testable prediction.
There is nothing beyond theories in science, it's the highest level a piece of scientific thinking can achieve.
No. Not even remotely close.
Where did you get this ridiculous idea of a hierarchy from anyway?
creationists want to define the term as an educated guess, whereas scientists define it as an explanation that has been supported by extensive facts and observations
And those scientists would be totally wrong. (It's not your fault -- I blame the ACA for putting that nonsense definition in your head.)
Here's the sound bite version: A theory is a predictive model. An hypothesis is a testable prediction.
Theories make predictions that are then tested. A hypothesis can be supported or not supported by the data. If a theory makes lots of predictions that are supported by the data, we say that the theory is good. If it makes lots of predictions that are not supported by the data, we say that the theory is poor/inadequate/etc.
A theory can be "wrong" and still be a theory in the scientific sense.
One definition of the word theory is: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.
Nice try. A shame that you're totally wrong. A theory can be totally wrong, commonly regarded as wrong, be completely untested, and still be a theory in the scientific sense. While not meeting all of my negative criteria, phlogiston theory is a fine example of a theory in the scientific sense that is no longer commonly accepted. The theory was abandoned when the predictions that it made were no longer supported by the data. Yet, it's still a scientific theory.
I think this whole thing comes down to a lot of people not understanding this definition of the word "theory."
You would be among them.
Try this one: "A theory is a predictive model"
science has always touted the fact that everything it discovers as theory.
Wow, total scientific literacy failure.