text:
Talk:Theory

"It must come with a number of conditions under which it has been proven true"
I had removed this i.m.o. vague and incomprehensible (and unsourced) phrase which was inserted by. 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 there were no comments, I assume that there is no objection to the removal of the phrase, so I went ahead and removed it. DVdm (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Name change proposal: "Theory and practice"
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)

 * disagree there are wikipedia articles on Praxis (process), practice (social theory) and also Craft. The existing article certainly needs to define theory in relation to practice, but to give the article this title would serve only to confine its scope purely to this matter, rather than allowing it to embrace all the various aspects of theory. River sider ( talk ) 14:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

 * What happens if someone is looking up the word practice in the sense covered by this article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Good question, I think there is definitely a case for a disambiguation page, or some other wikiartefact to point people in the right direction. The fact remains though that this article is about more than just the difference between theory and practice, so adopting such a title would be an unneccessary stricture. River sider ( talk ) 15:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Possibly a solution can be found in that direction?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I disagree that the name of this article (Theory) should be changed. Perhaps the Theory and practice article could be absorbed into this article as a little (currently 5th) section Theory or something? DVdm (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Theory and Practice relationship
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)

"Theoretical-only"
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)

 * The use of words like "only in theory" to refer to impossible abstractions is in my opinion something best handled as a word use variant at wiktionary? Although it is common, there are other ways to refer to such abstraction which would not use the word theory. Perhaps there could be a mention of this usage in the article and a link to a more appropriate article, but what article would that be? (Wikipedia is not normally just a collection of word meaning information. See WP:NOT.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Whose "theory"?
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)

 * What is your concrete proposal?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I didn't realize you'd already edited. Will look.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you see this as a battle between philosophy and science? I do not like that approach. The "philosophical" meaning of a word like theory is really the broadest and oldest meaning and therefore the only one which helps makes sense of all the specialist meanings. If you move narrow meanings of a word to the top of an article, without any rationale for making that meaning the main one, you'll just start an edit war with people from different fields reverting each other whether it be slowly or quickly. For reference below are the two versions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Old version
In philosophy, theory (from ancient Greek theoria, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding") refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action. 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.

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'. 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.

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.

New version being proposed
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.

Explanation (so all this now split into a new section)
In philosophy, theory (from ancient Greek theoria, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding") refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action. 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.

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'. 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.

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.

New Proposal
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. 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.

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.

And to be moved to a new section called something like "Other Ancient Uses"
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'. 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.

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)

 * I have a comment. In both the old version and the proposed new version, the first paragraph ends with "... that is, a hypothesis is an unproven theory."

 * This is a grossly misleading statement. I am not trying to nitpick, but the fact is that no theories are ever "proven". They can only be disproven. So while a hypothesis is, indeed, unproven, theories themselves are also unproven, so trying to use this statement to distinguish the two makes no sense whatever.

 * That theories cannot be proven is logically correct, and has not been a matter of debate for at least a couple of hundred years. Theories necessarily fit the known evidence, and may be inductively judged to be correct, but that is far from the same as "proven". They are merely testable hypotheses that have -- so far -- passed the tests. History is replete with theories that have later been disproved... therefore they cannot be said to have been "proven" in the first place. They merely fit the evidence that is known at the time.

 * While I am unsure what may be a good, and correct, substitute for that sentence fragment (perhaps something like "a theory must be testable and has withstood known tests"), the phrase as currently used is just plain wrong. -- Jane Q. Public (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Someone want to propose a better last sentence?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I just looked at it again. This sentence is only in the current wording, and not in the older version described above, nor the newer proposal I made as a potential compromise, and which no one has really responded to. Perhaps I've left this discussion open too long. I shall be bold and put the compromise in.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"Only a theory"
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)
 * Please explain in more detail what you mean. Are you talking about for example the case of people who say the theory of evolution is only a theory?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That sort of thing. "Theoretical" touches on this but does not address the exact wording used by the public at large which has a different understanding of the term. Seems easy to insert but needs encyclopedia tone and references. Student7 (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't a Theory, a Theory?
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)

Incorrect article reference. (?)
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)

 * I have removed it. I see no good purpose it was serving, and I also could not anything except an amazing number of obvious wiki mirrors. Have you also looked at the other works in the references?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect article reference. (?) - Followup
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)

Reason for recent edit
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

 * [A scientific theory's] statements [can be thought of] as axioms of some axiomatic system.

That is not true. Some of a theory's statements are axioms, and some are not.

Third, I deleted

 * The aim of [a scientific theory's] construction is to create a formal system for which reality is the only model.

Reality is the model of the formal system? Nope. The formal system is a model of reality.

Fourth, I deleted

 * The world is an interpretation (or model) of such scientific theories, only insofar as the sciences are true.

No, the scientific theories are interpretations of the world, not vice versa. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Theory versus Hypothesis
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)

 * Thank you for your well-articulated explanation of the difference. I hope you like, or will improve on, my modification of that part of the article. Duoduoduo (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I think your modification is brilliant, and better stated than I could have done. Waynemv (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A concern about how theories in science are being described
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)

Introduction to lead
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)
 * Yes the old meaning is still used, depending what field you are in. There are many words like this one where an old word now has SEVERAL modern meanings that have almost no obvious connection unless you start by looking at the old meaning. The old meaning still does cover all or most of the new ones. I also think there is no uncontroversial way to argue that any of the specialized modern meanings have now taken priority over old meanings (as in the case of "species") because basically the word theory is still used very flexibly by most people in most fields. The minority of methodology folk who think the word should have a clear methodological definition do not even agree with each other. Concerning your remark that most of the article is about one aspect only, remember this is Wikipedia. All articles are just the result of whatever volunteers have had the time to work on. It can also be that some subjects just require more words to get them explained.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the reply. Which fields are those? Surely they deserve some mention in the article (if not in the lead). Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've also made a couple of changes to clarify based on your explanation. Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I think the original meaning, which is still used widely in philosophy and theology, is still the main meaning, also used in normal western languages on an every day basis, not only in specialist fields. When someone says "in theory" and contrasts it with "in practice" this is still the original meaning more or less, and this is the core of where the term comes from. I think this is reflected in the lead as it stands. Keep in mind that the lead also mentions the late 20th century methodological meanings which I think are the meanings most far from the original, but also the least used meanings, and the meaning least able to be defined in any way where we can say that a major mainstream field has reached a consensus. Anyway, all these ways of talking come from the basic idea that a theory is a reality seen by someone contemplating reality, not watching it directly, or to put it in typical modern term, theory is the model of reality. I see no big problem to be solved here. What seems to concern you is that the the methodological meaning is the one which gets the most discussion in the body? However, this is just maybe a reflection of reality: it probably does need the most explanation in the body of the article, because it is the most complex an misunderstood? Articles need to reflect messy reality. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm not trying to suggest there is a "big problem to be solved" - my concern was that the lead did not seem to reflect the article, mainly by describing the ancient definition not only as the definition from which the modern definitions are derived but also as the primary definition. (I then pointed out that the current composition of the article supports this interpretation.) For example, Wiktionary marks the ancient meaning as "obsolete." Where a word has changed meaning over time, the new meaning(s) should take precedence; where it has become "very flexible" as you put it, that should also be noted as part of the primary definition.

 * I'm also not sure how you conclude that the modern methodological meanings are the "least used" - the lead seems to make a very general statement that in modern contexts (both arts and science) theories are methodological. Is this a problem with the current lead? Certainly all scientific fields use the scientific meaning exclusively, and as it is taught in essentially all high schools, it is widely known outside of science as well. The everyday meanings are also not identical to the original, especially the definition of theory as "hypothesis" or "speculation."

 * Also, what was incorrect about my revision? I was only trying to emphasize that there also exist modern meanings which are not the same as the original one. I'm pretty sure from your first reply that you agree with that - is there a better phrasing you would like to use? Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 * The edit I reverted is not all that bad, but I am not sure what it is aiming to achieve. How does it improve the article? I think on balance it makes the article slightly worse by exagerrating the contrast between an "Ancient Greek" distinction of theory and practice, versus all other uses of the term theory. I do believe that the distinction between theory and practice is still well-known, and should be explained in this article, and not as something which is no longer used.
 * As I explained already I fear you are trying to make the article more orderly than the reality which the article should be describing. What you are calling the Ancient Greek distinction between theory and practice is also connected to the core of the main meaning today, and in the Middle Ages, and pretty much everywhere where this distinction is part of the language. (Wiktionary is of course not a reliable source, but on the other hand it is not clear to me that it says that the distinction between theory and practice is obsolete.)
 * I do not deny that there are relatively important usages of the term today, such as when a theory is distinguished from a hypothesis, wherein it is hard to any longer see the connection to the old meaning, but the connection is still there. I think it is therefore natural to start at the original meaning and then build up discussion of other meanings. If the article is currently imbalanced, maybe this just means it needs more things added, not removed?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I think we're talking past each other, as I don't see how your response addresses most of the points that I just made. I'm not suggesting that all mention of the ancient definition be erased from the lead, or that the distinction between theory and practice should be erased, or that the current definitions have no relation to the original one. I already described how the edit is meant to improve the article - by partially addressing my original concern. (Is it only the "ancient Greek" qualifier that you object to? The important part is the rest of it.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The other sentence is Ok in isolation I think.Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:49, 9 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)

 * That change is OK, although I still do not see it as a big improvement. But I think your new comments add to my impression that your bigger idea here is not one I am confident about, and so I hope we can keep working in small steps for now.
 * I think my concern can be encapsulated in just looking at the sentence you propose above: "the ancient definition, which is still in use today". Is it clearly best described as "ancient" if it is still in use today? You seem to be pushing for getting a message between the lines that the "ancient" use is still out there, but should not be. I say the classical ways of using the term theory are still the main uses today, and also still essential for understanding some of the new uses of the word. For example the distinction between theory and practice in medicine is still very normal, both amongst lay people and specialists. (I believe the classical medicine example should be in the lead, or at least in a quite prominent place where it will be seen as a general concept that readers should be familiar with in order to understand what theory is. I see it as classical in the true sense and not just as ancient.)
 * The distinction between theory and hypothesis is not as well known, and not as established. Not all scientists or philosophers of science see it as a critical point and the main place one seems to see it is in pointless internet arguments about whether the word theory in the "Theory of Evolution" means that the theory was never confirmed by observation. I think that the confusion of those types of arguments is a good thing to think about when we consider how this article can be improved. It shows what our readers might or might not understand.
 * The way I see it, theory in science still primarily means mental model (contemplation of things from afar, in general terms), not experimentally confirmed mental model (actual practical experience with actual individual things). (Of course I accept that it no longer means spectating, unless you are Greek, but this was already true in Roman times.) I think this is also the way the word is typically used. Using the word to mean experimentally confirmed or confirmable mental model is not however in direct conflict with this meaning as long as one is aware of the word history. That is because this secondary post Baconian usage is taking a proposed characteristic of a good or worthwhile theory as a way of defining a true theory, so to speak, which is a typical thing that happens in language. But that is why knowing the word history becomes important if we are to avoid turning this article into something like some of the debates about evolution on the internet.
 * I think that more generally if we want to be more clear about the breaking up of the term into different shades of meaning, then as is usual with more controversial subjects, we need better sourcing and/or talkpage discussion about the controversies and history of the word in recent generations. It is notable that this is an article which is still a bit un-polished and has an un-finished feel. This might indeed be one of the things missing, but it is likely to require some careful thought to get it right.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just violated my own proposal, and tried a major re-work of the lede. I started with some smaller changes but then noticed lots of things that might also be leading to some of your concerns. Maybe the connections are more flowing and the structure more clear? That is the hope.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 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)
 * Your changes seem fine to me. Trying to pick out further proposals from your post:
 * Not sure I see dropping the second sentence of the second paragraph as helpful, because it removes reference to the contrast theory v practice in the lead, or in fact seems to imply this only happens in medicine?
 * Also do not think replacing with research works. Actually research involving testing could be described as partly practical. Designing an experiment, or turning the results into generalized conclusions, is theoretical. So this opens a can of worms?
 * Everyday or common word might indeed be better. Feel free.
 * Yes perhaps we can replace politicians with statesmen or some other word. The "classical" point is that the aim of theorizing (and science) is to know what is really always true and what really always works, not just a tradition for example, or an instinctive "feeling". Some skilled people, for example craftsmen on the one hand, or skilled leaders, business people etc on the other, seem to get things right most of the time, and hence seem to "know" some real truths, but this is not necessarily through theory, and it is not necessarily the kind of truth a scientist wants to find. Having a theory of leather work, or a theory of business leadership is possible of course, but it is something extra to what is required to be a good leather worker or good business leader. A business leader might say he did what his mentor taught him, or what the bible says or whatever.
 * --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Comments:
 * I meant the second sentence of the example, which is currently the last sentence of the second paragraph. However, this is a relatively minor point compared to the preceding sentence.
 * In medicine (at least modern medicine), "practice" refers exclusively to what doctors do, and that's what I interpret when I read the sentence. (For example, this is why we use the term "general practitioner.") I agree that research is partly practical (in fact, the practical and theoretical are inseparable), but I can't think of a term that can be better described as "trying to understand the causes and nature of disease," as it's put in the text.
 * I have infrequently heard the term "medical theory" used to refer to medical literature (i.e. the knowledge produced by research), but this is less common than simply calling all of it research. A proposal: since "medical theory" redirects to "medical research" anyways, I think that linking it (and dropping "and theorizing") would resolve my concerns in this regard. However, it would still be juxtaposed with "theory involves no doing," and since that doesn't apply here, that would have to be resolved as well.
 * Done.
 * I agree that people can be good at doing something involving practical skill (like oration or governance), but I'm not sure how this means that they are explaining something as the text says. Arc de Ciel (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just homing in on the second point, I'd say theorizing is only part of what we mean by medical research. You may be right that we talk about research more often, and that is because we see modern people it is very important to combine theory with practical experience. We come after Francis Bacon, who was controversial for arguing exactly this point. But this article is about the less common word, and we need to try to explain that term. On the fourth point I see what you mean and I will try an edit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Your edit seems reasonable (though I still need to think about that sentence more - recall that we never finished talking about the relative primacy of the definitions). I will focus for now on the medicine example: I don't really understand what you're trying to say in your last reply. My point is that the example as currently written is invalid - it existed in ancient times, but does not today. I've proposed several changes that would address this, some which would be complete fixes and some (like the most recent) which would only be partial. Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

 * It seems to me that your two remaining points of contention come down to the same point which is that you deny that the contrast between theory and practice is as commonly used and understood as the contrast between theory and hypothesis. But I can't see how you can hold this position unless you are taking the position, even for scientists and philosophers. You have not presented any evidence for it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I must be failing in communication somewhere. I am not saying that a theory/practice contrast is not common (which, of course, is why I haven't presented any evidence for it!) I am saying that modern medicine is not an example of this contrast. Again, this is not to say that the example must be removed, but only that it needs appropriate clarification.

 * I've implemented the partial fix I proposed most recently, since you didn't object to it. As always, feel free to revert. Also, perhaps we should take a break from this discussion for a while after we resolve the example (in fact, we could temporarily leave it with the partial fix, but I would really prefer a better resolution). Arc de Ciel (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I think this edit is fine.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

15 July edits
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)

 * First, I want to make it clear that it is site policy to explain what the article's topic *is* before we say anything else about it, such as what it is *derived* from, or that it is "controversial" or "heterodox" or "mainstream", etc.

 * I think we ought to do both--make the etymology clear and also have the multiple definitions in the lede. So we could start with something like "A theory can refer to either (a) or (b).", or "A theory is (a) or (b)", or something similar. Then, we cover the etymology in the etymology section and not the lede. Is this acceptable? Byelf2007 (talk) July 15 2012

 * I definitely agree. I have been trying to convince User:Andrew Lancaster to agree on an appropriate first paragraph (among other things) for the last ~10 days. There have been improvements, e.g. the first paragraph now acknowledges the existence of multiple definitions, but there is still some way to go. I believe his position is that what you are calling the etymology is the (primary) definition. You can read some of his comments in the above discussion. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

 * In principle it is hard to disagree with the idea of creating an etymology section, and moving out some of the opening sentence to there, even though to me that seems over-blown, and I still get the feeling that real aim of such edits is to push one meaning of theory as the true meaning. Anyway, back to what the lead should say, I can't see how we can justify making the lead open by just mentioning the special meaning of the word theory which is sacred to some methodology discussions. The words has more meanings than one, and they are linked meanings. To improve the lead we should work together to give the right balance.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:27, 16 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)

Line 3
Legazpi - Moncloa

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140912175614/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0251:text=Praec.:section=1&highlight=medical%2Ctheory to http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0251:text=Praec.:section=1&highlight=medical%2Ctheory

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Mathematical theories
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)

Why is incorrect information allowed posted here?
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)

 * Unlike other areas on the web, we put new posts at the bottom of the page. I have taken the liberty of moving your post to this position, I hope you don't mind. You would not have reached this false impression had you read as far as the fourth paragraph in the lead. You are clearly referring to what is called there a scientific theory, while the whole article is dealing with a broader topic of theories in general. In this broader context, non-scientific theories (in education, history, economics, etc.) do not carry the same weight that scientific ones do, and they are much closer to being merely hypotheses.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

 * I'll add here that your assertion that a scientific theory "is as close to a fact as you can get in science". That's not true; all scientific theories are always provisional and open to correction or scrapping when new data shows they are wrong, and it is never possible to claim you have a theory that covers all possible data. Facts (roughly, observations or data) are that which can be accepted as true by both sides of a controversy. Gravity is a fact, anyone can observe it.  The theory of gravity is a theory; they are not the same things.  Let's try to be a little less dogmatic about these things.  SkoreKeep (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Types of theory, in lead
I'm reverting the following recent addition to the lead section, for the following reasons:

 * It is possible to distinguish between three types of theories. Explanatory theory, also known as descriptive or empirical, helps to explain why and under what conditions, certain situations take place. The second type is interpretive theory or constitutive theory and this imposes meaning on events and issues with the objective to understand, instead of explaining, the world. The last one is called normative theory, also referred to as prescriptive, which prescribes values and standards of conduct: that means dealing with how the world should be instead of what it is.[4]

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)

Unbalanced template
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)

 * Perhaps so. Please feel free to essay changes to the article to balance it where needed. SkoreKeep (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Theory derives data or other way?
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)

Grammatical problems
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)

fact theory
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)
 * I suspect that the "fact/theory" distinction would be something a lot of readers would be interested in. Perhaps the article could be made to better address the question. Unfortunately I, and many philosophers and scientists, would argue that fact and theory are equivalent! But that theories come in different levels of generality, predictive power, and certainty. I guess we could choose theories that we are sufficiently sure about facts if we liked. I imagine we can dig up a number texts that look into the question, quine comes to mind at the moment, but there are probably more modern things. I think a paragraph that discusses the difference between "theories" like "the boiling point of water is 100C", "quarks exist" and "separation of institutions increases political stability". I think some quiney philosophy, and a little economics history and sociology might make a nice mix here.  Talpedia (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Definitions from scientific organizations
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table

More is perhaps needed for that of detail here, in order to be explaining.

Feilretter2468 (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Ap
Ano Ang teorya 209.35.164.4 (talk) 09:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Astronomy, Cosmology and Physics
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)

Untested "theories like string theory
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)

title: Talk:Theory


text:
The Times

The Times is a British daily national newspaper based in London. It began in 1785 under the title The Daily Universal Register, adopting its modern name on 1 January 1788. The Times and its sister paper The Sunday Times (founded in 1821), are published by Times Media, since 1981 a subsidiary of News UK, in turn wholly owned by News Corp. The Times and The Sunday Times, which do not share editorial staff, were founded independently and have had common ownership only since 1966. In general, the political position of The Times is considered to be centre-right.

The Times was the first newspaper to bear that name, inspiring numerous other papers around the world, such as The Times of India and The New York Times. In countries where these other titles are popular, the newspaper is often referred to as The London Times or The Times of London, although the newspaper is of national scope and distribution. It is considered a newspaper of record in the UK.

The Times had an average daily circulation of 365,880 in March 2020; in the same period, The Sunday Times had an average weekly circulation of 647,622. The two newspapers also had 304,000 digital-only paid subscribers as of June 2019. An American edition of The Times has been published since 6 June 2006. Due to its widespread availability in libraries and its comprehensive index, The Times has received considerable use from academics and researchers. A complete historical file of the digitised paper, up to 2019, is available online from Gale Cengage Learning.

1785 to 1890
The Times was founded by publisher John Walter (1738–1812) on 1 January 1785 as The Daily Universal Register, with Walter in the role of editor. Walter had lost his job by the end of 1784 after the insurance company for which he worked went bankrupt due to losses from a Jamaican hurricane. Unemployed, Walter began a new business venture. At that time, Henry Johnson invented the logography, a new typography that was reputedly faster and more precise (although three years later, it was proved less efficient than advertised). Walter bought the logography's patent and, with it, opened a printing house to produce books. The first publication of The Daily Universal Register was on 1 January 1785. Walter changed the title after 940 editions on 1 January 1788 to The Times. In 1803, Walter handed ownership and editorship to his son of the same name. Walter Sr's pioneering efforts to obtain Continental news, especially from France, helped build the paper's reputation among policy makers and financiers, in spite of a sixteen-month incarceration in Newgate Prison for libels printed in The Times.

The Times used contributions from significant figures in the fields of politics, science, literature, and the arts to build its reputation. For much of its early life, the profits of The Times were very large and the competition minimal, so it could pay far better than its rivals for information or writers. Beginning in 1814, the paper was printed on the new steam-driven cylinder press developed by Friedrich Koenig (1774–1833). In 1815, The Times had a circulation of 5,000.

Thomas Barnes was appointed general editor in 1817. In the same year, the paper's printer, James Lawson, died and passed the business onto his son, John Joseph Lawson (1802–1852). Under the editorship of Barnes and his successor in 1841, John Thadeus Delane, the influence of The Times rose to great heights, especially in politics and amongst the City of London. Peter Fraser and Edward Sterling were two noted journalists, and gained for The Times the pompous/satirical nickname 'The Thunderer' (from "We thundered out the other day an article on social and political reform."). The increased circulation and influence of the paper were based in part to its early adoption of the steam-driven rotary printing press. Distribution via steam trains to rapidly growing concentrations of urban populations helped ensure the profitability of the paper and its growing influence.

The Times was one of the first newspapers to send war correspondents to cover particular conflicts. William Howard Russell, the paper's correspondent with the army in the Crimean War, was immensely influential with his dispatches back to England.

1890 to 1981
The Times faced financial failure in 1890 under Arthur Fraser Walter, but it was rescued by an energetic editor, Charles Frederic Moberly Bell. During his tenure (1890–1911), The Times became associated with selling the Encyclopædia Britannica using aggressive American marketing methods introduced by Horace Everett Hooper and his advertising executive, Henry Haxton. Due to legal fights between the Britannica's two owners, Hooper and Walter Montgomery Jackson, The Times severed its connection in 1908 and was bought by pioneering newspaper magnate, Alfred Harmsworth, later Lord Northcliffe.

In editorials published on 29 and 31 July 1914, Wickham Steed, the Times's Chief Editor, argued that the British Empire should enter World War I. On 8 May 1920, also under the editorship of Steed, The Times, in an editorial, endorsed the anti-Semitic fabrication The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion as a genuine document, and called Jews the world's greatest danger. In the leader entitled "The Jewish Peril, a Disturbing Pamphlet: Call for Inquiry", Steed wrote about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion: "What are these 'Protocols'? Are they authentic? If so, what malevolent assembly concocted these plans and gloated over their exposition? Are they forgery? If so, whence comes the uncanny note of prophecy, prophecy in part fulfilled, in part so far gone in the way of fulfillment?'." The following year, when Philip Graves, the Constantinople (modern Istanbul) correspondent of The Times, exposed The Protocols as a forgery, The Times retracted the editorial of the previous year.

In 1922, John Jacob Astor, son of the 1st Viscount Astor, bought The Times from the Northcliffe estate. The paper gained a measure of notoriety in the 1930s with its advocacy of German appeasement; editor Geoffrey Dawson was closely allied with government supporters of appeasement, most notably Neville Chamberlain. Candid news reports by Norman Ebbut from Berlin that warned of Nazi warmongering were rewritten in London to support the appeasement policy.

Kim Philby, a double agent with primary allegiance to the Soviet Union, was a correspondent for the newspaper in Spain during the Spanish Civil War of the late 1930s. Philby was admired for his courage in obtaining high-quality reporting from the front lines of the bloody conflict. He later joined British Military Intelligence (MI6) during World War II, was promoted into senior positions after the war ended, and defected to the Soviet Union when discovery was inevitable in 1963.

Between 1941 and 1946, the left-wing British historian E. H. Carr was assistant editor. Carr was well known for the strongly pro-Soviet tone of his editorials. In December 1944, when fighting broke out in Athens between the Greek Communist ELAS and the British Army, Carr in a Times leader sided with the Communists, leading Winston Churchill to condemn him and the article in a speech to the House of Commons. As a result of Carr's editorial, The Times became popularly known during that stage of World War II as "the threepenny Daily Worker" (the price of the Communist Party's Daily Worker being one penny).

On 3 May 1966, it resumed printing news on the front page; previously, the front page had been given over to small advertisements, usually of interest to the moneyed classes in British society. Also in 1966, the Royal Arms, which had been a feature of the newspaper's masthead since its inception, was abandoned. In the same year, members of the Astor family sold the paper to Canadian publishing magnate Roy Thomson. His Thomson Corporation brought it under the same ownership as The Sunday Times to form Times Newspapers Limited.

An industrial dispute prompted the management to shut down the paper for nearly a year, from 1 December 1978 to 12 November 1979.

The Thomson Corporation management was struggling to run the business due to the 1979 energy crisis and union demands. Management sought a buyer who was in a position to guarantee the survival of both titles, had the resources, and was committed to funding the introduction of modern printing methods.

Several suitors appeared, including Robert Maxwell, Tiny Rowland and Lord Rothermere; however, only one buyer was in a position to meet the full Thomson remit, Australian media magnate Rupert Murdoch. Robert Holmes à Court, another Australian magnate, had previously tried to buy The Times in 1980.

From 1981
In 1981, The Times and The Sunday Times were bought from Thomson by Rupert Murdoch's News International. The acquisition followed three weeks of intensive bargaining with the unions by company negotiators John Collier and Bill O'Neill. Murdoch gave legal undertakings to maintain separate journalism resources for the two titles. The Royal Arms were reintroduced to the masthead at about this time, but whereas previously it had been that of the reigning monarch, it would now be that of the House of Hanover, who were on the throne when the newspaper was founded.

After 14 years as editor, William Rees-Mogg resigned upon completion of the change of ownership. Murdoch began to make his mark on the paper by appointing Harold Evans as his replacement. One of his most important changes was the introduction of new technology and efficiency measures. Between March 1981 and May 1982, following agreement with print unions, the hot-metal Linotype printing process used to print The Times since the 19th century was phased out and replaced by computer input and photocomposition. The Times and the Sunday Times were able to reduce their print room staff by half as a result. However, direct input of text by journalists ("single-stroke" input) was still not achieved, and this was to remain an interim measure until the Wapping dispute of 1986, when The Times moved from New Printing House Square in Gray's Inn Road (near Fleet Street) to new offices in Wapping.

Robert Fisk, seven times British International Journalist of the Year, resigned as foreign correspondent in 1988 over what he saw as "political censorship" of his article on the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655 in July 1988. He wrote in detail about his reasons for resigning from the paper due to meddling with his stories, and the paper's pro-Israel stance.

In June 1990, The Times ceased its policy of using courtesy titles ("Mr", "Mrs", or "Miss" prefixes) for living persons before full names on the first reference, but it continues to use them before surnames on subsequent references. In 1992, it accepted the use of "Ms" for unmarried women "if they express a preference."

In November 2003, News International began producing the newspaper in both broadsheet and tabloid sizes. Over the next year, the broadsheet edition was withdrawn from Northern Ireland, Scotland, and the West Country. Since 1 November 2004, the paper has been printed solely in tabloid format.

On 6 June 2005, The Times redesigned its Letters page, dropping the practice of printing correspondents' full postal addresses. Published letters were long regarded as one of the paper's key constituents. According to its leading article "From Our Own Correspondents," the reason for the removal of full postal addresses was to fit more letters onto the page.

In a 2007 meeting with the House of Lords Select Committee on Communications, which was investigating media ownership and the news, Murdoch stated that the law and the independent board prevented him from exercising editorial control.

In May 2008, printing of The Times switched from Wapping to new plants at Waltham Cross in Hertfordshire, and Merseyside and Glasgow, enabling the paper to be produced with full colour on every page for the first time.

On 26 July 2012, to coincide with the official start of the London 2012 Olympics and the issuing of a series of souvenir front covers, The Times added the suffix "of London" to its masthead.

In March 2016, the paper dropped its rolling digital coverage for a series of 'editions' of the paper at 9am, midday, and 5pm on weekdays. The change also saw a redesign of the paper's app for smartphones and tablets.

In April 2018, IPSO upheld a complaint against The Times for its report of a court hearing in a Tower Hamlets fostering case.

In April 2019, culture secretary Jeremy Wright said he was minded to allow a request by News UK to relax the legal undertakings given in 1981 to maintain separate journalism resources for The Times and The Sunday Times.

In 2019, IPSO upheld complaints against The Times over their article "GPS data shows container visited trafficking hotspot", and for three articles as part of a series on pollution in Britain's waterways: "No river safe for bathing," "Filthy Business," and "Behind the story." IPSO also upheld complaints in 2019 against articles headlined "Funding secret of scientists against hunt trophy ban," and "Britons lose out to rush of foreign medical students."

In 2019, The Times published an article about Imam Abdullah Patel that wrongly claimed Patel had blamed Israel for the 2003 murder of a British police officer by a terror suspect in Manchester. The story also wrongly claimed that Patel ran a primary school that had been criticised by Ofsted for segregating parents at events, which Ofsted said was contrary to "British democratic principles." The Times settled Patel's defamation claim by issuing an apology and offering to pay damages and legal costs. Patel's solicitor, Zillur Rahman, said the case "highlights the shocking level of journalism to which the Muslim community are often subject".

In 2019, The Times published an article titled "Female Circumcision is like clipping a nail, claimed speaker". The article featured a photo of Sultan Choudhury beside the headline, leading some readers to incorrectly infer that Choudhury had made the comment. Choudhury lodged a complaint with the Independent Press Standards Organisation and sued The Times for libel. In 2020, The Times issued an apology, amended its article, and agreed to pay Choudhury damages and legal costs. Choudhury's solicitor, Nishtar Saleem, said, "This is another example of irresponsible journalism. Publishing sensational excerpts on a 'free site' while concealing the full article behind a paywall is a dangerous game".

In December 2020, Cage and Moazzam Begg received damages of £30,000 plus costs in a libel case they had brought against The Times newspaper. In June 2020, a report in The Times suggested that Cage and Begg were supporting a man who had been arrested in relation to a knife attack in Reading in which three men were murdered. The Times report also suggested that Cage and Begg were excusing the actions of the accused man by mentioning mistakes made by the police and others. In addition to paying damages, The Times printed an apology. Cage stated that the damages amount would be used to "expose state-sponsored Islamophobia and those complicit with it in the press. ... The Murdoch press empire has actively supported xenophobic elements and undermined principles of open society and accountability. ... We will continue to shine a light on war criminals and torture apologists and press barons who fan the flames of hate".

Content
The Times features news for the first half of the paper; the Opinion/Comment section begins after the first news section, with world news normally following this. The Register, which contains obituaries, a Court & Social section, and related material, follows the business pages on the centre spread. The sports section is at the end of the main paper.

Times2
The Times' main supplement, every day, is times2, featuring various columns. It was discontinued in early March 2010, but reintroduced on 12 October 2010 after discontinuation was criticised. Its regular features include a puzzles section called Mind Games. Its previous incarnation began on 5 September 2005, before which it was called T2 and previously Times 2. The supplement contains arts and lifestyle features, TV and radio listings, and theatre reviews. The newspaper employs Richard Morrison as its classical music critic.

The Game
The Game is included in the newspaper on Mondays, and details all the weekend's football activity (Premier League and Football League Championship, League One and League Two.) The Scottish edition of The Game also includes results and analysis from Scottish Premier League games. During the FIFA World Cup and UEFA Euros, there is a daily supplement of The Game.

Saturday supplements
The Saturday edition of The Times contains a variety of supplements. These supplements were relaunched in January 2009 as: Sport, Saturday Review (arts, books, TV listings, and ideas), Weekend (including travel and lifestyle features), Playlist (an entertainment listings guide), and The Times Magazine (columns on various topics).

The Times Magazine
The Times Magazine features columns touching on various subjects such as celebrities, fashion and beauty, food and drink, homes and gardens, or simply writers' anecdotes. Notable contributors include Giles Coren, Food and Drink Writer of the Year in 2005 and Nadiya Hussain, winner of The Great British Bake Off.

Online presence
The Times and The Sunday Times have had an online presence since 1996, originally at the-times.co.uk and sunday-times.co.uk, and later at timesonline.co.uk. There are now two websites: thetimes.co.uk is aimed at daily readers, and the thesundaytimes.co.uk site provides weekly magazine-like content. There are also iPad and Android editions of both newspapers. Since July 2010, News UK has required readers who do not subscribe to the print edition to pay £2 per week to read The Times and The Sunday Times online.

Visits to the websites have decreased by 87% since the paywall was introduced, from 21 million unique users per month to 2.7 million. In April 2009, the timesonline site had a readership of 750,000 readers per day. In October 2011, there were around 111,000 subscribers to The Times' digital products. A Reuters Institute survey in 2021 put the number of digital subscribers at around 400,000, and ranked The Times as having the sixth highest trust rating out of 13 different outlets polled.

The Times Digital Archive is available by subscription.

Ownership
The Times has had the following eight owners since its foundation in 1785:

 * 1785 to 1803: John Walter
 * 1803 to 1847: John Walter, 2nd
 * 1847 to 1894: John Walter III
 * 1894 to 1908: Arthur Fraser Walter
 * 1908 to 1922: Lord Northcliffe
 * 1922 to 1966: Astor family
 * 1966 to 1981: Roy Thomson
 * 1981 to present: News UK (formerly News International, a wholly owned subsidiary of News Corp, run by Rupert Murdoch)

Readership
The Times had a circulation of 70,405 on 5 September 1870, due to a reduction in price and the Franco-Prussian War. The Times had a circulation of 150,000 in March 1914, due to a reduction in price. The Times had a circulation of 248,338 in 1958, a circulation of 408,300 in 1968, and a circulation of 295,863 in 1978. At the time of Harold Evans' appointment as editor in 1981, The Times had an average daily sale of 282,000 copies in comparison to the 1.4 million daily sales of its traditional rival, The Daily Telegraph. By 1988, The Times had a circulation of 443,462. By November 2005, The Times sold an average of 691,283 copies per day, the second-highest of any British "quality" newspaper (after The Daily Telegraph, which had a circulation of 903,405 copies in the period), and the highest in terms of full-rate sales. By March 2014, average daily circulation of The Times had fallen to 394,448 copies, compared to The Daily Telegraph's 523,048, with the two retaining respectively the second-highest and highest circulations among British "quality" newspapers. In contrast, The Sun, the highest-selling "tabloid" daily newspaper in the United Kingdom, sold an average of 2,069,809 copies in March 2014, and the Daily Mail, the highest-selling "middle market" British daily newspaper, sold an average of 1,708,006 copies in the period.

The Sunday Times has significantly higher circulation than The Times, and sometimes outsells The Sunday Telegraph. In January 2019, The Times had a circulation of 417,298 and The Sunday Times 712,291.

In a 2009 national readership survey, The Times was found to have the highest number of ABC1 25–44 readers and the largest number of readers in London of any of the "quality" papers.

Typeface
The Times is the originator of the widely used Times New Roman typeface, originally developed by Stanley Morison of The Times in collaboration with Monotype Imaging for its legibility in low-tech printing. In November 2006, The Times began printing headlines in a new typeface, Times Modern. The Times was printed in broadsheet format for 219 years, but switched to compact size in 2004 in an attempt to appeal more to younger readers and commuters using public transport. The Sunday Times remains a broadsheet.

In 1908, The Times started using the Monotype Modern typeface.

The Times commissioned the serif typeface Times New Roman, created by Victor Lardent at the English branch of Monotype, in 1931. It was commissioned after Stanley Morison had written an article criticising The Times for being badly printed and typographically antiquated. Victor Lardent, an artist from The Times ' advertising department, created the typeface under Morison's supervision. Morison used an older typeface named Plantin as the basis for his design but made revisions for legibility and economy of space. Times New Roman made its debut in the issue of 3 October 1932. After one year, the design was released for commercial sale. The Times stayed with Times New Roman for 40 years, but new production techniques and the format change from broadsheet to tabloid in 2004 have caused the newspaper to switch typeface five times since 1972. However, all the new typeface have been variants of the original New Roman type:
 * Times Europa was designed by Walter Tracy in 1972 for The Times, as a sturdier alternative to the Times font family, designed for the demands of faster printing presses and cheaper paper. The typeface features more open counter spaces.
 * Times Roman replaced Times Europa on 30 August 1982.
 * Times Millennium was made in 1991, drawn by Gunnlaugur Briem on the instructions of Aurobind Patel, composing manager of News International.
 * Times Classic first appeared in 2001. Designed as an economical face by the British-type team of Dave Farey and Richard Dawson, it took advantage of the new PC-based publishing system at the newspaper while obviating the production shortcomings of its predecessor, Times Millennium. The new typeface included 120 letters per font. Initially, the family comprised ten fonts, but a condensed version was added in 2004.
 * Times Modern was unveiled on 20 November 2006, as the successor of Times Classic. Designed for improving legibility in smaller font sizes, it uses 45-degree angled bracket serifs. Ben Preston, the deputy editor of The Times, and designer Neville Brody led Research Studios in creating the typeface, which Elsner + Flake published as EF Times Modern.

Political alignment
Historically, the paper was not overtly pro-Tory or Whig, but has been a long time bastion of the British Establishment and Empire. In 1959, the historian of journalism Allan Nevins analysed the importance of The Times in shaping the views of events of London's elite, writing: "For much more than a century The Times has been an integral and important part of the political structure of Great Britain. Its news and its editorial comment have in general been carefully coordinated, and have at most times been handled with an earnest sense of responsibility. While the paper has admitted some trivia to its columns, its whole emphasis has been on important public affairs treated with an eye to the best interests of Britain. To guide this treatment, the editors have for long periods been in close touch with 10 Downing Street."

The Times adopted a stance described as "peculiarly detached" at the 1945 general election; although it was increasingly critical of the Conservative Party's campaign, it did not advocate a vote for any one party. However, the newspaper reverted to the Conservatives for the next election five years later. It supported the Conservatives for the subsequent three elections, followed by support for both the Conservatives and the Liberal Party for the next five elections, expressly supporting a Con-Lib coalition in 1974. The paper then backed the Conservatives solidly until 1997, when it declined to make any party endorsement but supported individual (primarily Eurosceptic) candidates.

For the 2001 general election, The Times declared its support for Tony Blair's Labour government, which was re-elected by a landslide (although not as large as in 1997). It supported Labour again in 2005, when Labour achieved a third successive win, though with a reduced majority. In 2004, according to MORI, the voting intentions of its readership were 40% for the Conservative Party, 29% for the Liberal Democrats, and 26% for Labour. For the 2010 general election, the newspaper declared its support for the Conservatives once again; the election ended in the Tories taking the most votes and seats but having to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats in order to form a government as they had failed to gain an overall majority.

Its changes in political alignment make it the most varied newspaper in terms of political support in British history. Some columnists in The Times are connected to the Conservative Party, such as Daniel Finkelstein, Tim Montgomerie, Matthew Parris, and Matt Ridley, but there are also columnists connected to the Labour Party, such as David Aaronovitch and Jenni Russell.

The Times occasionally makes endorsements for foreign elections. In November 2012, it endorsed a second term for Democrat Barack Obama, although it also expressed reservations about his foreign policy.

During the 2019 Conservative leadership election, The Times endorsed Boris Johnson and subsequently endorsed the Conservative Party in the general election of that year.

In 2022, Tony Gallagher was appointed to replace John Witherow, who had served nine years as editor. A former Sun editor, Gallagher enthusiastically backed Brexit during the 2016 EU referendum. According to The Guardian, "The Times' readership is split politically, with journalists at the outlet speculating on how Gallagher will shape the paper's editorial line as the prospect of a Labour government becomes more likely (in 2024)."

Sponsorships
The Times, along with the British Film Institute, sponsors the BFI London Film Festival. It also sponsors the Cheltenham Literature Festival and the Asia House Festival of Asian Literature at Asia House, London.

Editors

 * John Walter 1785 to 1803
 * John Walter, Jnr 1803 to 1812
 * Sir John Stoddart 1812 to 1816
 * Thomas Barnes 1817 to 1841
 * John Thadeus Delane 1841 to 1877
 * Thomas Chenery 1877 to 1884
 * George Earle Buckle 1884 to 1912
 * George Geoffrey Dawson 1912 to 1919
 * George Sydney Freeman 1919 (two-month 'inter-regnum')
 * Henry Wickham Steed 1919 to 1922
 * George Geoffrey Dawson1923 to 1941
 * Robert McGowan Barrington-Ward 1941 to 1948
 * William Francis Casey 1948 to 1952
 * Sir William John Haley 1952 to 1966
 * William Rees-Mogg 1967 to 1981
 * Harold Evans 1981 to 1982
 * Charles Douglas-Home 1982 to 1985
 * Charles Wilson 1985 to 1990
 * Simon Jenkins 1990 to 1992
 * Peter Stothard 1992 to 2002
 * Robert Thomson 2002 to 2007
 * James Harding 2007 to 2012
 * John Witherow 2013 to 2022
 * Tony Gallagher 2022 to date

Related publications
An Irish digital edition of the paper was launched in September 2015 at TheTimes.ie. A print edition was launched in June 2017, replacing the international edition previously distributed in Ireland. The Irish edition was set to close in June 2019 with the loss of 20 jobs.

The Times Literary Supplement (TLS) first appeared in 1902 as a supplement to The Times, becoming a separately paid-for weekly literature and society magazine in 1914. The TLS is owned and published by News International and co-operates closely with The Times, with its online version hosted on The Times website, and its editorial offices based in 1 London Bridge Street, London.

Between 1951 and 1966, The Times published a separately paid-for quarterly science review, The Times Science Review. The Times started a new, free, monthly science magazine, Eureka, in October 2009. The magazine closed in October 2012.

The Times Review of Industry (which began in 1947) and Technology (which began in 1957) merged in March 1963 to become The Times Review of Industry & Technology. From 1952, The Times Review of Industry included the London and Cambridge Economic Bulletin.

Times Atlases have been produced since 1895. The Collins Bartholomew imprint of HarperCollins Publishers is currently responsible for producing them. The flagship product is The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World.

In 1971, The Times began publishing the Times Higher Education Supplement (now known as the Times Higher Education) which focuses its coverage on tertiary education.

Historical value
In 1915, R P Farley said "the files of the Times must be constantly studied" as an authority for the political and social history of the English people during the period from the Reform Bill 1832 to the Education Act 1870 (1832 to 1870). From 1971 to 1973, John Joseph Bagley said The Times is "valuable" as a source of nineteenth-century English history and that the annual index to The Times is useful for the twentieth century. In 2003, Richard Krzys said The Times is very reliable as a source of history. In 2016, Denise Bates said The Times is "indispensable" as a source for historical events of national importance.

In 2019, James Oldham said The Times is an important source for nisi prius trials. In 2015, Johnston and Plummer said that The Times is an important source for music reviews.

In popular culture
In the dystopian future world of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, The Times has been transformed into an organ of the totalitarian ruling party. The book's lead character, Winston Smith is employed to rewrite past issues of the newspaper for the Ministry of Truth.

Rex Stout's fictional detective, Nero Wolfe is described as fond of solving the London Times' crossword puzzle at his New York home, in preference to those of American papers.

In the James Bond series by Ian Fleming, James Bond reads The Times. As described by Fleming in From Russia, with Love, The Times was "the only paper that Bond ever read."

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: The Times


text:
OS/390

OS/390 is an IBM operating system for the System/390 IBM mainframe computers.

Overview
OS/390 was introduced in late 1995 in an effort to simplify the packaging and ordering for the key, entitled elements needed to complete a fully functional Multiple Virtual Storage (MVS) operating system package. These elements included, but were not limited to:

 * Data Facility Storage Management Subsystem Data Facility Product (DFP) – Provides access methods to enable I/O to, e.g., Direct access storage device subsystems, printers, tape; provides utilities and program management
 * Job Entry Subsystem (JES) – Provides the ability to submit batch work and manage print
 * IBM Communications Server – Provides Virtual Telecommunications Access Method (VTAM) and TCP/IP communications protocols

An additional benefit of the OS/390 packaging concept was to improve reliability, availability and serviceability (RAS) for the operating system, as the number of different combinations of elements that a customer could order and run was drastically reduced. This reduced the overall time required for customers to test and deploy the operating system in their environments, as well as reducing the number of customer-reported problems, errors (Authorized Program Analysis Reports and Program temporary fixes) arising from the variances in element levels.

In December 2001 IBM extended OS/390 to include support for 64-bit zSeries processors and added various other improvements, and the result is now named z/OS. IBM ended support for the older OS/390-branded versions in late 2004.

title: OS/390


text:
User:Ted Longstaffe

Questions - Stupid and/or Miscellaneous
 * That really belongs as a subpage to your user page, if it belongs on Wikipedia at all. - Vicki Rosenzweig
 * According to PHP script new features subpages are no longer supported. As to whether it belongs in Wikipedia, I don't see the harm. - Ted Longstaffe
 * ->Test 1 of "subpage": User:Ted Longstaffe/Questions - Stupid and/or Miscellaneous. The result is that I get an error message saying "You cannot edit this page" - Ted Longstaffe
 * ->Test 2 of "subpage": User:Ted Longstaffe /Questions - Stupid and/or Miscellaneous. The result is that I get an error message saying "You cannot edit this page" - Ted Longstaffe
 * ->Test 3 of "subpage": User:Ted Longstaffe/ Questions - Stupid and/or Miscellaneous. The result is that I get an error message saying "You cannot edit this page" - Ted Longstaffe
 * ->Test 4 of "subpage": User:Ted Longstaffe !Questions - Stupid and/or Miscellaneous. The result is that I can edit the page (but the title does not include the "!" !!!) - Ted Longstaffe

I:
 * was born in 1958
 * am Manic Depressive (or more properly called: Bipolar Affective Disorder (BAD)). I also apparently have Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD - I love this acronym), Negative Symptom Schizophrenia (I'm still not sure what that means) and Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD). So that makes me BAD, SAD and ODD (which is fairly accurate as far as it goes). There has also been some talk about autism (but I must be a high-functioner).
 * am quite proficient at Excel and Access VBA programming
 * am unemployed (though well off)
 * am married with 2 teenagers, a twenty-something year old, 2 dogs (a female German Shepherd and a male Bernese Mountain Dog). The younger teenager has a rabbit named Diablo (and she's baptized - her choice)
 * enjoy reading. Some favorites of mine are: Pillars of the Earth, The Star Beast, Friday, The Firm, One L (Scott Turow), A Deepness in the Sky (Vernor Vinge). Some books I hate are: Wuthering Heights, Future Shock (he repeated things so often - the book could easily have been cut to 50 pages (with a vast improvement of readability in the process)) and the Old Testament (Is this barbaric God the same one that later has Jesus as a son?)
 * have Pet Peeves: Telemarketers that can't stop following the script. Psychiatrists that know me better than I do myself (apparently 40+ years in this body doesn't mean a lot compared to the DSM-IV). Dick Francis and horses (talk about obsessive). Computers (I know they can improve productivity but why do so many things have to go wrong all the time).
 * am XYY (which means that I am twice the guy compared to most). We had a Trisomy 18 baby that lived for about 4 months.
 * was born 7 days before my (also male) cousin and our mothers had the same hospital room. About 2 years later he had a sister and 7 days later my mother had a daughter. Once again, they had the same hospital room. Of course as usual, my aunt (and uncle - with a few minutes effort (?)) had another child some years later and my mother wasn't willing to follow suit. On the other hand, I have a stepsister (who is the aunt to our oldest son ((see above) from my wife's first marriage) even though she is actually younger than he is).
 * love parentheses (does it show?). I know some people say the period belongs inside the parentheses but this makes no sense to me. I really enjoyed programming in LISP.
 * have a first name and a middle name, but other than when my mother was upset with me I was never called by those names (aside from 3 years in an English "public" (which means private to us North Americans) school - but the less said about that the better). For simplicity I should really change my name to that which people have otherwise always called me by, but I probably won't). On the other hand, my sister (who along with my stepsister both share their name with that of an alcoholic beverage), did change her name a few years back (and got one with umlauts to boot).
 * am confused as to why the previous line is blank.
 * (and our family (see how much I love parentheses)) have lived at 2 different addresses of the same street (a few blocks apart). (We are like a glacier slowly receding to the north). This situation of course renders the question "Are you still on Valley Drive" to something other than a 1-bit response.
 * am a computer programmer/troubleshooter (dating back to about 1975). In university, my first-year computer course used only 80-column punchcards as an input medium (thank god I never had to use paper tape or plug boards). In my second year (after my high school dreams of becoming an organic chemist had fizzled - I never did understand quantum-something-or-other the previous year), we were able to sometimes use terminals (FEP driven "dumb" terminals (or rarely 3270 terminals where we could use a visual editor instead of just a command line editor)). After graduating I went to West Germany (to which we "imported" a North American IBM PC (that was not available in Germany yet)). To power it, we bought a special transformer (to convert from 120V 60 Hz to 240V 50Hz) device at an American army base nearby. Our IBM PC came with 256K of RAM and 2 double-density 5.25" drives (360K capacity each). One day we needed to get the PC serviced (and IBM still didn't sell them in Germany) so we trundled off to the local IBM Headquarters to have it shipped to the closest repair facility (in Ireland). As we were coming in the door, a mass exodus of people were just exiting the building and all they told us was "Bomb Alarm". We thought it was some hoax or possibly a terrorist thing. The next day we heard that a nearby construction site had discovered an unexploded 500lb bomb from WW II. I still have a copy of an IBM PC user manual that has a complete listing of the BIOS source in an appendix!
 * Somewhat later, I worked on a Corona (an early IBM PC compatible) which had an external 10MB hard drive that measured about 6 inches (15cm) on each side (it cost about $4000 Canadian ($2500 US) at the time). So that's about $400/MB. Now hard drives are priced at less than 1 cent per MB (assuming I got the arithmetic right). Take about Moore's Law!!

title: User:Ted Longstaffe