Why Chord Progressions work- Harmonic Glue

[Robertkoa]

"Chronological snobbery" is a good point that is obviously not true in and of itself.

Even as a "rock" guitarist meaning largely untrained I noticed when hearing or seeing analysis of previous era songwriter's like Gershwin, Jerome Kearns , that these guys were more sophisticated in many ways compared to most Rock and Roll etc.

But after Rock, Pop, Jazz , R@B, Fusion etc etc etc and mega chops - the trick is - where can we take it from here that people haven't heard a hundred times before and have it still feel /sound good, or exciting or make people move and groove?

And the worst question - if one or a few of us CAN- will anyone care at this point ?

[ksjazzguitar]

"Chronological snobbery" ... Even as a "rock" guitarist meaning largely untrained I noticed when hearing or seeing analysis of previous era songwriter's like Gershwin, Jerome Kearns , that these guys were more sophisticated in many ways compared to most Rock and Roll etc. ...

But with all due respect, I don't think it is fair to compare "art" music and "pop" music. Rock and roll had a very different objective than jazz and a very different relationship with music theory. True, jazz was kind of a hybrid, it transcended pop and art musics. But the point is that the objective of rock music was not to impress people with their compositional chops.

I think that it is apples and oranges. It would be like comparing recent pop literature (like Dean Kuntz) with an artistic writer from the past (like say James Joyce) and saying that an argument can be made that literature of the past is inherently better. But often (at least in my experience) the opposite argument (the chronological snobbery) is made. In nearly every art and music class I have ever had there was a point where the teacher had to argue against the assumed notion that the students had that art was progressional - that is was getting better over time (chronological snobbery.) It's easy to understand why - we live in a world of technology, which is progressional. But art is not - it merely reflects the aesthetics of the time. The same logical fallacy is often unknowingly applied to all culture. This "chronological snobbery" is not a constant universal; there is a contradictory logical fallacy. Some societies harken back to the "good ole days" - some magical time in the past when things were better - a variation on the "appeal to tradition." For example, in the Middle Ages, it they often pined for the music of the Greeks, often inferring that it had magical properties, often based on misunderstanding and wishful thinking. In our modern times, conservatives often pine for the magical Eisenhower 50s and liberals pine for the magical Aquarian 60s.

But ultimately I was just trying to point out the chronological snobbery inherent in assuming that things like equal temperament and the piano were cultural "improvements" - they are not, they just reflect the aesthetics of their time.

Peace,
Kevin

[Reg]

Ever heard the Bohlen-Pierce scale... with chord progressions that form 3:1 ratios in frequency, different from 2:1 frequency ratios in common musical systems. Our western octave has 12 logarithmically even divisions of that octave, the equation for the frequency (F) of each note is: F = K x 2(n/12)... where n is the number of pitches along the scale and K is the reference point of the scale, usually 440hz.
The Bohlen-Pierce scale has pitches recurring at the 3:1 (tritave) rather than the 2:1 (octave), the scale contains 13 logarithmically even divisions of the tritave, and the frequency of each tone in the scale is expressed by... F = K x 3(n/13). Very hard on my ears and I liked the 1/4 tone polish compositions... anyway hard to hear the glue... Reg

[Shadow of the Sun]

I'm going to disagree with kjazzguitar- acoustics tells us exactly why music does what it does. That said, like theory, it is still descriptive.

The intervals used in gagaku or the maquam system come from the exact same physical process that defines that of ours: the overtone series. It's simply that where we have culturally accepted the lower overtones, up to say, 9, other cultures have preferred higher overtone ratios- up to, say, 20.

Physically, the basis is EXACTLY the same. And while culture does play a part, the physics still underlies it.

[ksjazzguitar]

... acoustics tells us exactly why music does what it does. ...

Well, I defy you to find an Acoustics text book that has a chapter on music theory. Most don't even really talk about music. (Mine doesn't - I have an old one left over from my engineering studies.) It is the science of the propagation of waves through media. I think that many people are misunderstanding what Acoustics is, perhaps because of they are used to hearing sound engineers talk about it. But there is a reason why we don't have required Acoustics classes for our music degrees - it is not required to understand music.

Acoustics tells us why different waves interact the way they do, but it flat out cannot tell us why we prefer some interactions and not others.

Physically, the basis is EXACTLY the same [different musics of the world]. And while culture does play a part, the physics still underlies it.

But to say that "physics" underlies music is bit of a Sheldon Copperian tautology. If physics is the study of everything in the physical world, then it is also the basis of everything in that physical world. Saying that it is the basis of music is no more useful than saying it is the basis of painting, book publishing, ceramics, brownie baking, knitting, beer drinking, and Hummel collecting. Physics underlies everything in the physical universe, so it is not informative to point out that something in the physical universe is underlain by physics - it's true by definition. True, physics underlies beer drinking, but it cannot explain why we want to get together and drink beer (it can explain how we get together - walk to the pub - but not why we feel pleasure in getting together - that is anthropological/psychological.) It cannot explain why it tastes good (it can explain how it tastes good - taste buds chemical processes, but not why - that is psychological/neurological - if it were purely physical, we would all like the same foods.) I'm not sure that physics has much to offer in explaining why we get together and drink beer. True, it underlies everything in the physical universe, but there is no physics equation that explains why I would rather drink beer than coffee (which I detest.)

The point that I am trying to make is that physics does not describe what sounds good - our brains do. Physics (Acoustics) can explain the different way that an octave or a tritone interact, but it does not define why one sounds more consonant than the other - that is purely a neurological/psycological sensation. There is no physics equation that says one must sound "better" - not without a subjective a priori assumption (i.e., "Simple ratios sound better," why couldn't it be the opposite? There is no reason in physics why not - it is purely in our brains.) Similarly, the fact that jazz sounds good but gagaku doesn't (to our ears is at least) is entirely cultural and has nothing to do with physics. Answering the question of why a major triad sounds good to us is not the same as explaining why a curve ball does what it does. The perception of a major triad sounding is a question that can only be answered in the brain. From physics we can divine and infer the qualities that we subjectively perceive as "good," but their "goodness" is not defined by physics, but by our brains. Again, it could have been the exact opposite - that had developed to hear simple harmonic ratios as displeasing. Maybe someday we will meet an alien race for whom that is true.

Again, if you want to understand how waves propagate and interact, then you have study acoustics. If you want to understand why the interaction of certain combinations of waves sound good to humans you must study the brain and psychology. And if you want to understand why the higher elements of music sound good to us, you must study cultural anthropology. Music theory is trying to answer "what sounds good and why," not "how do these waves propagate and interact." The second question is already answered by physics and that pretty much ends physics' active involvement in the first question.

Again, the topics that I just described, that is where the research is being done to answer those questions. The scientists doing research trying to answer the questions about why we perceive music the way we do are neurobiologists and psychologists - not physicists. And researchers trying to answer the questions about why different cultures prefer different musics are anthropologists and ethnomusicologists - not physicists. Statements that boil down to "physics explains everything" don't really help.

If you can show me the current physics research into why music sounds good, I would be indebted. I will be shocked too, because it doesn't exist. Physics hasn't tried to answer that question for hundreds of years, when scientists realized that it couldn't answer that question. We had inherited a notion from the ancient Greeks that music was some magical formula that explained how the universe worked. Early Christian scholars accepted it as fact. Science finally got rid of it and moved on, but I guess that it lives on in the hearts of musicians. Scientists realized that music can't tell us how the universe works, but it can tell us how our brains work. I don't know why musicians fight so hard to hold on to that, in the face of mountains of science the contrary.

Peace,
Kevin

[Shadow of the Sun]

The source I'm using for this, kjazzguitar, isn't actually an acoustics textbook- it's a music theory book. New Musical Resources by Henry Cowell.

My viewpoint is that physics explains a number of things about music- for example, "Why does a clarinet sound different to a guitar?". Or, say, "why do close notes cause a beating sound?"

It doesn't explain our responses to those, I must admit- and on that, we're on the same page. I'm an anthropology student, and one who definitely believes that most things are cultural.

To break it down (not out of a lack of respect for your intelligence; this is just a habit of mine)- you can use physics to explain why something sounds the way it does; why a certain chord sounds dissonant ("A chaotic overall waveform, as compared to a more orderly consonant note"). But you can only use culture to explain WHY a dissonant chord sounds good, or bad.

[JonnyPac]

You guys will enjoy this! It's on the same topics. Super interesting.
Musical Language - Radiolab

[Reg]

Hey Kevin I have copies of...P.C. Lowery's "A guide to Musical Acoustics" 1956 and his " The Background of Music" 1952.
P.C.Buck's "Acoustics for Musicians" 1918
W.T. Bartholomew's "Acoustics of Music" ... my favorite
and I also have Cowell's New Musical Resources... Another interesting read is Cage's "Slience"... do you really want quotes best Reg

[Reg]

Cool stuff Jonny... there are very new concepts of our perceptions of pitch patterns, (music) in The Journal of Neuroscience, Jan 2009 and still going on now. I was lucky to chat with a post neuroscience grad student who just happens to be a world class classical Violinist... with perfect pitch... it just kept going on and on, anyway her name is Psyche Loui... really. she has degrees from all over.. Cal, Harvard and continues to use the schools facilities to for research etc... way over my head but not musically... anyway she has published some very different possibilities of perceptions of music... the how and why. This is a little out as far as discussions on a jazz forum... but it's probable going somewhere... i just don't know where... Best Reg

[pingu]

Just so you don't feel totally alone here Kevin !
I'm in agreement with you re Science/Physics not explaning
or even attempting to describe music
music is an emotional language

Science doesn't attempt to explane why a particular voicing
of Dmin9 to G7#5 gives you a particular feeling in a tune

I would go further in that I believe Science cannot get a grip
on any of the 'why' type questions in life
(they're for philosophical and cultural studies as previously stated)

Scientists come up with theories (models) of how things
in the universe function then test the theories to destruction
If the theory survives it is (eventually) usually accepted as valid
these theories are not even supposed to be 'True'
they are the best descriptions of the phenomina we have at the moment
(and they do change over time)

Argument is good , feel free to argue with any of this
I won't be upset

[JonnyPac]

These guys have it out for science... this is super funny... and sad that they are serious...

[ksjazzguitar]

...My viewpoint is that physics explains a number of things about music- for example, "Why does a clarinet sound different to a guitar?". Or, say, "why do close notes cause a beating sound?"...It doesn't explain our responses to those, I must admit- and on that, we're on the same page. ...

I hear you about what physics explains, but that is not music theory. You are describing the the physical properties of different sounds and how they interact. But music theory is about what humans perceive "goodness" in those. That is where physics ends and psychology and neurobiology begin.

you can use physics to explain why something sounds the way it does; why a certain chord sounds dissonant ("A chaotic overall waveform, as compared to a more orderly consonant note"). But you can only use culture to explain WHY a dissonant chord sounds good, or bad.

We're getting closer to agreement here. But to me when you are talking about how something "sounds" you are talking about the subjectivity of the human ear. To me, the physics/acoustics can explain how waves are produced and interact. But when you start talking about how they "sound" then you are talking about a human listener and you are in the fields of neurobiology and psychology. And the preferences of how to combine these sounds into music are the province of anthropology and ethnomusicology.

I would go further in that I believe Science cannot get a grip on any of the 'why' type questions in life (they're for philosophical and cultural studies as previously stated)

I would agree that science is bad at (and shouldn't attempt) to explain the big "why?" questions - like "Why are we here?" But small "why?" questions like "Why does it hurt when I look at the sun?" are fine - it's so rooted in the physical world. "Why do we prefer the sound of a M3 to a m9?" is pretty much in the physical world, but perception is buried so deeply in the human brain that we cannot model it with physics. Maybe someday we'll be able to map and model every neuron and use some quantum mechanics equation to explain why, but we're a long way from that. Until then, there is a lot of research into how the brain reacts and possible evolutionary explanations for these things - it's an exploding field in science. But it only nominally deals with physics or acoustics.

I guess some are alluding to seeing musical ideas in acoustics books. I'm sure that some mention a few things about notes. And I'm sure they can show how certain interactions of waves produce sounds that we think of pleasing. But that does not explain why those things sound good. They are starting with the definitions of what sounds good to humans and working backwards. An acoustics book might say somethings like, "Simple harmonic ratios produce pleasing sounds." But it fails to provide an explanation of what "pleasing" means and why - it can only make a posteriori generalizations. It starts with the inductive assumptions of what "pleasing" is and makes no attempt to explain it. But that is where music is - in the "pleasingness" of the sounds. The fact of how the waves interact is irrelevant - to explain why things sound good. Many advanced musical cultures have existed on the world, but had no understanding of the physics of sound and I'm not aware that that understanding has introduced anything useful to the discipline of music theory. I can understand how an octave sounds whether or not I understand how the waves interact. And real understanding of sound waves didn't even begin until the 19th century. Were all the musicians hampered by a lack of understanding of sounds waves? Was Bach handicapped because he didn't understand sound waves? Has 20th century music been made better because of it? I think that those ideas would be hard to defend.

Again, acoustics does not generate music theory - it accepts it and works backwards from there. There is a very big difference.

Scientists come up with theories (models) of how thingsin the universe function then test the theories to destruction If the theory survives it is (eventually) usually accepted as valid these theories are not even supposed to be 'True' they are the best descriptions of the phenomina we have at the moment (and they do change over time)

Yeah, that's a pretty basic explanation of how science uses the word "theory." But I think that there is a difference in how music uses the word "theory." Physics is describing an objective physical phenomenon, like gravity. Music is describing a subjective phenomenon, like a root position major triad sounds more stable than a cluster chord. That is entirely subjective and that perception will change depending on culture and time period. A good theory of gravity should be applicable everywhere. A good theory of harmony is only applicable to cultures that hold that aesthetic. A good theory of gravity is either true or not (or somewhere in between), depending on how well it describes the the physical world. A good theory of harmony can be "made" true simply by people accepting it as such (like when the Impressionists tried to redefine certain core aspects of harmony.)

Peace,
Kevin

[JohnRoss]

Scientists come up with theories (models) of how things
in the universe function then test the theories to destruction
If the theory survives it is (eventually) usually accepted as valid
these theories are not even supposed to be 'True'

No, they really are supposed to be true. At least, the atomic theory, the wave theory of electromagnetic propagation or the theory of evolution are accepted by the scientific community as truths (though you as an individual can believe what you want). It's a common misconception, people think 'theory' means something not proven, and it doesn't, not in this context. There's another false logic involved - 'theory' is less certain than 'law,' so a 'theory' is just an idea for which there isn't enough evidence yet. Wrong, A scientific law is a single principle (energy is neither created nor destroyed) whereas a theory (in the scientific use of the word) is a whole bunch of stuff, a collection of concepts (perhaps including laws) which describe a certain aspect of the universe. And a scientific theory does not collapse if one of its concepts turns out to be shaky. it just needs adjusting.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

No, they really are supposed to be true. At least, the atomic theory, the wave theory of electromagnetic propagation or the theory of evolution are accepted by the scientific community as truths (though you as an individual can believe what you want). It's a common misconception, people think 'theory' means something not proven, and it doesn't, not in this context. There's another false logic involved - 'theory' is less certain than 'law,' so a 'theory' is just an idea for which there isn't enough evidence yet. Wrong, A scientific law is a single principle (energy is neither created nor destroyed) whereas a theory (in the scientific use of the word) is a whole bunch of stuff, a collection of concepts (perhaps including laws) which describe a certain aspect of the universe. And a scientific theory does not collapse if one of its concepts turns out to be shaky. it just needs adjusting.

On the Telecaster forum (which has a subforum on "worship services" and a recent thread about gun racks in pickups ), whenever someone asks if they should "learn some theory", I tell them to not settle for theory -- insist on the facts!

[ksjazzguitar]

No, they really are supposed to be true. At least, the atomic theory, the wave theory of electromagnetic propagation or the theory of evolution are accepted by the scientific community as truths (though you as an individual can believe what you want). It's a common misconception, people think 'theory' means something not proven, and it doesn't, not in this context. ...

While I agree with your statement about people mistakenly over-emphasis in thinking "'theory' means something not proven," I also think that you are over truth-izing the concept of theory. Theories by definition are not proven, but are based on empirical observation. You kind soften the "truth" aspect with your last sentence, "And a scientific theory does not collapse if one of its concepts turns out to be shaky. it just needs adjusting." I do agree 100% with that.

The science concept of theory is that it is something that is not proven but is strongly supported and is the best available model. That model changes depending on data.

I would not say that things like "atomic theory" are thought of as "truth", in the absolute sense. That (and the other theories) have changed radically over time and will continue to change as they need to. They are simply the best explanations at this time to explain the data that we have at this time. Sometimes there are competing theories, that only apply in certain situations. And a theory can change or even be abandoned over-night if conflicting data comes in or a better theory comes along. Einstein's theory of gravity replacing Newton's within days based on empirical observations of the 1919 eclipse is a good example of both of these. I think that theories are just accepted as the best working models at that time, based on the best data at that time. If M theory ever gets accepted and can do a better job of explaining gravity (which it thinks it can), then the theory of gravity may change again.

And theories that are not the most accurate may be good enough in some situations. Newton's physics is good enough for most calculations, as long as speed or gravity is not too high, and depending on the level of precision that is needed. They are still taught even though we know that they are not the most accurate. But it is good enough most of the time and easier to understand than Einstein's, so we start with that.

But it is a good overall point that you are making. We have too many creationists and climate-change-deniers in this country saying, "It's just a theory, so it's not true." It is more complex than that. I agree that it is a mistake to assume that the word "theory" means the same thing in all disciplines.

OK, maybe I'm over-reacting. I guess it all depends on how you are meaning the word "true." If I reread your post with a softer meaning of the word, then we are simpatico.

Peace,
Kevin

[JohnRoss]

Kevin, you sometimes remind me of an old friend of mine who used to get into tremendous fights in pubs by agreeing with people violently ("Good game," "Yes, isn't it? BLOODY BRILLIANT, I'D CALL IT!").

Theories by definition are not proven, but are based on empirical observation.

What makes you think they are incompatible? On the contrary, it is precisely because they are based on empirical observation that they can be proved. A theory not based on empirical observation is just metaphysics. Ah, but you're using 'theory' as a synonym of 'hypothesis,' aren't you? That's quite different, see below.

The science concept of theory is that it is something that is not proven but is strongly supported and is the best available model.

'Truth' isn't necessarily an unshakable, 'absolute truth,' that belongs in the realm of the metaphysical as well. Perhaps you would be happier if I used the word 'fact,' instead - do you prefer 'scientific theories are accepted as fact by the scientific community?'

I would not say that things like "atomic theory" are thought of as "truth", in the absolute sense

As I say, they don't have to be, they just have be true. The atomic theory was once considered a little fanciful, OK, as was the germ theory of disease, but nowadays? They're unquestionable, except from a silly, "you can't prove that what you're seeing under the microscope is really there" sort of position.

I guess it all depends on how you are meaning the word "true." If I reread your post with a softer meaning of the word, then we are simpatico.

truth
a (1) : the state of being the case : fact
(2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality
(3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality
b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics>
(there's more, the point being that only a(3) is close to insisting on truth being absolute).

But actually, I think the problem is that you aren't quite clear about the meaning of scientific 'theory,' you're mixing up different meanings, so:

theory
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture

They're different things, you see.

[Dad3353]

...gun racks in pickups...

What type of pickup..? Lipsticks..?

[pingu]

[quote]

No, they really are supposed to be true. At least, the atomic theory, the wave theory of electromagnetic propagation or the theory of evolution are accepted by the scientific community as truths.

Only until a better theory or law comes along !
eg Newtons laws of motion were 'true' till Einstine came along with
Relativity (there was a lot of resistance initially of course !)

one of your examples the 'wave theory of electromagnetic propagation'
allows for some of the phenomina to be described as behaving like particles , the so called wave / particle duality.

Were Newton's 3 Laws "true" once
Was it "true" that the earth was flat once ?

perhaps the Truth changes over time

I believe the "truth" is really the 'current orthodox agreement'

Sorry if this argument seems like a wind up ... it's honestly not !
I find this stuff fascinating

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

What type of pickup..? Lipsticks..?

Poor Dad. He probably thinks the recent "revolver" thread was about the Beatles.

[pingu]

All together

"happiness is a warm gun"

[Dad3353]

Poor Dad. He probably thinks the recent "revolver" thread was about the Beatles.

A+

[ksjazzguitar]

What makes you think they are incompatible? [proof by empirical observation] On the contrary, it is precisely because they are based on empirical observation that they can be proved. A theory not based on empirical observation is just metaphysics.

No, for example deductive reasoning is not based on empirical evidence. Rationalism is not based on empiricism. The entire science of math is not based on empiricism.

I guess we are disagreeing on the meaning of the word "prove." To me it means (in a scientific setting) that there is no doubt. The problem with emperical observation is that it is inherently based on a subset of the data. If I postulate that "all cars have 4 wheels," it doesn't matter how many cars I observe with 4 wheels, I still haven't proven it until I have seem every car in the universe. Now, I can set up a statistical confidence range - based on the sample size, and the overall population, I can be 99.9% sure that my sample is representative of the whole. There are other logical fallacies that are inherent dangers of empiricism, but I won't bother to get into them.

Perhaps an example would be better - back to our friends Newton and Einstien. To make a long story short, Newton's laws of motion and gravity (based on empirical observation) proved to be ultimately wrong. Einstein's theories of motion and gravity (based on rationalistic thought experiments) proved to be ultimately right (or at least measurably better.) True, they were later supported by empirical data, but the origin of the idea was not empirical.

Now, I'm not saying that one is better than the other. I think that they both have their place, and work best when used together. They both have their strengths and limitations.

Ah, but you're using 'theory' as a synonym of 'hypothesis,' aren't you? That's quite different, see below.

No, I'm not. To me a theory is much more solid and accepted than a hypothesis. In science, a theory has been rigorously tested and is usually accepted as the best or one of the best known explanations. A hypotheses will usually not be as tested or accepted.

'Truth' isn't necessarily an unshakable, 'absolute truth,' that belongs in the realm of the metaphysical as well. Perhaps you would be happier if I used the word 'fact,' instead - do you prefer 'scientific theories are accepted as fact by the scientific community?

Perhaps it's my epistemology background, but to me "true" is an absolute. To me "true" does not mean "good enough until something 'more true' comes along." I reserve "true" for things that are undeniable and beyond question (at least on a practical level.) Much of science has come to realize that this is an impossible goal, but I still think it is worthwhile to keep an absolute. To me saying that a fact is "kinda true" is like saying a girl is "kinda pregnant."

I don't really like replacing it with the word "fact" as that just creates the same problem, IMHO. If I had to define theory in the scientific sense, I would say, "A theory is an explanation that scientists use to explain a phenomenon that is the best and most plausible explanation based on the available observations and scientific understanding. It is often treated as if it is fact, until contradictory data or understanding causes the theory to be replaced or modified."

But I think that you and I are saying the same thing, we just have different ideas about how to interpret the word "true." But with the understanding of how each of us means the word, I think that we are saying the same thing. Really I think that our disagreement boils down to quibbling over the definition of one word.

Peace,
Kevin

[Reg]

Poor Dad. He probably thinks the recent "revolver" thread was about the Beatles.

Oh Yea... gotta love that

[cosmic gumbo]

I had to go put on my boots, this is some deep shit.

[JohnRoss]

No, for example deductive reasoning is not based on empirical evidence. Rationalism is not based on empiricism. The entire science of math is not based on empiricism.

None of those things is a scientific theory. If anything, the first two are philosophical methodologies or something similar, and if pushed you could even consider mathematics a kind of belief system, though admittedly you'd be stretching both our bullshit credit levels, not to mention the patience of the other poor sods who have to read this rubbish.

I guess we are disagreeing on the meaning of the word "prove."

What have you got against dictionaries? Merriam Webster, for example, gives four definitions of 'prove' without once mentioning the word 'doubt' (or, come to that, 'absolute'). If you're going to invent your own meanings and have me guess what they are, I'm sorry, I won't be able to keep up.

Newton's laws of motion and gravity (based on empirical observation) proved to be ultimately wrong.

Whoa, popular fallacy in sight. There's nothing wrong about Newton's laws, they're still taught in school, they are still the basis of classical mechanics, and almost nothing mechanical in the real world could be properly designed without them. This is the problem with your absolute truth approach, to you it has to be either / or, ergo Einstein somehow refuted Newton, and it isn't so. Einstein was right, so was Newton. Scientists have no problem with this.

No, I'm not. To me a theory is much more solid and accepted than a hypothesis. In science, a theory has been rigorously tested and is usually accepted as the best or one of the best known explanations. A hypotheses will usually not be as tested or accepted.

Whatever, you're still missing the point - a scientific theory such as the atomic theory is not a single proposition, but a collection of thought.

...to me "true" is an absolute. To me "true" does not mean "good enough until something 'more true' comes along." I reserve "true" for things that are undeniable and beyond question (at least on a practical level.)... If I had to define theory in the scientific sense, I would say, "A theory is an...

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”