Scientific theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter iamme
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

iamme

Guest
i wasnt exactly sure where this goes, because the forum names and contents confuse me, honestly, but i see science related things in this forum, so here it is.

i just wanted to discuss the difference between theory, as the word is commonly used, and the scientific use of the word theory, because theyre very different, yet many people use the former when approaching the latter.
now, common use of the word theory is basically an undeveloped idea, rooted in observed fact, like an thought out hypothesis, whereas the scientific definition of theory is so much more than that. its a logical, systematic set of principles or explanation that has been verified—has stood up against attempts to prove it false, and interestingly enough, its also the original definition of the word.

i only bring this up, because time and time again in discussions, i see things explained away because theyre “only a theory” when in fact, theyre almost proven, or at least, they havent been shown to be fallible yet.

now thats not to say that theories are fact, because they arent, they may well be, but they arent yet, so while theres room for doubt, its not much room…

i didnt mean this to go on like it did, but i just wanted to share and maybe educate some people who didnt know…

peace out yo!
 
Good points, iamme. It might be useful to add that theories are models that explain facts.

Gravity is a fact; the Theory of Gravity is the model that explains the observed fact.

Evolution is a fact; the Theory of Evolution is the model that explains the observed fact.

It’s worth noting that theories are accepted when they demonstrate predictive power. For example, the Big Bang theory predicted that we would discover background radiation in the cosmos – that is, it said that if the Big Bang really did happen, then there should be background radiation left over from it. Decades after this prediction was made, we actually did detect this radiation. This confirmation is one of the reasons we accept the theory.

Theories, of course, aren’t set in stone. We change and discard them based on new evidence so that the models we use are up to date with our current knowledge.
 
MegaTherion said:
Good points, iamme. It might be useful to add that theories are models that explain facts.

Gravity is a fact; the Theory of Gravity is the model that explains the observed fact.

Evolution is a fact; the Theory of Evolution is the model that explains the observed fact.

It’s worth noting that theories are accepted when they demonstrate predictive power. For example, the Big Bang theory predicted that we would discover background radiation in the cosmos – that is, it said that if the Big Bang really did happen, then there should be background radiation left over from it. Decades after this prediction was made, we actually did detect this radiation. This confirmation is one of the reasons we accept the theory.

Theories, of course, aren’t set in stone. We change and discard them based on new evidence so that the models we use are up to date with our current knowledge.
Click to expand...
Good question Iamme. Isn’t a theory a hypothesis that has been proven by the scientific method? But a theory is not yet an absolute fact until there is indisputable evidence that is no longer a discovery in progress?
 
  1. A very good thread & very common mistake I see myself during discussions.
jkiernan56 said:
Good question Iamme. Isn’t a theory a hypothesis that has been proven by the scientific method? But a theory is not yet an absolute fact until there is indisputable evidence that is no longer a discovery in progress?
Click to expand...
What is absolute fact?
What is indisputable evidence?

Give me indisputable evidence that you or I, for that matter, exist. Whatever you present, I could still atribute the experience of us interacting as a hallucination or a schyzoid episode.
 
Robertsxxx said:
  1. A very good thread & very common mistake I see myself during discussions.
What is absolute fact?
What is indisputable evidence?

Give me indisputable evidence that you or I, for that matter, exist. Whatever you present, I could still atribute the experience of us interacting as a hallucination or a schyzoid episode.
Click to expand...
“The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world. Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them. A “law” differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
 
jkiernan56 said:
“The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world. Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them. A “law” differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
Click to expand...
That was basically the point I was trying to make.

Did I misunderstand your 1st post as an attack* on how much a sc.theory is fact?
 
Robertsxxx said:
That was basically the point I was trying to make.

Did I misunderstand your 1st post as an attack* on how much a sc.theory is fact?
Click to expand...
No, my first point was an attempt to understand better. I am trying to understand the difference between hypothesis, scientific method, theory, and law. I just said what I understood but was hoping for someone to better explain it to me. And also just so you know, I am learning on this forum how to think critically and disagree with others in a respectful manner. I think people really are more important than ideas, but I don’t always live up to that understanding.
 
Laws, theories, and facts do not form a hierarchy of certainty. They serve different purposes.

Facts are things we observe.
Laws describe the way things behave.
Theories are models that explain how things work; they detail the mechanism and/or explanation behind facts.

They’re all open to change as new evidence becomes available.
 
MegaTherion said:
Laws, theories, and facts do not form a hierarchy of certainty. They serve different purposes.

Facts are things we observe.
Laws describe the way things behave.
Theories are models that explain how things work; they detail the mechanism and/or explanation behind facts.

They’re all open to change as new evidence becomes available.
Click to expand...
I accept that they serve different purposes. I’m not so sure about your statement about how their relationship do not form a hierarchy of certainty. You have given me something to think about.
 
I’m not so sure about your statement about how their relationship do not form a hierarchy of certainty
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s a matter of certaintly*; more each of those terms you mentioned have different purposes & describe different things.
 
Robertsxxx said:
I don’t think it’s a matter of certaintly*; more each of those terms you mentioned have different purposes & describe different things.
Click to expand...
Do you think laws are a type of certainty? Like the law of gravity. When I jump off a building, because gravity really does exist (and is not just a theory), I will go down and increase speed according to an exact formula (the force of gravity)?
 
jkiernan56 said:
Do you think laws are a type of certainty? Like the law of gravity. When I jump off a building, because gravity really does exist
Click to expand...
I’m not sure. I was more refering to a HIERARCHY of certaintly, meaning um… power struggle of validity in a sense? Though I’m sort of starting to change my mind on this, since you can have good facts but the model might give poor conclusions. But I’m not sure on this.
(and is not just a theory)
Click to expand...
cough cough Theory of Gravity
 
Robertsxxx said:
I’m not sure. I was more refering to a HIERARCHY of certaintly, meaning um… power struggle of validity in a sense? Though I’m sort of starting to change my mind on this, since you can have good facts but the model might give poor conclusions. But I’m not sure on this.

cough cough Theory of Gravity
Click to expand...
Really? Is gravity a theory? I always thought it is a proven law of the universe … kind of like a given in an equation.
 
jkiernan56 said:
Really? Is gravity a theory? I always thought it is a proven law of the universe … kind of like a given in an equation.
Click to expand...
Um… the only absolutes, or 100% certanties are probably in math, like a circle, which is only possible as a geometric concept, not in reality.

Did you read what the original poster wrote about theory vs scientific theory?

theoryofgravity.com/
Furthermore gravitation (can be interchangable with gravity* in broader terms) is characterised by the General Theory of Relativity. Note the THEORY part.
 
jkiernan56 said:
Do you think laws are a type of certainty? Like the law of gravity. When I jump off a building, because gravity really does exist (and is not just a theory), I will go down and increase speed according to an exact formula (the force of gravity)?
Click to expand...
You are confusing the idea of a law with a fact. Typically, “laws” include equations to explain an observed phenomena. In the case of the laws of gravity, they allow us to make calculations to determine, for example, how long it will take you to hit the ground, what your trajectory will be and how fast you will be travelling just prior to making an abrupt stop.

Your comment about the fact that gravity exists and is therefore not just a theory misses the point of what a theory is. The theory part is our explanation as to how and why gravity works. The laws of gravity give us equations describing how gravity works.

Even without theories or laws, gravity exists and is not dependent upon either laws or theories.

Peace

Tim
 
jkiernan56 said:
Really? Is gravity a theory? I always thought it is a proven law of the universe … kind of like a given in an equation.
Click to expand...
No. Gravity exists, therefore it is a fact. The theories of gravity attempt to explain how and why gravity works. Laws of gravity give us the ability to calculate the effects of gravity.

Peace

Tim
 
Robertsxxx said:
Um… the only absolutes, or 100% certanties are probably in math, like a circle, which is only possible as a geometric concept, not in reality.

Did you read what the original poster wrote about theory vs scientific theory?

theoryofgravity.com/
Furthermore gravitation (can be interchangable with gravity* in broader terms) is characterised by the General Theory of Relativity. Note the THEORY part.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I will revisit the original poster and I’ll let you know if I’m still unclear.
 
Yes, gravity is an observed fact. The theory of gravity is the explanation of the mechanism behind the observed fact.

You might all find this article useful: toarchive.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html It explains that evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution, you see, is an observed fact. The theory of evolution is the explanation of the mechanism behind the observed fact.
 
wow, i tried to start a simple thing, and then all the smart mofos came in and showed me for the inept science guy i am.

really tho, thanks alot you guys, i was worried i started a pointless venture, but i think people will actually get something out of it now that you all have arrived!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top