Theory vs Law (vs Hypothesis)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JDaniel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JDaniel

Guest
I found this article some time ago, but lost the link. I found the link today and thought that it might be worth posting at this time, since there still seems to be misunderstanding regarding how those terms are viewed in science. Does the following correct any misunderstandings? Is it sufficient? Is it wrong? Is it useful against those who continue to espouse that evolution is just a “theory”?

wilstar.com/theories.htm

jd
 
JDaniel said:
I found this article some time ago, but lost the link. I found the link today and thought that it might be worth posting at this time, since there still seems to be misunderstanding regarding how those terms are viewed in science. Does the following correct any misunderstandings? Is it sufficient? Is it wrong? Is it useful against those who continue to espouse that evolution is just a “theory”?
wilstar.com/theories.htm
jd
Click to expand...
If it is true that all scientific theories must be falsifiable then abiogenesis and neoDarwinism are not scientific theories!
 
tonyrey said:
How can abiogenesis and neoDarwinism be falsified?!
Click to expand...
  1. What is neo-Darwinism, exactly? I’m not sure what your definition of that is.
  2. Let’s clear something up. The concept of abiogenesis, the idea that life came from non-life, isn’t a scientific theory, it is a field of study. There are various theories within that field, each of which can be falsified. For example, one theory is that electricity within the early atmosphere catalyzed amino acids. That theory could be falsified by constructing those conditions in a lab, and showing that amino acids, thus showing that it was impossible for it to happen.
 
I remember reading an ongoing discussion in the letters section of a profesional Physics Journal regarding the destinction between theory and law.
The article that prompted the debate had to do with the vagaries of the terminology and the problem of “it’s only a theory”.

One of the interesting sugestions for the difference is that there should be a quantifiability to a Law for example: Newton’s Force = Mass x acceleration.
I think that this is really related to what your article indicates that a law is about the simple (vs complex).

Regarding the evolution issue:
My personal opinion is that common decent can be considered both falsifiable and beyond reasonable doubt.
But, I am not knowledgeable to even comment about natural selection.
But I will say that as a Catholic I would think that natural selection would be a very good fit with my faith seeing as I don’t believe in chance or random.
 
There are fundamental issues here as who is the audience?
JDaniel said:
I found this article some time ago, but lost the link. I found the link today and thought that it might be worth posting at this time, since there still seems to be misunderstanding regarding how those terms are viewed in science. Does the following correct any misunderstandings?
Click to expand...
I am not sure the author speaks from a position of authority. So only those who misunderstand can answer your question right? Wrong, there are type 1 and type 2 errors, so if type 1 people read this and change their mind (to match the article) they can still be wrong and thus become type 2 error! So I would say to you the article has little effect of any kind
Is it sufficient?
Click to expand...
For who(?) sixth grade(?) yes
Is it wrong?
Click to expand...
absolutely, but I might still use it for the correct audience
Is it useful against those who continue to espouse that evolution is just a “theory”?
Click to expand...
no
wilstar.com/theories.htm
Click to expand...
jd
Click to expand...
Here is the problem; Laws are really accepted by the vast majority of scientists, they are not infallible. Theories are potential Laws but lack the vast majority of educated believers. Hypotheses are ideas headed to theory but typically have few or no believers.

Here is an example E=MC(squared) was either always true, or never true. However it was a hypothesis in 1905 became a theory in the 1930’s(?) and was elevated to a law around the 1950’s or later. So it was not the science that changed but the opinion of people!!!

Now your question is not specific as to whether you mean “all life originated from evolution” or “some types of evolution exist” and those issues are far apart on the scale

hope that helps
 
Lujack said:
What is neo-Darwinism, exactly? I’m not sure what your definition of that is.
Click to expand...
It’s not mine:

Despite this, publications such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica,[8][9] use this term to refer to current evolutionary theory. This term is also used in the scientific literature, with the academic publishers Blackwell Publishing referring to “neo-Darwinism as practised today”,[10] and some figures in the study of evolution like Richard Dawkins[11] and Stephen Jay Gould,[12] using the term in their writings and lectures.
 
Lujack

*For example, one theory is that electricity within the early atmosphere catalyzed amino acids. That theory could be falsified by constructing those conditions in a lab, and showing that amino acids, thus showing that it was impossible for it to happen. *

How do you falsify abiogenesis when you cannot know whether you are accurately constructing the conditions in a lab that duplicate the conditions present on earth several billions of years ago?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Lujack

*For example, one theory is that electricity within the early atmosphere catalyzed amino acids. That theory could be falsified by constructing those conditions in a lab, and showing that amino acids, thus showing that it was impossible for it to happen. *

How do you falsify abiogenesis when you cannot know whether you are accurately constructing the conditions in a lab that duplicate the conditions present on earth several billions of years ago?
Click to expand...
I agree, Charlemagne. Abiogenesis is not a falsifiable hypothesis.

Abiogensis is better thought of as a field of study. It is the study of how life originally came about.
 
Leela

Abiogensis is better thought of as a field of study. It is the study of how life originally came about.

Yes, and therefore life came about either by accident or by intelligent design, neither of which is scientifically falsifiable. There is no other possibility. The only approach to abiogenesis then must be mathematical. Which method is the more plausible, chance or design?

Do the math.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Leela

Abiogensis is better thought of as a field of study. It is the study of how life originally came about.

Yes, and therefore life came about either by accident or by intelligent design, neither of which is scientifically falsifiable. There is no other possibility. The only approach to abiogenesis then must be mathematical. Which method is the more plausible, chance or design?

Do the math.
Click to expand...
The choice has nothing to do with accidents. You can look for natural explanations or unnatural explanations though I can’t imagine how you go about looking fo runnatural ones. To me, natural explanations are always more plausible than unnatural ones. Unnatural explanations don’t sound like explanations to me at all. It’s like saying that we don’t know who made living things, so logically “the thing that made the things for which there is no known maker” must have made them. Ok, but that still doesn’t answer the question, does it?
 
Leela
*
The choice has nothing to do with accidents. You can look for natural explanations or unnatural explanations though I can’t imagine how you go about looking fo runnatural ones. To me, natural explanations are always more plausible than unnatural ones. Unnatural explanations don’t sound like explanations to me at all. It’s like saying that we don’t know who made living things, so logically “the thing that made the things for which there is no known maker” must have made them. Ok, but that still doesn’t answer the question, does it? *

The odds that the first living cell came together by accident are are so unlikely as to be virtually impossible. That leaves intelligent design as the only likely alternative. Even Darwin thought so.

“[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting,I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Leela
*
The choice has nothing to do with accidents. You can look for natural explanations or unnatural explanations though I can’t imagine how you go about looking fo runnatural ones. To me, natural explanations are always more plausible than unnatural ones. Unnatural explanations don’t sound like explanations to me at all. It’s like saying that we don’t know who made living things, so logically “the thing that made the things for which there is no known maker” must have made them. Ok, but that still doesn’t answer the question, does it? *

The odds that the first living cell came together by accident are are so unlikely as to be virtually impossible. That leaves intelligent design as the only likely alternative.
Click to expand...
No, it just means that a good explanation would not be that the first cell just happened by accident. No one studying in the field of abiogenesis would ever say it did happen by accident.
 
Leela

*No, it just means that a good explanation would not be that the first cell just happened by accident. No one studying in the field of abiogenesis would ever say it did happen by accident. *

An atheist would, because he cannot say natural selection is at work. Right? The first appearance of the first living cell had to be designed or undesigned, right? What other alternative is there?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Leela

*No, it just means that a good explanation would not be that the first cell just happened by accident. No one studying in the field of abiogenesis would ever say it did happen by accident. *

An atheist would, because he cannot say natural selection is at work. Right? The first appearance of the first living cell had to be designed or undesigned, right? What other alternative is there?
Click to expand...
Undesigned doesn’t mean the same thing as by accident.
 
I’ll always remember reading in one of my college textbooks (though it was more like a thin book that the professor happened to select for the course). In the introduction, the author made a special point to talk about scientific theories, what they are, and what they are not.

What stuck out to me was that scientific theories are not necessarily 100% true, even though supposedly they are based on a body of facts and even laws. This is because theories are only our best estimates, based on what we know so far. They can be continually improved, or even replaced with better theories in the future.
 
Leela

*Undesigned doesn’t mean the same thing as by accident. *

An accident means something happens that is not intended. That is to say, it was not designed to happen. What alternatives are there to things that are intended and those that are not intended?

I think you will find that an atheist has to say that life was not intended. Therefore it was an accident. What else could it be? 🤷
 
Texas_Roofer said:
There are fundamental issues here as who is the audience?

I am not sure the author speaks from a position of authority. So only those who misunderstand can answer your question right? Wrong, there are type 1 and type 2 errors, so if type 1 people read this and change their mind (to match the article) they can still be wrong and thus become type 2 error! So I would say to you the article has little effect of any kind For who(?) sixth grade(?) yes absolutely, but I might still use it for the correct audience no

Here is the problem; Laws are really accepted by the vast majority of scientists, they are not infallible. Theories are potential Laws but lack the vast majority of educated believers. Hypotheses are ideas headed to theory but typically have few or no believers.

Here is an example E=MC(squared) was either always true, or never true. However it was a hypothesis in 1905 became a theory in the 1930’s(?) and was elevated to a law around the 1950’s or later. So it was not the science that changed but the opinion of people!!!

Now your question is not specific as to whether you mean “all life originated from evolution” or “some types of evolution exist” and those issues are far apart on the scale

hope that helps
Click to expand...
Right. Agree. Moreover, every human observation is but finite. Hence, even if one theory is “elevated” to a Law status, it is still a guess by philosophical standards. We will never know if such laws are valid in all parts of this universe and at all times. Finally, all Laws are based on the idea that the Universe has a certain level of order – an assumption that is based on nothing, unless we have Faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top