Mike Cl and I were discussing this in another thread, but I thought this should be it's own thread.
The word theory in science means a fact, or facts, or is an explanation of facts? Mike said that, in the scientific sense, theory and fact are the same thing, but another contact of mine disagrees, and instead normally stresses that scientific theories are EXPLANATIONS of scientific FACTS.
How do folks here think we (and by ''we'' I mean all of us) can settle this matter?
Goggle: scientific theory. Simple
Conspiracy theories aren't theories. They're unsubstantiated claims. They're powered by anger, bias, hate, and confusion that causes distress.
What Is a Scientific Theory?
https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."
The process of becoming a scientific theory
Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that doesn't fit into a currently accepted scientific theory. In other words, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step â€" known as a theory â€" in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon. "
Steps of the Scientific Method:
1. Ask a Question
The scientific method starts when you ask a question about something that you observe: How, What, When, Who, Which, Why, or Where?
2. Do Background Research
Rather than starting from scratch in putting together a plan for answering your question, you want to be a savvy scientist using library and Internet research to help you find the best way to do things and ensure that you don't repeat mistakes from the past.
3. Construct a Hypothesis
A hypothesis is an educated guess about how things work. It is an attempt to answer your question with an explanation that can be tested. A good hypothesis allows you to then make a prediction:
"If _____[I do this] _____, then _____[this]_____ will happen."
State both your hypothesis and the resulting prediction you will be testing. Predictions must be easy to measure.
4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Your experiment tests whether your prediction is accurate and thus your hypothesis is supported or not. It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. You conduct a fair test by making sure that you change only one factor at a time while keeping all other conditions the same.
You should also repeat your experiments several times to make sure that the first results weren't just an accident.
5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Once your experiment is complete, you collect your measurements and analyze them to see if they support your hypothesis or not.
Scientists often find that their predictions were not accurate and their hypothesis was not supported, and in such cases they will communicate the results of their experiment and then go back and construct a new hypothesis and prediction based on the information they learned during their experiment. This starts much of the process of the scientific method over again. Even if they find that their hypothesis was supported, they may want to test it again in a new way.
Conclusions
6. Communicate Your Results
To complete your science fair project you will communicate your results to others in a final report and/or a display board. Professional scientists do almost exactly the same thing by publishing their final report in a scientific journal or by presenting their results on a poster or during a talk at a scientific meeting. In a science fair, judges are interested in your findings regardless of whether or not they support your original hypothesis.
Quote from: Paolo on March 03, 2021, 04:45:10 AM
Mike Cl and I were discussing this in another thread, but I thought this should be it's own thread.
The word theory in science means a fact, or facts, or is an explanation of facts? Mike said that, in the scientific sense, theory and fact are the same thing, but another contact of mine disagrees, and instead normally stresses that scientific theories are EXPLANATIONS of scientific FACTS.
How do folks here think we (and by ''we'' I mean all of us) can settle this matter?
Without the 'facts' the explanations would simply be conjecture--or a hypothesis. A scientific explanation (whether theory or not--some hypothesis end up being not true, based upon the scientific method) explains what the facts are and how they can be stated as such. The explanations are based upon the truth or untruth of a hypothesis.
Quote from: Paolo on March 03, 2021, 04:45:10 AMThe word theory in science means a fact, or facts, or is an explanation of facts? Mike said that, in the scientific sense, theory and fact are the same thing, but another contact of mine disagrees, and instead normally stresses that scientific theories are EXPLANATIONS of scientific FACTS.
Scientific theories are essentially models that explain facts. I cannot stress enough how important they are in science, because they allow scientists to make sense of data and make predictions.
Scientific theories are not guesses, nor do they graduate to become facts. So one should not confuse the colloquial word theory (a guess/hunch) with scientific theory, which is a completely different term. Creationists exploited this linguistic similarity to assert that scientific theories are inherently shaky and "unproven". This is a deliberate misunderstanding as part of a political campaign to discredit and diminish science in the eyes of the people - a campaign still active today.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 03, 2021, 11:23:41 AM
Scientific theories are essentially models that explain facts. I cannot stress enough how important they are in science, because they allow scientists to make sense of data and make predictions.
Scientific theories are not guesses, nor do they graduate to become facts. So one should not confuse the colloquial word theory (a guess/hunch) with scientific theory, which is a completely different term. Creationists exploited this linguistic similarity to assert that scientific theories are inherently shaky and "unproven". This is a deliberate misunderstanding as part of a political campaign to discredit and diminish science in the eyes of the people - a campaign still active today.
The misuse of the word "theory" by Creationists is proof that they are not scientists. If they were real scientists, they would be proposing an alternative theory, which they've yet to do, rather than trying to discredit evolution as "just a theory." Evolution is "just a theory" that just has no competition.
Quote from: Paolo on March 03, 2021, 04:45:10 AM
Mike Cl and I were discussing this in another thread, but I thought this should be it's own thread.
The word theory in science means a fact, or facts, or is an explanation of facts? Mike said that, in the scientific sense, theory and fact are the same thing, but another contact of mine disagrees, and instead normally stresses that scientific theories are EXPLANATIONS of scientific FACTS.
How do folks here think we (and by ''we'' I mean all of us) can settle this matter?
Theories are not facts. Theories are explanations of observations. It is the observations that are facts.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on March 03, 2021, 03:30:16 PM
Theories are not facts. Theories are explanations of observations. It is the observations that are facts.
My wording might have not been exact, but Google more than backs me up on this. After a little more research, I found this: ''A theory is a proposed explanation of something. ...
This is because one sense of “theory†is “speculation.†However, in scientific writing, it means the complete opposite of this. https://getproofed.com/writing-tips/hypothesis-theory-scientific-language/
The opposite of ''speculation'' is ''fact''. So it is not entirely wrong to say that (scientific) theories are facts, although it is, I admit, little more than a semantic issue.
Quote from: Paolo on March 03, 2021, 04:12:55 PM
My wording might have not been exact, but Google more than backs me up on this. After a little more research, I found this: ''A theory is a proposed explanation of something. ... This is because one sense of “theory†is “speculation.†However, in scientific writing, it means the complete opposite of this. https://getproofed.com/writing-tips/hypothesis-theory-scientific-language/
The opposite of ''speculation'' is ''fact''. So it is not entirely wrong to say that (scientific) theories are facts, although it is, I admit, little more than a semantic issue.
It isn't a semantics issue. Theories are not facts. Theories change. Facts do not. Evolution is a fact. It has been observed over and over again. The theory of evolution is a different story. It is constantly evolving itself. New observations are made and the theory is modified in light of new facts.
Quote from: Paolo on March 03, 2021, 04:12:55 PM
My wording might have not been exact, but Google more than backs me up on this. After a little more research, I found this: ''A theory is a proposed explanation of something. ... This is because one sense of “theory†is “speculation.†However, in scientific writing, it means the complete opposite of this. https://getproofed.com/writing-tips/hypothesis-theory-scientific-language/
The opposite of ''speculation'' is ''fact''. So it is not entirely wrong to say that (scientific) theories are facts, although it is, I admit, little more than a semantic issue.
Not exactly. Scientific theories are the opposite of speculation because they're based on facts, whereas the common use of the word "theory" is either baseless or built on shaky logic. Contrary to popular belief, a theory is never graduated to the state of a law once it is proven. A theory can never been proven; it can only be supported. The theory of evolution has roots in just about every field of science, including medicine and psychology, so it's as close as a theory can get to proven, but it never will be 100% proven. Hypothetically, someone could come along with a better theory, but that's very unlikely.
Quote from: Paolo on March 03, 2021, 04:12:55 PMMy wording might have not been exact, but Google more than backs me up on this.
(https://i.imgur.com/Tha5II0.jpg)
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 03, 2021, 05:01:07 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/Tha5II0.jpg)
Your friend from the moderation seems to be fond of Google as well! :winkle:
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 03, 2021, 04:52:33 PM
Not exactly. Scientific theories are the opposite of speculation because they're based on facts, whereas the common use of the word "theory" is either baseless or built on shaky logic.
I have to admit that's a good point I should consider.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on March 03, 2021, 04:27:29 PM
It isn't a semantics issue. Theories are not facts. Theories change. Facts do not. Evolution is a fact. It has been observed over and over again. The theory of evolution is a different story. It is constantly evolving itself. New observations are made and the theory is modified in light of new facts.
So the statement ''the theory of evolution is a fact'', took literally, would be wrong?
Quote from: Paolo on March 04, 2021, 01:17:30 AM
So the statement ''the theory of evolution is a fact'', took literally, would be wrong?
The Theory of Evolution is a theory. But evolution is a fact. I think you confuse the two. Don't. They are at best related, but very different. At the time Darwin proposed the theory, few people understood it to be fact. Darwin based his theory on his observations. The only facts at his disposal were that life on isolated islands of the Galapagos varied in a way that appeared to him to be favored by differing environments. Facts were scant, but his ideas made sense, even when expanded to the Earth as a whole. So Darwin proposed a theory.
At the time the theory was first proposed, evolution was a fact, but we weren't as sure about it back then. I prefer to say evolution is the "reality". Darwin could have been wrong. But after a hundred years of observations, advancements in science, like the discovery of DNA, new fossil finds, and further study did the theory become widely recognized as indisputable fact, and during those one hundred years, not a single scientific discovery could dispute the theory of evolution, which solidified the reality of evolution even more. Of course some people still deny it, but they are mostly limited to an uneducated fringe element or religious folks who feel that the theory threatens their belief system.
Darwin held off on publishing his theory, because he was very religious and feared a backlash from the church, but he eventually published the theory, partly because that's what science does, even in the face of protest, and possibly because another observer was about to publish very similar findings. With or without Darwin, the theory of evolution was going to happen. There was just too much there that made sense, and there was no factual evidence to deny it.
Quote from: Paolo on March 04, 2021, 01:17:30 AM
So the statement ''the theory of evolution is a fact'', took literally, would be wrong?
That is correct. A theory, even a scientific theory is not a fact. A theory is an explanation of the hows and whys of a set of observations. A scientific theory is a theory that has been repeatably tested using the scientific method yielding repeatable results. The integral model of the theory of evolution is considerably different than Darwin's model.
(https://epicofevolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/@EvolutionOfTheory1.png)
The theory of evolution would fill multiple written volumes. It has evolved over time. We have no reason to believe it will not continue to do so as new facts become available to us. Theories are subject to change as new data becomes available. Facts don't change.
I do not know where I read this or got this idea from, then. I found an article in The Statesman online which said: ''Evolution, because it's a theory, is a higher form of knowledge than a fact'' (https://web.archive.org/web/20080510170955/media.www.sbstatesman.com/media/storage/paper955/news/2008/05/08/Opinion/Evolution.And.The.Word.theory-3365654.shtml). But the author did not elaborate much on this sentence, so I really have no sources to support me.
It nevertheless remains a 'fact' that theory in common sense is the complete opposite of theory in the scientific sense, which is what I meant.
Thanks for the informative posts. If I find new information, I will post here again.
Paolo? You understand that personally you -or me or people here, anywhere- can't really question these concepts to challenge their definitions and meanings, right? Do you understand this? Why are you trying to catch a set of terms out? This is not learning. Nobody gets to have a personal opinion or some home cooked definitions with these concepts. This is not scepticism. It's more like Dunning Kruger syndrome, and a bad case at that. You learn these from textbooks. If you really do want to understand them that is.
From the top of my head, as some trivial kind of information goes, the word fact has been adopted from Latin in relation to law, several hundred years ago. (English) Hence, 'in this case'. And it is transferred to natural sciences when it was needed. (Natural philosophy in its day.) Theory is ancient Greek -probably was adopted around the same time around, considering the period; 16th century?- and orignally, it means something like 'speculation'. Again we are talking about the word being adopted by the English language. And again, nothing of its usage remotely close to ours, until 18th century or may be late 17th at the most?
Most of the terms in natural sciences (esp. medicine) are coming from latin terms used in law. The idea of 'context' is coming from the law to begin with roughly. As in a certain situation; a 'circumstance'. (To code it in modern pop cultural terms, bastardising it; why Sherlock Holmes is a universal character? Because Arthur Conan Doyle was a physician. Furthermore in history, most of the people who have attempted to 'theorise' in various fields -including the humanities- are either physicians or lawyers. The first sense of method and theory.)
This historical law-medicine-linguistic-theorisation, methodology... roots of human thought thing -and at some other fields, sometimes gastronomy- have shaped the accumulation of knowledge in history. They looked at everything, not just living things, in a span of birth, growth, decay and death. They defined periods, eras, movements, events with their 'symptoms', health, sickness...etc., tried to determine thier circumtances; situations and they created contexts, so concepts. This is the primitive historical development in a small nutshell.
Today, they have evolved into different concepts, invented and re-invented, continously employed and re-employed into new contexts. Esp. when Latin -far more than ancient Greek- is in question, going for the original or some neat definition is a fool's errand. It's not needed either. Two grand scientific revolutions changed everything.
You should read about these definitions from some basic textbooks. If you want to learn how they have evolved, your key words are: EMPRICISM. John Locke. George Berkeley. David Hume. [Going back further in time, Francis Bacon. (There is another Bacon before him. Don't get into 'but which Bacon' bullshit.)] Thesis. Antithesis. Synthesis. Hypothesis. Theory. Scientific method. Scientific theory. Paradigm shift.