Thread: "Just a theory"

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Ooo, a Drgoodtrips hair theory.

MY theory is that there are only small, short patches left

What is a hypothesis?

A hypothesis is an idea or proposition that can be tested by observations or experiments, about the natural world. In order to be considered scientific, hypotheses are subject to scientific evaluation and must be falsifiable, which means that they are worded in such a way that they can be proven to be incorrect.

Example: When Gregor Mendel in 1865 studied the pattern of single trait inheritance of garden peas he formed a hypothesis on the manner of how these traits were inherited. The hypothesis he formed based on his observations included the following:

1. In the organism there is a pair of factors that controls the appearance of a given characteristic.
2. The organism inherits these factors from its parents, one from each.
3. Each is transmitted from generation to generation as a discrete, unchanging unit.
4. When the gametes are formed, the factors separate and are distributed as units to each gamete. (This statement is also known as Mendel's rule of segregation.)
5. If an organism has two unlike factors for a characteristic, one may be expressed to the total exclusion of the other.

What is a scientific theory?

To scientists, a theory is a coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world.

A theory is:

* Internally consistent and compatible with the evidence
* Firmly grounded in and based upon evidence
* Tested against a wide range of phenomena
* Demonstrably effective in problem-solving

In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over many independent experiments. Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws. The procedures and processes for testing a theory are well-defined within each scientific discipline.

Example: Between 1856 and 1863 Mendel cultivated and tested some 28,000 pea plants which brought forth two theories of how character traits are inherited. Ironically, when Mendel's paper was published on 1866, it had little impact. It wasn't until the early 20th century that the enormity of his ideas was realized.

What is a scientific law?

A scientific law is a description of a natural phenomenon or principle that invariably holds true under specific conditions and will occur under certain circumstances.

Example: In the early 20th century, after repeated tests and rejection of all competing theories Mendel's Laws of Heredity were accepted by the general scientific community.

1. The law of segregation, which states that the alleles governing a trait are separated during the creation of gametes (meiosis).
2. The law of independent assortment, which states that the genes controlling different traits are distributed separately from each other during meiosis.

Lots of historical and scientific information about Gregor Mendel and his work can be found at the Mendel Museum.

Example 2: In the late 17th Century, Nicholas Steno established some natural laws relating to geology.

1. The law of original horizontality - this states that when sediments are deposited in water, they will sink through it and deposit as horizontal layers as the result of gravity (unless acted on by other forces).
2. The law of stratigraphic succession - this states that in a given sequence of sediments, the oldest will be at the bottom and the youngest at the top. It does not provide ages for those sediments, simply the sequence of their deposition.

http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Theories.shtml

the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē) pronunciation
n., pl. -ries.

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


Thesaurus
theory

noun

1. Abstract reasoning: conjecture, speculation. See belief/unbelief, thoughts.
2. A belief used as the basis for action: hypothesis. See belief/unbelief, thoughts.
3. Something taken to be true without proof: assumption, postulate, postulation, premise, presupposition, supposition, thesis. See reason/unreason.

http://www.answers.com/theory&r=67

My Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 1999 gives this as the definition:

2. a speculative idea or plan as to how something might be done

I guess it depends on what you are theorizing as to how to use the word theory!!!!!

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

You can also "see" your face in the water when you look at a clear lake, but that does not prove that you are in the lake. The point of the excercise is that it is quite impossible to prove that the sun exists.

That is what is exasperating - people conflate scientific terms and layman's terms and then use this bastardized half-breed vocabulary to reach nonsensical conclusions. I have no problem with people believing whatever they want to believe, but I do have a problem when certain people capitalize on semantics, misunderstanding, and unreasonable doubt to manipulate others into buying into things that don't make sense.

This was my original intention with this thread - to lay out the difference between "theory" in science and "theory" in common speech. If scientists were speaking as laypeople, and not subject to rigorous scientific definition, they would say "the fact of gravity", "the fact of relativity", and "the fact of evolution". They only call them "theories" because a scientific "theory" is much different from its co-opted cousin in day to day language. It irritates me when people misuse this discrepancy to make what they incorrectly believe to be a point.

Aren't gravity and relativity laws and not a theories? Evolution is not a law but a theory, and to those of us that doubt it, it's really only a hypothesis.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I think the logic would be comparable to me going to the doctor, having him feel my forehead and telling me, "You're quite cool." I then go to my friends and say, "Dude, I'm so cool! The doctor told me so - and he's a doctor, so you know it's true."

Also, for those of you who feel a need for scientific theories to be proven, how about an excercise in the nature of proof. Here's a simple "theory" - see if you can "prove" it.

Theory: The sun exists.

Proof:___________________

I'll take a whack at it.

I pointed, at that big burning ball of fire, just now. You didn't see but lets assume I did.

(Going off on tangent because dumb argument that 'theory' = zomg lets replace it with god is silly)

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Aren't gravity and relativity laws and not a theories?

Nope. They're theories. A "scientific law" is not really any different than a theory, but rather a subset of theory. A "law" is simply a reference to a nearly universally accepted theory (ie Newton's "laws" of mechanics are really theories). The distinction you attempt to fenagle here is also lacking, as evolutionary theory is regarded by the scientific community in the same category as gravity, relativity, or magnetism.

Evolution is not a law but a theory, and to those of us that doubt it, it's really only a hypothesis.

Well, to those who believe in flat earth, Galileo's theory of a heliocentric universe is a "only a hypothesis". I don't mean to sound snide, but you have to accept the fact that if you disagree with an established scientific theory, you're disagreeing with an overwhelming majority of people, and also with pretty much every reputable scientist. Some people are fine with hoeing that long row, and I have no problem with it, per se. People can believe whatever they choose - but the fact that you really, really, really want something to be true does not cause it to belong in the realm of science.

Originally Posted by MiB

I'll take a whack at it.

I pointed, at that big burning ball of fire, just now. You didn't see but lets assume I did.

I'm no philosopher, so I'll try to keep this more logical:

What I'm looking for is a proof that the sun exists. You moving your arm in a particular manner is not a proof of that.

(Going off on tangent because dumb argument that 'theory' = zomg lets replace it with god is silly)

I agree with you on this. The purpose of this thread was to have a reference to point to regarding people saying that theories are not true because they're "just theories". For this reason, I'm trying not to head down the evolution/creation road in earnest, because this also applies to people who don't believe in gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, or any other established theories. And, while there aren't a lot of these out there, there should be, since most of these would also need to be violated for a young earth to be reasonable.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Okay...


We can exhaustively prove that all possible force vectors in existence result from one of four qualitative sources? Amazing!

Even if you proved the existance of another force, that would not change the fundamental of gravity nor change the status of evolution as just a theory.

Those who believe that evolution is a fact usually use the logic
1) I believe in naturalism
2) naturalism requires evolution
3) evolution is therefore a fact

The problem with this is that naturalism is a belief not a fact. It will continue to be just a belief until you can prove that everything that has happened to bring us to this point (the big bang, and the development of life, especially intellegent life) all has happened within an acceptable range of probabilities. I have studied this out. I don't just accept things on faith, and I don't think will ever happen.

Originally Posted by Freeman

Even if you proved the existance of another force, that would not change the fundamental of gravity nor change the status of evolution as just a theory.

Not to be rude, but this statement makes it clear that you did not read and understand my post. You cannot exhaustively prove that a fifth, sixth or seventh natural force does not exist, ergo the theory of four fundamental forces is just that - a theory. This is a matter of semantics where you are going to find yourself on the short end. You are essentially arguing that gravitation is a building block of the universe, the way that we would define the identity property of multiplication or the inverse property of addition. Uh-uh. Applied science simply does not work that way. You can't define something that you consider readily apparent and say that it's a tautology. Your argument here is ridiculous - you're saying that gravity is factual because you're okay with it and that evolution is a theory because you're not okay with it. Unfortunately for you, standard scientific practice is not to run things by you to see if they aesthetically please you, and then to categorize them. Whether you approve or not, relativity, gravitation, evolution, and magnetism are all theories.

Those who believe that evolution is a fact usually use the logic
1) I believe in naturalism
2) naturalism requires evolution
3) evolution is therefore a fact

This is not how scientists arrived at the theory of evolution, but your lame strawman argument is neither here nor there. The purpose of this thread is not to argue evolution or creation but rather to establish a set of "goalposts" by which the term theory may be defined in both the casual and the scientific arenas. That your preconceived notions bias you against evolutionary theory, but miraculously allow you to buy other science is irrelevant. This applies to any theory. You'll notice that the purpose of this thread is to establish a mundane thing - the definition of a theory. You can make of it what you will that the only people in here arguing against a scientific standard (ie, definition of a theory) feel the way that you do.

I have studied this out. I don't just accept things on faith, and I don't think will ever happen.

You believe in intelligent design, and you "don't just accept things on faith"? Goodness gracious - I think that you need to do a little soul-searching if you aspire to have a shred of intellectual consistency. I really don't give a rat's patoot what you believe, but I do care about scientific integrity as someone who has extensively studied various sciences. You can believe in my good buddy Melvin the Wonder Toaster, who created the world some 25 years ago, if you would like - just keep it scientific when you're discussing science.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Nope. They're theories. A "scientific law" is not really any different than a theory, but rather a subset of theory. A "law" is simply a reference to a nearly universally accepted theory (ie Newton's "laws" of mechanics are really theories). The distinction you attempt to fenagle here is also lacking, as evolutionary theory is regarded by the scientific community in the same category as gravity, relativity, or magnetism.

I found this earlier today and now I can't remember where:

A scientific Law is a readily demonstrable fact, that cannot be disproven.

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested, and not found faulty, usually also having been found somewhat useful.

A scientific hypothesis (and I stress the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory") is an educated guess; it is nothing more than a speculation that can be tested.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I'm no philosopher, so I'll try to keep this more logical:

What I'm looking for is a proof that the sun exists. You moving your arm in a particular manner is not a proof of that.

At some point (simple observable phenominum) one must simply state that it is self-evident that the object exists. We build more complex concepts up on these self-evident concepts (for example, you can't properly define a tree until you've gotten rather far along in your knowledge - for a fairly long time, its just a tree, self-evident, there it is. No "formal" definition as such exists for it - its just "that thing right there,") but in the end all knowledge must (through some chain of learning) lead back to these self-evident concepts, that which is.

If you're asking me to prove that little pink demons aren't hallucinating the sun for me, well, you're moving beyond the realm of the useful and into the realm of philosophy.

Its quite sad that philosophy has driven itself from at one time the (literally) study of everything, ever, to a bunch of old men playing parlor tricks on each other with semantics about logic, ignoring what their advanced concepts are rooted in things they're "disproving."

I mean, prove this or that exists, existants, things we observe and interact with, are the things we end up building other proofs on. The entire system of (applicable) thought means that we have to start somewhere - being humans, the best place to start is easily observable exitants, such as the sun.

Yes, tendy logical systems insist that we can't "prove" that, in my mind that means the trendy logicians are retards who are rather eager to make themselves irrelevant.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I agree with you on this. The purpose of this thread was to have a reference to point to regarding people saying that theories are not true because they're "just theories". For this reason, I'm trying not to head down the evolution/creation road in earnest, because this also applies to people who don't believe in gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, or any other established theories. And, while there aren't a lot of these out there, there should be, since most of these would also need to be violated for a young earth to be reasonable.

"Theory" scientifically means that its good enough to use and get useful results out of, as I recall. Perhaps the theory of evolution is incorrect in some manner (I can't see why, but hey,) but as it is the best science has to offer as yet, its what we have to go on.