Ongoing debate with roomy

[shev]

There's been an ongoing and frustrating debate with my roommate, one that hopefully you guys can resolve. He thinks a theory can evolve into a fact once it has enough evidence, and I think a theory will never become a fact because it explains the fact. Specifically, we were talking about gravity, he says it's a fact because we can see it, and I say there's a theory of gravity to explain that fact of gravity.

[swansont]

Your roomy is wrong.

 

Gravity exists — we accept that as fact. We have observed it, and have a reasonable expectation that we will continue to observe it. The theory of gravity is the reason why gravity behaves the way it does, as explained in the theory of general relativity (which reduces to Newton's law of gravity)

[iNow]

Shev - I also think it warrants some time by you and your roomy to learn more about the difference between the word "theory" when non-scientists use it (which is usually better described as a conjecture), and the word "theory" when scientists use it.

 

Here's a good place to start - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

 

 

The simple truth is that a theory is FAR more powerful than a mere fact. A theory in science is the highest possible form one can achieve, as it is a consistent framework to explain those facts and make predictions and run tests. If you think of it like money, a fact is a nickel, and a theory is a $20 bill. Be sure to read that wiki link above. It explains this very well.

[Mr Skeptic]

You could consider a well-supported theory to be a "fact about the universe", but that is just asking for trouble -- not everyone will agree as to what a "fact" is. Best to just judge a theory by how accurately and precisely it predicts things. It matters more how useful a theory is than whether it is "true".