scientific theory vs. fact

[dragonstar57]

almost every time a non-scientist uses the word theory it means guess or educated guess.

but correct me if I am wrong but when a scientist uses the word theory it means that it is not 100% proven but all indications strongly point towards the conclusion they have made. and while it still needs to be tested until it is proven can it be treated as "near fact".

so kinda voiding the phrase "just a theory"

 

 

 

note this is not a creationist vs evolution thread so please keep to the topic

thank you

Edited August 30, 2010 by cipher510

[swansont]

No theory is ever proven, just accepted owing to the weight of the evidence.

[dragonstar57]

but what i'm asking is if the following statement is true or false:scientific theory is almost as good as fact so even if something is "just a theory" it deserves the same or near the same respect as a a fact

(after all "facts" sometime turn out to be wrong too )

[Mr Skeptic]

There's no such thing as "scientific fact". Simply put, some formulas and explanations can be used to accurately and numerically predict what will happen in a particular situation, and have done so in every situation scientists tested it in. Is it true? There's no way to tell. You could say at least it is close to true.

[dragonstar57]

isn't that getting a little unnecessarily philosophical?

there are many things in science that are more than worthy of being called facts.

[mississippichem]

Fact is a dirty word. One can always argue that something wasn't tested enough times or under extreme enough conditions. Theories are as close to fact as we need. Models that fit mathematically with all observed data thus far and can make predictions about future data is good enough for me. The first law of thermodyamics could fall apart tomorrow with some groundbreaking experiment. But I highly doubt it because that would contradict a massive body of tried and tested research that happens to make good logical and mathematical sense. So I'll go ahead and say the first law of thermodynamics reaches a "limit" as x approaches fact .It will never become fact, but it gets infintesimaly closer everytime it is tested.

[Ophiolite]

cipher 510, you have nailed it. For all practical purposes certain theories are treated as facts by scientists. The scientists who work with those theories may have a philosophical , dare I say it - theoretical notion that doubts still surround the idea, but in their primate brains those are facts. There is also a lot of vacillating between facts and observations. We observe that the Earth is round, not a flat disc floating on an ocean of mercury, but at one time that would have been a theory. The problem is that many get nervous (or infuriated) when they hear the words 'it is just a theory' and engage in a kneejerk reaction, fearing the imminent appearance of creationists or moon landing deniers.

 

Of course that's just my theory of what's going on.

[Darwinsbulldog]

Science does not prove anything. A successful scientific theory is one that is robustly supported by the evidence, and nothing [to date] to contradict it. Philosophers may highen awareness that science is not perfect....eg David Hume on the problems of induction or whatever. That is all good, a cautionary tale to keep us sharp and skeptical. One can so easily fall in love with one's own theory-which is why we have peer review.

As for facts, they are much the same. Evolution is a fact. Until Haldane's genuine fossil bunnies start hopping out of preCambrian rock, it will stil be a fact. The value of science is the destructive testing of it's ideas, and while it may not be perfect, it is a far superior system to some of the others on offer.

 

Like God, exists, now let's set out to prove it? Religion fails as a system of knowledge because of this "confirmation bias". Religion makes smart people think dumb thoughts and more modest intellects psychotic. Take Pascal. A smart guy. Now think about Pascal's wager. It does not take a genius or philosophy PhD to find holes in his case. Or William Paley's. Or go modern, to someone like Kenneth B. Miller, who posits that god can interact at the quantum level. Or Francisco Ayala, who thinks god works through evolution. Both untestable assertions from folks who are trained in methodological naturalism. And yet, those god of the gaps arguments keep re-appearing, not because new evidence of god has arrived, but due to faith that god exists. Real scientists are "evidence sluts"-their opinion is where the evidence is, not where they want it to be. If religious propositions were so self-evidently true, then they should survive destructive testing. They don't. But there not just propositions, they are touted as facts by the faithful. Hence the intellectual bankruptcy of NOMA. Sorry for the digress, but comapring non-facts and non-theory with real facts and real theory puts both into sharp relief. Pseudosciences are the same as religion, they make the same mistakes. But non-explanations like pseudo-science and religion as memes replicate faster than memes [like science] that require thought and effort and honesty.

[Ophiolite]

Now think about Pascal's wager. It does not take a genius or philosophy PhD to find holes in his case. Or William Paley's.

That would be the same William Paley whose work Darwin so admired and whose structure he consciously copied elements of when writing Origin?

Self righteous attacks on thinkers who got it wrong, but have an intellect likely superior to your own make you look more foolish than them. Try sticking to facts in future.

[swansont]

I go with Gould's definition. In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

[dragonstar57]

Pseudosciences are the same as religion,

 

 

I see how most the stuff in the Pseudoscience page is like that but there are some "fringe sciences" that are not well understood by most regular people but the people working such theories surely are following the strictest scientific practices. and I doubt that such a scientist would ever publish a unfalsifiable theory or one that hasn't already been throughly tested

Edited August 31, 2010 by cipher510

[Darwinsbulldog]

That would be the same William Paley whose work Darwin so admired and whose structure he consciously copied elements of when writing Origin?

Self righteous attacks on thinkers who got it wrong, but have an intellect likely superior to your own make you look more foolish than them. Try sticking to facts in future.

 

Yes, it is the same Paley. It is true the young Darwin was very taken with Paley's argument. It is after all, a persuasive one if you make the mistake of accepting the premise of the argument. Darwin's travels, and his later research caused him to re-think.

"Evolutionists" existed well before Darwin's time, and arguably go back to Classical Greece with folks like Democritus. The main problem with the evolutionary argument was the idea of a natural mechanism that would explain how evolution could work without a supernatural agent such as God.

It is interesting that you jump to specualtions about my intellectual powers, or lack of them. In fact I admire Paley's arguments in the context of what was known at the time of Darwin. David Hume for example, came very close to cracking the problem. Daniel C. Dennett called Darwin's insight a "Strange Inversion of reasoning":-

 

Dennett, D. (2009). "Darwin's “strange inversion of reasoning”." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(Supplement 1): 10061-10065.

 

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection unifies the world of physics with the world of meaning and purpose by proposing a deeply counterintuitive “inversion of reasoning” (according to a 19th century critic): “to make a perfect and beautiful machine, it is not requisite to know how to make it” [MacKenzie RB (1868) (Nisbet & Co., London)]. Turing proposed a similar inversion: to be a perfect and beautiful computing machine, it is not requisite to know what arithmetic is. Together, these ideas help to explain how we human intelligences came to be able to discern the reasons for all of the adaptations of life, including our own.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/suppl.1/10061.full

 

Science is often counter-intuitive, and so it does not help if one starts from a firm belief, and then tries to prove it.

[CharonY]

cipher 510, you have nailed it. For all practical purposes certain theories are treated as facts by scientists. The scientists who work with those theories may have a philosophical , dare I say it - theoretical notion that doubts still surround the idea, but in their primate brains those are facts. There is also a lot of vacillating between facts and observations. We observe that the Earth is round, not a flat disc floating on an ocean of mercury, but at one time that would have been a theory. The problem is that many get nervous (or infuriated) when they hear the words 'it is just a theory' and engage in a kneejerk reaction, fearing the imminent appearance of creationists or moon landing deniers.

 

Of course that's just my theory of what's going on.

 

Well, the problem is who do you think mostly claims "it is just a theory?" Someone who took time to look at the theory in detail or someone with a specific agenda but little knowledge? I think nervous is the wrong word. Bored and annoyed is more fitting and hence does not elicit little more than a kneejerk. Why go through all the trouble the upteemth time in detail for nothing? Of course, sometimes more legitimate questions may go unnoticed or misinterpreted due the unholy noise-to-signal ratio in fora.

[Ophiolite]

Well, the problem is who do you think mostly claims "it is just a theory?" Someone who took time to look at the theory in detail or someone with a specific agenda but little knowledge?

someone who is relatively uneducated in science, but could benefit from such an education. They will not benefit from a hard core, 'get a riiging education' response, whther this explicit or implicit. they might benefit from a careful, diplomatic, respectful explanation. Those who do come with an agenda will not be influenced by anything that is said.

[IM Egdall]

I think the word "theory" confuses the public, because it is used so generally.

 

For example, quantum theory and the theory of general relativity have survived nearly a hundred years of rigorous testing. The predictions of these two theories have been examined in thousands, maybe millions of actual experiments and observations. And results show extraordinary agreement between prediction and measurement.

 

But string or M-theory has been around for what 30 or more years, and there is still no single compelling piece of evidence to support or refute it. But it too is called a theory.

 

Yes, technically you can't "prove" a theory. This would require testing it for all possible conditions, which is an infinite number; thus impossible. But certainly some theories have been experimentally tested to great success. Others can make no such claim. We need a different word for the two types. (and for those in between that have some empirical support.)

 

Any ideas?

[pioneer]

Empirical theory is also different from rational theory. Rational theory can fail with one bad data point. Empirical theory has developed special fudge math designed to absorb a lot of bad data so it does not impact the theory as much as a rational theory. This allows less than rational theory to linger. A special form of empirical theory, using the concept of risk, is even more watered down, allowing more bad data (does not apply) than good (does apply) and still qualify as science theory.

 

For example, I might claim that eating oranges increases the risk of cancer. Even if 99% of the collected data does not cooperate with my theory, my theory can still be considered valid simply because we use the risk umbrella allowing a lower standard. Rational theory has the hardest standard, with science moving in the direction of the more watered down standard. At that point, politics can come more into play, since bad data is no longer a way to discredit any theory.

 

Relativity is a rational theory that does not have to use the fudging math to absorb bad data. Rather it works very nicely using the harder rational standard. Say Newton had invented bad data hiding math instead of calculus. This could have prevented the need for relativity for decades.

Edited September 26, 2010 by pioneer

[ajb]

The trouble here lies in the fact that the word "theory" has several inequivalent meanings.

 

1) In philosophy it means "contemplation or speculation".

 

2) In science (generally) "proposed explanation of empirical data".

 

3) In physics "a mathematical model to describe nature or part there of".

 

4) In mathematics "a collection or body of knowledge".

 

 

Now, the trouble is that 1) and 2) get a bit mixed and then so does 3). "Theoretical" becomes "hypothetical" or even "speculative".

[ewmon]

I simply went to my thesaurus and found this —

 

• LAW implies an exact formulation of the principle operating in a sequence of events in nature, observed to occur with unvarying uniformity under the same conditions
   
  
• THEORY, as compared here, implies considerable evidence in support of a formulated general principle explaining the operation of certain phenomena
   
  
• HYPOTHESIS implies an inadequacy of evidence in support of an explanation that is tentatively inferred, often as a basis for further experimentation
  

[lemur]

I think "fact" should be reserved for direct observations. Theories explain observed facts, imo. To call a theory factual because it explains facts seems redundant to me because the issue isn't whether the theory explains the facts or not but what the implications of explaining them in this way or that are. Theories should not be compared, imo, in terms of relative veracity. Instead they should be compared in terms of how the differ from one another and how they approach the observed facts they explain. When patterns are observed among observed facts, the generalizations about such patterns should be referred to not as facts but as "observed patterns," imo.

Edited September 27, 2010 by lemur

[Mr Skeptic]

I think "fact" should be reserved for direct observations. Theories explain observed facts, imo. To call a theory factual because it explains facts seems redundant to me because the issue isn't whether the theory explains the facts or not but what the implications of explaining them in this way or that are. Theories should not be compared, imo, in terms of relative veracity. Instead they should be compared in terms of how the differ from one another and how they approach the observed facts they explain. When patterns are observed among observed facts, the generalizations about such patterns should be referred to not as facts but as "observed patterns," imo.

 

And what makes you think direct observation is so reliable? I prefer my facts verified by multiple independent parties and repeated tests, which cannot be done with any specific observation but rather only with more generic theories.

[lemur]

And what makes you think direct observation is so reliable? I prefer my facts verified by multiple independent parties and repeated tests, which cannot be done with any specific observation but rather only with more generic theories.

 

I'm not talking so much about whether a given fact is reliable or not. My point is that a fact is directly observable data, i.e. something that can be witnessed directly. Observed patterns, extrapolations, laws, etc. may be based on facts and correctly explain and predict facts, but does that make them facts themselves? I don't think it does. F=MA is not an observed fact, for example, it is an observed and tested generalization regarding numerous factual data observed in different situations. Something doesn't have to be a fact to be perfectly true. I just think it is useful to distinguish between directly observable facts and other forms of (true) knowledge that is not a description of direct observation.

[Mr Skeptic]

And what about a schizophrenic's observation that he saw someone sneaking around in his kitchen and putting something in his drink? What about the inevitable contradictions in eyewitness testimony, or that people's memory of an event can be altered? Just because someone saw or didn't see something doesn't make it a fact. A well-supported theory supersedes a few observations. Please remember that observations are not facts nor in any way superior to theories because observations are always based on theories. All the theoretical workings of an experimental apparatus, for example, are part of any observation made with said apparatus, and this includes the human brain.

[IM Egdall]

And what about a schizophrenic's observation that he saw someone sneaking around in his kitchen and putting something in his drink? What about the inevitable contradictions in eyewitness testimony, or that people's memory of an event can be altered? Just because someone saw or didn't see something doesn't make it a fact. A well-supported theory supersedes a few observations. Please remember that observations are not facts nor in any way superior to theories because observations are always based on theories. All the theoretical workings of an experimental apparatus, for example, are part of any observation made with said apparatus, and this includes the human brain.

 

We all perceive the world within the limitations of the human mind. But I still think there is a big difference between theory and observation. Someone comes up with a new theory. It may or may not reflect reality. Then someone else independently conducts tests which determine that the predictions of the new theory agree with observations (to a significant level of accuracy.) The test is then repeated by yet someone else. And then more and more predictions of this new theory are substantated by additional observations by yet more people. After a while, you have to admit that this new theory has some merit. It must reflect something about reality.

 

The chance that all these independent observervations are mistaken due to mental illness or something else is highly unlikely. Repeated, detailed, independent observations allow us to peek behind the veil of human perception and give us a glimse at reality.

Edited September 27, 2010 by I ME

[lemur]

And what about a schizophrenic's observation that he saw someone sneaking around in his kitchen and putting something in his drink? What about the inevitable contradictions in eyewitness testimony, or that people's memory of an event can be altered? Just because someone saw or didn't see something doesn't make it a fact. A well-supported theory supersedes a few observations. Please remember that observations are not facts nor in any way superior to theories because observations are always based on theories. All the theoretical workings of an experimental apparatus, for example, are part of any observation made with said apparatus, and this includes the human brain.

 

You seem to be confounding two different issues. One is the reliability of observations; and you're right, observers can be mistaken in what they observe. The second is the notion that the validity of a general theory can be truer than a pattern derived from a few observations. From my perspective, neither the theory nor the pattern is "factual." The only factuality possible, imo, is the factuality of individual observations. Once you move to pattern-extrapolation or theory-forming, you've transcended the level of observable facts and entered into the abstract realm of interpreting those facts.

 

Now, as far as observation of facts requiring theory, that may be true insofar as you have to know what you are interpreting in what you see. Nevertheless, the theory involved in observing a fact still requires some operationalization of something observable on the basis of sensory information. You can directly observe a paperclip accelerate toward a magnet, or toward the ground, but you cannot directly observe a magnetic field or gravity. Both are extrapolated from factual observations, not themselves (direct) factual observations. Magnetism or gravity may be a valid explanation for observed facts, or force/fields of magnetism or gravitation could be operationalized as the observable push or pull on an object and thereby observed as facts. However, I don't think a species is a fact but rather an observed pattern among observed facts of individual organisms. I.e. species is not directly observable in an organism except by reference to other observations in other situations.

[Mr Skeptic]

Sure, and you can't directly see the paperclip either. What enters your eye is light from a light source that hits the paperclip and is absorbed/reflected from it, passes through your cornea and lens, which focus the image onto your retina. The light excites the photosensitive cells in the retina, which excite nerves, which causes a series of depolarizations of nerves followed by release of hormones at the synapses and absorption into the synapses of the next nerve, etc, producing patterns of nerve impulses that travel to your brain and are interpreted by the visual cortex as a paperclip, then this information sent to your consciousness. (this is the simplified version of course). It is the series of nerve impulses that reach your consciousness that you are aware of, not the paperclip. The same pattern can be summoned to your consciousness via other means (dreaming, insanity, hallucination, memory, etc), therefore it cannot be said for sure that you saw a paperclip, rather the fact is that your consciousness is aware of a paperclip. To conclude that you did in fact see a paperclip all the above steps must have happened (well you can skip the lightsource if you use a red-hot paperclip, but then it won't be magnetic).

 

Now suppose that what you see is a paperclip dancing a jig. Is it a fact that the paperclip was dancing a jig? Why would this not be a fact if you consider the other things you see a paperclip does to be facts? Perhaps because you have theoretical reasons to believe paperclips do not dance and so what you saw was not real?