Definition of the term, 'theory,' as it applies to science

[andreasjva]

 

 

I don't agree. You're misusing the word theoretical. In science, if something has been tested as thoroughly as a theory, we don't say it's true but we say it's likely, or the most likely explanation, in the case of a theory like evolution, or The Big Bang. Theory is the best you can get in science.

 

Truth is a philosophical notion, and proof is for math, not science. Science relies on evidence.

 

We can prove something is false, we do that all the time. And if we don't have an explanation for something, we simply say, "We don't know yet".

 

I agree with what you said about belief. If you can trust an explanation, belief isn't necessary. Belief often leads to unreasonable stances.

 

 

I don't think I'm misusing theory at all. Theory is a probability of truth, not truth itself. That probability is weighed by human reasoning, which is fallible. As a general rule, the more theory involved in a concept the higher the probability for a flaw in human reasoning. Evolution has a fairly high probability of being correct for example, because its scope is very limited or focused. We also have very specific evidence that is tangible. It is a single theory based largely on hard tangible evidence. I would personally give it very near a 100% probability.

 

Where something like the Big Bang stands though is entirely different, because the entire concept is built on many theories. The best we can give it is 50/50 in my opinion. Personally, I think the odds are much less though, because it relies on so much theory and speculation, and speculates about speculations itself. There simply isn't enough hard evidence to draw a conclusion.

 

As I said though, as a basic rule of thumb in science there is only true (or facts), and theory (unknown), or as you say, we don't know yet. I personally feel science needs to spend a little more time saying "we don't know yet", and a little less time believing theory is true.

 

I'm not talking about truth philosophically, I'm talking true/false reasoning. There are only 3 choices, true, false, and unknown. The unknown needs to be weighed and measured by human intellect. Math is not fallible, people are. It is very unlikely any theory is mathematically incorrect. There's simply too much rigorous scrutiny on the mathematics in the peer review process. If there are errors, it's going to be in the interpretation and/or a lack of information to make an informed decision.

Edited February 10, 2015 by andreasjva

[Strange]

Evolution has a fairly high probability of being correct for example, because its scope is very limited or focused. We also have very specific evidence that is tangible. It is a single theory based largely on hard tangible evidence. I would personally give it very near a 100% probability.

 

Where something like the Big Bang stands though is entirely different, because the entire concept is built on many theories.

 

Evolution (the theory, rather than the fact) is probably better described as a familiy of theories. At the core there is the original Darwin/Wallace theory of natural selection. But since then we have had many extensions to this basic idea. It also builds upon a large number of related theories, such as those related to genetics, inheritance, development, ecology, sexual selection, etc.

 

So, I would classify this as a complex web of inter-related theories, built upon many others. It is of course supported by a large amount of evidence, although much of that is statistical and hard to understand without a good background in mathematics as well as the relvant science(s). Much of the evidence is debated and there are many factions and sub-theories in the field.

 

Although evolution clearly happens, we still have a lot to learn about all of the mechanisms involved.

 

On the other hand, the big bang model is a straightforward solution the the Einstein field equations. As physics is much more of a "hard" quantitative science, there is a large amount of solid, irrefutable evidence for the big bang. There is thus almost no room for doubt about the fact of expansion nor the mechanisms involved.

 

OK, maybe I exagerrate a little for effect. But basically, you are, once again, talking complete and utter nonsense.

 

 

As I said though, as a basic rule of thumb in science there is only true (or facts), and theory (unknown)

 

There is no "truth" in science. And theory does not mean unknown, it is as close to "true" as science gets. As shown by the examples of evolution and the big bang theory.

[Greg H.]

 

I don't think I'm misusing theory at all.

What you think is, by and large, immaterial. Law, Theory, and Hypothesis have strict definitions within the scientific community. Changing those definitions to try and prove your point doesn't prove your point. If you want to be able to communicate effectively with others, you can't just redefine terms willy nilly - although if you're open to that sort of thing, I'd love to talk to you about why the fluffly green cheese in the sky is mostly made up of circlets of potato rind.

 

(See what I mean about redefining terms?)

[andreasjva]

 

There is no "truth" in science. And theory does not mean unknown, it is as close to "true" as science gets. As shown by the examples of evolution and the big bang theory.

 

The truth in science is the math, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. There is a whole lot of truth in science. The theory is the human interpretation of the supporting math (truth) and observations. If there's an error it's going to be in the theory because that relies on human beings. The math is what it is, and it can be checked for physical errors. I can't help it if you don't like me using the word unknown. I honestly don't know why you think it's such a big deal. Unknown is not a static definition, it's simply a point of reference to place a level of certainty on something. You obviously believe the Big Bang is solved. I don't even think it's close.

 

 

What you think is, by and large, immaterial.

 

What I think, by and large, is important to me. I'm too old to care about what others think.

 

 

Changing those definitions to try and prove your point doesn't prove your point.

 

I didn't change anything. Truth is math. Theory is the human interpretation of the math and observations. That doesn't necessarily make a theory true. Even Strange agrees, there are no truths in science. Although, I think math is a definite truth, so I don't agree entirely with strange.

 

Seriously, if something isn't considered true, and that same something isn't considered false, than what is it? Unknown.

Edited February 10, 2015 by andreasjva

[Delta1212]

 

I don't think I'm misusing theory at all. Theory is a probability of truth, not truth itself. That probability is weighed by human reasoning, which is fallible. As a general rule, the more theory involved in a concept the higher the probability for a flaw in human reasoning. Evolution has a fairly high probability of being correct for example, because its scope is very limited or focused. We also have very specific evidence that is tangible. It is a single theory based largely on hard tangible evidence. I would personally give it very near a 100% probability.

 

Where something like the Big Bang stands though is entirely different, because the entire concept is built on many theories. The best we can give it is 50/50 in my opinion. Personally, I think the odds are much less though, because it relies on so much theory and speculation, and speculates about speculations itself. There simply isn't enough hard evidence to draw a conclusion.

 

As I said though, as a basic rule of thumb in science there is only true (or facts), and theory (unknown), or as you say, we don't know yet. I personally feel science needs to spend a little more time saying "we don't know yet", and a little less time believing theory is true.

 

I'm not talking about truth philosophically, I'm talking true/false reasoning. There are only 3 choices, true, false, and unknown. The unknown needs to be weighed and measured by human intellect. Math is not fallible, people are. It is very unlikely any theory is mathematically incorrect. There's simply too much rigorous scrutiny on the mathematics in the peer review process. If there are errors, it's going to be in the interpretation and/or a lack of information to make an informed decision.

You have it very backwards. Science demonstrates things to be false all the time, but nothing is ever proven 100% true. There are degrees of probable accuracy that can get very close to 100%, but nothing is ever put down as definitely true.

 

Theories, on the flip side, are detailed explanations of behavior in nature. They are not areas that are waiting around to have something proven true, because, again, nothing ever is. Some theories are more detailed than others, some have more predictive power, and some have more supporting evidence. But a scientific theory is not the same thing as a colloquial theory. It is not a guess or an idea that we have while we wait to find out what really happened. It is an explanation of what is going on, and the best explanation we will ever have for anything in science will still be a theory.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Delta1212

[andreasjva]

You have it very backwards. Science demonstrates things to be false all the time, but nothing is ever proven 100% true. There are degrees of probable accuracy that can get very close to 100%, but nothing is ever put down as definitely true.

 

Theories, on the flip side, are detailed explanations of behavior in nature. They are not areas that are waiting around to have something proven true, because, again, nothing ever is. Some theories are more detailed than others, some have more predictive power, and some have more supporting evidence. But a scientific theory is not the same thing as a colloquial theory. It is not a guess or an idea that we have while we wait to find out what really happened. It is an explanation of what is going on, and the best explanation we will ever have for anything in science will still be a theory.

 

I understand it perfectly. I'm not sure I agree with your explanation entirely. Might be the way you see it.

 

For example, Dark energy and Dark Matter is sciences best guess at the moment. You call it a best explanation, I call it a best guess. What's the difference? Either way human beings are interpreting the information. And I'm not suggesting the theories are wrong, just to be clear, as I'm not suggesting the Big Bang is wrong. I'm just saying it's still a human interpretation of the available information. And they are definitely waiting on more information to confirm their validity.

[Strange]

I can't help it if you don't like me using the word unknown. I honestly don't know why you think it's such a big deal.

 

Because it is wrong, perhaps.

 

You obviously believe the Big Bang is solved.

 

Obviously not. I can't even imagine why you would raw that conclusion. However, contrary to your claims, there is a lot that is know. There are a few things that are unknown. There are more things which are uncertain. But overall there is a lot we know, with a high degree of certainty.

 

Truth is math.

 

Highly debatable. But as this is not the philosphy forum, we can just ignore it as irrelevant.

 

Theory is the human interpretation of the math and observations.

 

Theory means a lot more than that.

 

Seriously, if something isn't considered true, and that same something isn't considered false, than what is it? Unknown.

 

Maybe English isn't your native language, but that is just a ridiculous statement. If a colour isn't black and it isn't white, what is it?

And I'm not suggesting the theories are wrong, just to be clear, as I'm not suggesting the Big Bang is wrong. I'm just saying it's still a human interpretation of the available information. And they are definitely waiting on more information to confirm their validity.

 

I don't suppose anyone would disagree with that. But to use the word "unkown" to describe something known with a high degree of certainty is just stupid.

[Phi for All]

 

I understand it perfectly.

 

This is an example of a claim that science can falsify. I offer up this last page of posts as evidence. You clearly do NOT understand what a theory is, and you continue to display this in your arguments.

 

The reason we NEVER want to assume we know a truth in science is because we'd stop looking if we thought we had reached "The Answer" or "Truth". Scientific methodology works well because we always assume there is more to learn, so we develop theories. BUT, we don't call them that until they've been thoroughly tested, reviewed, retested, duplicated, debated, and pounded on. If we huff and puff and can't blow the house down, if nobody can, then we may start to call an explanation a theory.

 

If you equate any mainstream theory with guesswork, you actually show that YOU are the one guessing.

[andreasjva]

 

Maybe English isn't your native language, but that is just a ridiculous statement. If a colour isn't black and it isn't white, what is it?

 

You tell me what color it is Strange, and maybe I'll take your word for it, and maybe I won't. Are you color blind by any chance? To me though, it's an unknown until I see it, but I might take your word for it on something so pointless.

 

Did you have some point to that statement?

[Phi for All]

Seriously, if something isn't considered true, and that same something isn't considered false, than what is it? Unknown.

 

If I say, "The sun is going to rise here at 06:58 tomorrow morning", I'm making a scientific prediction based on the preponderance of evidence. But you can't say my statement is true, because it's describing something that hasn't happened yet. It's not false because my statement is based on accurate historical evidence. And it's not unknown either, since the probability of something happening to prevent it are very small.

 

The scientifically accurate way to describe this is, "the most-supported explanation". Terminology is extremely important.

 

No truths.

 

Proof is for maths.

 

Evidence is the key in science.

[Strange]

Did you have some point to that statement?

 

Yes. There is more than just black, white and grey. Similarly there is more than true, false and unknown.

 

There are shades of grey and an infinite number of colours. Similarly there are degrees of confidence, levels of evidence, measures of accuracy, estimates of errors.

 

To bundle all of scientific knowledge as "unknown" is just laughable.

[Greg H.]

What I think, by and large, is important to me. I'm too old to care about what others think.

That may be the problem. If you're too old to care, are you also too old to change your mind when you're wrong?

 

Regardless, I think this is diverging off the topic of the OP.

[andreasjva]

You clearly do NOT understand what a theory is, and you continue to display this in your arguments.

 

I do understand it Phi. Nothing is etched in stone, not even the math technically. Still, the math is almost impossible to dispute, and in some cases, impossible. I personally consider it true overall, and don't question it mostly.

 

Some theory is simply closer to the truth than others. Where one decides to slide a theory along the "unknown" scale is a matter of human reasoning and/or choice. I don't question the premise of theories in a more general sense, but I do put them in a scale.

 

Still, theories are essentially educated guesses, whether anyone accepts that statement or not. Some guesses are better than others. An observation is made, tests are done, math is worked out, and someone makes a determination of what that represents. Of course it gets run through the peer review process over and over again until it finally gets labeled as an official theory and everyone agrees it's a safe guess. Dark energy is a great example of what I consider a highly speculative theory. We have an observation. We have supporting math. And the theory of "Dark Energy" is born. All we really have at the core of the theory is an indirect observation of galaxies moving away at an accelerated rate. I understand exactly why it would be labeled as energy, but I'm not sure that really fits a big bang model. We've never observed anything remotely like it in the real world. Things don't explode then speed up over time. Anyway, I'm not trying to go down that road of questioning particular theories, because I know a bunch more theory gets heaped on the pile to explain the core theory. I simply slide the probability to the middle for Dark Energy, until further physical evidence is obtained. And that observation of acceleration places the big bang in question to me. I have a lot sitting in the middle.

 

I'm just trying to understand it for my own personal desires, and I really am not all that interested in the scientific methods or mentality. Clearly I'll never be a scientist, so why bother acting like one? It is much easier to wipe the slate clean and examine these things for myself. I don't believe anyone has it right, but I think we're very close. It's nothing personal, but I don't believe anyone or any theory. I work from the assumption they're all flawed in some manner. Science tends to work on the assumption they're all mostly confirmed and correct.

 

Strange couldn't have articulated the scientific mindset any better actually. "But to use the word "unkown" to describe something known with a high degree of certainty is just stupid".

 

Anything science tends to consider a "high degree of certainty" is typically not questioned, because it is considered "stupid", until someone stumbles upon something contrary to the accepted consensus.

 

Personally, I think it's not only prudent to consider most things unknown in science, I also think it really agrees more with your own statement that, "The reason we NEVER want to assume we know a truth in science is because we'd stop looking if we thought we had reached "The Answer" or "Truth"".

 

In many cases looking in from the outside, science seems to have committed to "The Answer" in theory as "Truth".

[Phi for All]

In many cases looking in from the outside, science seems to have committed to "The Answer" in theory as "Truth".

 

I wish more people would come inside. In here, we know the only commitment is to the evidence. I'll trust the most supported explanation until something else comes along that explains more, or has even more evidence.

 

This isn't a case where you have to only dance with the girl that brought you. If I see a prettier theory, I'm going to take her for a spin.

[Strange]

I do understand it Phi.

 

You say that. But then you say:

 

Some theory is simply closer to the truth than others.

...

Still, theories are essentially educated guesses

 

Which demonstrates you don't have a clue.

 

Anything science tends to consider a "high degree of certainty" is typically not questioned, because it is considered "stupid", until someone stumbles upon something contrary to the accepted consensus.

 

That is not what I said at all. Questioning established science is an essential part of the scientific process; it is done all the time and is certainly not stupid.

 

What is stupid, is saying that we don't know anything.

 

In many cases looking in from the outside, science seems to have committed to "The Answer" in theory as "Truth".

 

It is only people outside science who say that. And typically Internet crackpots more than anyone else.

 

But as you say that you are not interested in learning anything about science, I guess there is no hope that you will ever understand what science really does. It is rather sad that you are so closed minded.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Strange

[swansont]

Still, theories are essentially educated guesses, whether anyone accepts that statement or not.

 

So much for the claim that you understand what a theory is.

 

I don't believe anyone has it right, but I think we're very close. It's nothing personal, but I don't believe anyone or any theory. I work from the assumption they're all flawed in some manner. Science tends to work on the assumption they're all mostly confirmed and correct.

 

Science provisionally assumes certain things are correct, because otherwise we'd be continually reinventing the wheel. I don't need to confirm gravity experimentally in order to do an experiment that relies on it. To require that would be preposterous and bring science to a standstill. But in doing that experiment, I might observe an anomaly which can lead to a modification of the theory. That's happened numerous times.

 

As you say, you aren't a scientist. From where, then, do you get this insight into how science proceeds?

[Phi for All]

I'm just trying to understand it for my own personal desires, and I really am not all that interested in the scientific methods or mentality. Clearly I'll never be a scientist, so why bother acting like one? It is much easier to wipe the slate clean and examine these things for myself.

This is so completely irrational, I have to suspect you've given up on thinking and are just trolling for reaction.

 

I don't believe anyone has it right, but I think we're very close. It's nothing personal, but I don't believe anyone or any theory. I work from the assumption they're all flawed in some manner. Science tends to work on the assumption they're all mostly confirmed and correct.

Please take this the right way, because I only want to help. I think this is a case of you not knowing enough about the subject to know how much you don't know about the subject. It happens pretty frequently in science. I used to see it in theater as well, beginning actors who thought they could tackle Shakespeare.

 

These are pretty common flaws, misunderstanding what a theory is, misusing the words logic and proof, and assuming a skeptic assumes that everything is flawed. Skeptics don't accept things without evidence, but once they confirm the evidence, even skeptics accept mainstream knowledge. They don't always remain skeptical.

 

Our problem now is that most of the conclusions you have were arrived at emotionally, so no amount of reason can change your mind. Knowledge is the only thing that will help, so I hope you were kidding about not being interested in scientific methods or mentality.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Posts in this thread were split from here.