|
The definition of the word "theory" in the context of science is sometimes hotly argued by non-scientists
The origin of this confusion has it's roots in the history of the development of science. When we speak of early, classical physics, we talk about laws, Newton's laws of motion for instance, the ideas have the weight of veracity. After all, the word "law" has a serious and strictly defined meaning in our culture. Back when Newton declared his laws, he believed them to be absolute descriptions of how the universe worked. At the time, they were irrefutable. We now know that his laws are in fact approximations, rules that work when describing motion on the macroscopic scale but which break at the quantum scale.
Since that time, science has gotten warier about describing anything as being absolute. Science, and physics in particular, is a tool to root out the true nature of reality. It can describe only what it observes which may or may not be true in every case. In order to say if something is absolutely true, every single possible case of a particular phenomena must be observed. In a universe as vast as ours, that's completely impractical. Science can say if something is probably true all the time if observations of a phenomena are the same in many cases. This tiny bit of waffling bothers many people who are not familiar with the inner workings of science. Shouldn't something be always true if it is true at all? Science just can't commit all the way to absolute - otherwise it wouldn't be science, it would be faith.
So science has tossed the use of "law" in favor of "theory". This "theory" does not mean "hypothesis" which is a speculation. In this case, think of music theory - definitely not a hypothesis, but a working set of rules that define a body of knowledge.
The line between theory and hypothesis can become blurry when it comes to very active and new areas of science. For instance, M-theory, an extension of string theory, is a body of knowledge that attempts to define how everything in the universe works, explaining quantum phenomena along with cosmological and everything in between. Unfortunately, M-theory is largely unproven. It makes a lot of sense (as far as descriptions of the quantum world make sense), but hasn't really been tested yet. M-theory can be more precisely be described as a hypothetical theory.
The copyright of the article Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law in Physics is owned by Katharine M. J. Osborne. Permission to republish Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Sep 28, 2006 7:56 PM
Brian Tubbs
:
...how does this play out with evolution? Is naturalistic, unsupervised
evolution a theory that we can take to the bank?
Sep 30, 2006 6:45 AM
Katharine M. J. Osborne
:
Theory in the scientific sense means a "body of knowledge", much
like in the way that music theory is a set of facts and skills; it is not a
hypothesis or proposal.
As far as evolution goes, it is accepted
as fact by the vast majority of scientists. There is however debate over
some of the details. One excellent example is the work of Lynn Margulis who
has put forth the hypothesis that nucleated cells were originally the
product of one non-nucleated single cell "eating" another but not
destroying it. In this hypothesis, the internal nucleus was formerly a
separate organism. The RNA of both organisms would have had to incorporate
in order for both to reproduce together.
Margulis has also
suggested that many of the internal organelles in "higher" life
forms (animals, plants, and fungi) were acquired in this relatively simple
manner. One very important acquisition for multicellular organisms was the
microtubule organelle. The microtubule provides internal structure, and
along with mitochondria, organelles that reside on the outside of the cell
and metabolize oxygen for the cell, allow cells to live in large
communities. The microtubule is also thought to play a part in the
development of neurons, without which most animals couldn't exist.
There is resistance to these ideas because 1) they are difficult to
reproduce in a controlled setting, and 2) many scientists are already
entrenched with other views and dogma about the origin of complex life.
This isn't bad - this entrenchment helps to test and poke and prod a
hypothesis until everyone is satisfied about whether it is true or not.
If Margulis' ideas are correct, it would leave only one major
question about how life might have automatically generated - why and how
did RNA first begin?
Sep 30, 2006 9:51 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
Absent verifiable data or observable / reproducible conclusions, science
inevitably enters the realm of speculation when it comes to explaining the
origin of the universe and life and/or the start of the evolutionary
process. Is this not correct?
Oct 1, 2006 8:11 AM
Katharine M. J. Osborne
:
Speculation can lead to a hypothesis that can be tested. Science does
separate fact from speculation quite distinctly, but speculation (and
imagination) are an important part of the process of scientific discovery.
Some ideas are later found to be supported by evidence, but most whither
and die when something is found that contradicts.
Oct 2, 2006 9:08 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
I agree with EVERYTHING you just wrote. You are absolutely right. I have no
problem with speculation and imagination. However, the scientific community
needs to ADMIT when it's speculating and imagining. It has not done this
with naturalistic evolution.
For example, let's take the fossil
record. We have tens of millions of fossils unearthed and categorized, and
yet there are huge gaps in the fossil record - "gaps" in terms of
the evolutionary theory anyway. There are no true transitional species
confirmed in the fossil record. There's also strong evidence of the rapid,
sudden appearance of new animals in the fossil record - this doesn't jive
with a slow, gradual evolutionary process. Yet the scientific community
hides or ignores these facts and continues to declare (in museums,
classrooms, etc) that the fossil record supports evolution.
Take
cells...Scientists looking at the vast irreducible complexity of cells deny
vociferously any evidence of external design - and instead try to come up
with theories that would explain the naturalistic, spontaneous generation
of these cells. I have NO problem with their engaging in these experiments.
They have a right to pursue their theories, but let's be honest - and admit
that it IS a theory. The whole idea of naturalistic, unaided evolution is a
theory - not confirmed by evidence or fact.
Oct 2, 2006 9:10 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
<i>If Margulis' ideas are correct, it would leave only one major
question about how life might have automatically generated - why and how
did RNA first begin? </i>
This is not an insignificant
question. All these theories keep bringing us back to it. Science has not
yet been able to explain - even come close to explaining - what initiated
the evolutionary process.
May 6, 2007 9:00 AM
sassylady1111
:
Katharine,
If I remember my science lessons. Theory is not a
fact. It contains some facts that make up the theory. You make it sound
like a theory is a fact. It is not. There have been theories that have been
proven wrong.
Here is the definition of theory: n. pl.
the·o·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.
Note that the dictionary says that theory is a speculation. You
stated that definition belonged to hypotheses. Now for the definition of
Hypotheses.
hy·poth·e·ses (-sz) 1. A tentative explanation
for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by
further investigation. 2. Something taken to be true for the purpose
of argument or investigation; an assumption. 3. The antecedent of a
conditional statement.
There is no reason for the science
community to hotly argue the definition. The dictionary spells it out. If
what you say is true that the definition is argued among scientists, could
only be for one reason, because the scientists who are arguing it want
their theory taken as fact. Either it is a fact, a theory, or a hypothesis.
With this in mind, how can we take anything you have to say
serious. It is false statements like yours that lead too many people to
believe something to be a fact, when in essence it is a speculation.
How disappointing it is when a person assumes a theory is fact and
then that theory is proven to be wrong years later.
We must be
sure to choose our words wisely as to not mislead others.
May 6, 2007 9:28 AM
sassylady1111
:
I correct myself:
n response to the problem posted by
BrianTubbs:
Katharine,
If I remember my science
lessons. Theory is not a fact. It contains some facts that make up the
theory. You make it sound like some of the science community believes
theory is a fact. It is not. There have been theories that have been proven
wrong.
Here is the definition of theory: n. pl.
the·o·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.
Note that the dictionary says that theory is a speculation. You
stated that this definition belonged to hypotheses. Now for the definition
of Hypotheses.
hy·poth·e·ses (-sz) 1. A tentative
explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can
be tested by further investigation. 2. Something taken to be true for
the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption. 3. The
antecedent of a conditional statement.
There is no reason for
the science community to hotly argue the definition. The dictionary spells
it out. If what you say is true that the definition is argued among
scientists, could only be for one reason, because the scientists who are
arguing it want their theory taken as fact. Either it is a fact, a theory,
or a hypothesis.
With this in mind, how can we take anything the
science community has to say serious. It is false statements like these
that lead too many people to believe something to be a fact, when in
essence it is a speculation.
How disappointing it is when a lay
person assumes a theory is fact and then that theory is proven to be wrong
years later.
I agree with you that we must be sure to choose our
words wisely as to not mislead others.
It's easy to do as my
first draft of this answer pr
Jan 23, 2008 2:22 PM
Michael Forbush
:
Of course it depends on how you define "gaps" in the fossil If,
for example, a gene turns on and a thumb grows where there was once no
thumb. Would you expect to see some specimens with small thumbs and some
with large thumbs? Is the absence of small thumbs a "gap?"
Instead there might be siblings with thumbs and siblings without thumbs.
The ones with thumbs might have a higher probability of surviving until
childbearing years. How would a "gap" be filled to satisfy your
"need?"
We see what used to be called
"deformities" every day. Obviously most of these genetic
mutations do not lead to a better quality of life for the individual.
However, occasionally we would expect that a mutation has a positive effect
for the individual and is therefore desired.
Darwin noted this
with his finches. The beaks of the birds did not change in a gradual
manner. Some of the birds died because they couldn't eat the food that was
available. The birds with the useful beaks survived. In a population of
genetic diversity this can happen easily.
How would your
"gap" be filled with Darwin's finches that have an assortment of
different beak types?
Jan 25, 2008 4:05 AM
RevDr
:
First off, I must confess that I am an ordained minister with degrees in
economics, theology, and divinity. Therefore, it should come as no surprise
that I am in no way a "faith-hating atheist." Now that that is
out of the way...
If we are to carry on a logical discussion
regarding the scientific method, then it must be pointed out that it is
your message from May 6th, SassyLady1111, which contains the dangerously
false and misleading statements:
1. "Note that the
dictionary says that theory is a speculation. You stated that definition
belonged to hypotheses."
You will concede, I hope, that
words can have many meanings depending on usage. The proper usage is to be
determined by the context in which the word is used. As you pointed out,
the dictionary you quoted contained six different definitions of the word
"theory." When it comes to scientific method usage, however, the
proper definition would be definition #1. Definition #2 is also acceptable
to a degree, though not quite as useful. Importantly, definitions #4 and #6
are the only two which use the words speculation or assumption, yet these
are certainly not the correct definitions to use when discussing
"theory" within the scientific community. If you are using
definitions #4 or #6, then why not also use definition #3 instead? Because
quite obviously a definition of the word "theory" involving
mathematical theorems was not applicable to this discussion. Similarly,
neither were the fourth nor sixth definitions you seem to have adopted.
2. "Either it is a fact, a theory, or a hypothesis."
Also patently incorrect. Facts are merely pieces of information,
raw data if you will. They can certainly be used to prove or disprove a
hypothesis or theory, yet "facts" themselves do not fit anywhere
within the spectrum of the scientific method: Hypothesis -> Theory. I
believe you meant to say "either it is a law, a theory, or a
hypothesis." Yet even that statement is fundamentally flawed. As you
have done for the other terms, so shall I use a dictionary definition of a
scientific law:
Law 1. a statement of an order or relation
of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given
conditions.
Yet even the most well-known scientific laws off all
time, Newton's "law of gravity" and "laws of motion"
are now known to break down, to an extent, at the atomic and subatomic
levels. The "fact" is that it is impossible to prove or disprove
anything 100% of the time under every conceivable scena
10 Comments
|