Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law

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