Scientific Method..When does Theory become fact?

[exarch]

Others have done a good job, but I'll chime in with another try at explaining things:

In common language use, "theory" often means "a speculation not (yet) supported by facts". At least, that's how I know I should interpret it when someone uses it in a conversation that's not about sience.
(i.e. "I have a theory about how he ended up with a tattoo ...")

In scientific research, theory means "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena". As such, it doesn't have exactly the same feel to it as in common language use.

But a "theory" is basically "an attempt to explain a set of observations".

To clarify: Someone has a tattoo, you know they got drunk at the company christmas party, you "assume" (big key word here) that your theory about them somehow ending up in a tattoo parlor on the way home after the party explains the observations you made. Although you could still figure you're wrong if new facts turn up that don't fit the theory (for instance, a collegue tells you he drove the drunk person home).

It's the same in science. Since the observations you are trying to explain can't tell you themselves how things are (unlike people), you will always be left making assumptions about them, although for such universally observed phenomena as gravity, it requires hardly any assumptions to state that apples always fall down, not up.

Most of (un)intelligent design is feeding on this common misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "theory", and trying to make people think that scientists are making a leap of faith as well (which they are not BTW), so why not make the (u)ID-ers leap of faith instead.
It's a combination of "Tu coque" and a "strawman".

 

[Hellbound]

Actually, a lot of people have touched on some of my pet peeves, so I have to chime in here.

First off, Newton NEVER (yes, never) had a theory of gravity. He had Laws of gravity.

Also, the earth orbiting the sun is not a theory. It's an observation.

Let's try a few definitions first:

Observation/fact: Something that is self-evident, for example:

The sky appears blue.
The earth orbits the sun.
The average person has two eyes.

These are simple statements of what we observe, they offer no equations, provide no solutions, give no explanations, but are simply statements of "I see this" ot "this happens". This is also synonomous with fact in scientific language.

Law: A law is simply a description of a phenomena. Newton had Laws of gravity, because he simply described how gravity acted (using equations) without any explanation as to the cause of gravity or how it worked. He simply stated "gravity does this" not "this causes gravity".

examples of Laws:
Newtons Law of gravity: Gave equations to describe gravity's effects, but no explnation.
Boyle's Law: Gave equations describing the relationship between pressure and volume in gases...did not give an explanation as to why this happened.

Theory: An explanatory framework that describes a phenomena. The key difference between Law and Theory is the word "explnatory". While an observation answers "What?", and a Law answers "How?, the theory answers "Why?". Examples:

General Relativity: This was a theory of gravity that replaced Newton's Laws. Einstein described gravity as curved space, applying an explanation as to what caused gravity as well as describing it's effects.

Evolution: Explains how species change over time, as well as why (natural selection). We know natural selection exists, and this is what most refer to as the fact of evolution (natural selection falls into the fact category, evolution is the theory that describes how this occurs and changes species).

Hope that clarifies. A lot of people seem to confuse Law and Theory, and that really, really bugs me.

Lecture over now

 

[hammegk]

General Relativity: This was a theory of gravity that replaced Newton's Laws. Einstein described gravity as curved space, applying an explanation as to what caused gravity as well as describing it's effects.

You contend that the restatement of Laws from Euclidean to non-Euclidean geometry (with differing predictions/measurements in extreme cases) provides a "why"? I don't see it.

We know natural selection exists, and this is what most refer to as the fact of evolution

What is a fact is that natural selection is a hypothesis the Theory uses.

the·o·ry
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.

hy·poth·e·sis
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.

(natural selection falls into the fact category, evolution is the theory that describes how this occurs and changes species).

Can both of us have our facts straight?

 

[Xeriar]

So What are some Examples of Facts in Science?

Or Examples of Laws?


Are there NO facts or laws at all in science? just Theories?

A fact is a measurement. Something that has been abserved to be the case. The mass of the Earth, and stuff like that. I's possible for a theory to end up here if it is first predicted and then directly observed. An example of the latter would be the definition of evolution as the change in allele frequency over time.

An example of the theory of evolution is that of natural selection - we can observe it occuring now, and have all sorts of evidence to support it, but we did not actually observe it making us.

A law is a kind of fact that is true in every observable instance. Newton's laws of motion and the laws of thermodynamics, for example.

 

[Bruce]

There always has to be a troublemaker, doesn't there.

Absolutely! Without trouble-makers, we wouldn't have progress.

A fact is something that no-one questions, an assumption. You can take it for granted, common sense.

So what you are saying is that if everyone in the world believed that the moon is made of green cheese, then it would in fact be made of green cheese until someone asked the question, "Could the moon be made of something else?", at which point the moon would trasform into an abstract concept until an astronaut landed on the surface, at which point it would become rock.

I was way waaayyy too far into philosophy during my undergrad years. All observations can be countered with "well, that's the way you see it", or "that's they way we've observed it so far". I used to think that the only thing I could prove was my own existance, but after watching what happened when Kyle on South Park questioned his own existance, I'm not so sure anymore.

I have to chuckle to myself whenever people bring up a philosophical arguement and reminisce over a time when I had the energy to argue for the sake of arguing, while never arriving at an answer.

Truthfully, I don't give a cow pie anymore. I tend to leave philosophy to the philosophy professors, coffee house students, and other people who have far more time to think deep thoughts than I do, and probably make much less money.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Can both of us have our facts straight?

No. Huntsman can, you can't. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

 

[003998]

The average person has two eyes.

For the sake of being nitpicky, there is no such thing as an average person. The average number of eyes per human is somewhere below 2.0

 

[Hellbound]

For the sake of being nitpicky, there is no such thing as an average person. The average number of eyes per human is somewhere below 2.0

Huntsman beats 003998 repeatedly with a baseball bat

There, much better

I meant average as in the median, not the mean (or whichever one is simply the most common occurance, I get median and mode confuzzled).

sHam:

Natural selection is an observed fact, not a hypothesis. We can witness that animals with certain traits that "fit well" in their environment thend to flourish and pass on those traits. The moth coloration observations (where dark moths became predominant after industrialization began to darken the trees) are a classic example.

And there is quite a bit more to relativity than a simple restatement of the equations in non-Euclidean geometry. Have you ever read the theory...I mean Einstein's version? It's quite simple, really. Newton offered a law, all he said was "gravity attracts mass, and this equation determines the force between any two masses". Einstein went a step futhur, clarifying and explaining that matter actuall curves space-time, and this curvature causes the force we know as gravity. Objects in a gravitational field are actually following a straight path through curved space. Of course, it's rather obvious that you don't know much about it, from your objection. I'd suggest reading Einstein's version, it's not too complicated and can be read in a night or two. Then you might actually be able to speak intelligently and raise specific, relevant points of contention, instead of simply nay-saying with unapplicable gibberish.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

So what you are saying is that if everyone in the world believed that the moon is made of green cheese, then it would in fact be made of green cheese until someone asked the question, "Could the moon be made of something else?", at which point the moon would trasform into an abstract concept until an astronaut landed on the surface, at which point it would become rock.

The real question is if the Earth was flat when everyone believed it. If the sun was going in circles around our planet before Copernicus.

Your answer? OF COURSE NOT!

My answer? It is completly irrelevant.

Things "are" the way the consensus dictates. Other than that, we can't "know", even in principle. Cant you see this simple truth? Oh wait... maybe you are just teasing about philosophy without really understand it at all... Are you?

 

[hammegk]

Natural selection is an observed fact, not a hypothesis. We can witness that animals with certain traits that "fit well" in their environment thend to flourish and pass on those traits. The moth coloration observations (where dark moths became predominant after industrialization began to darken the trees) are a classic example.

A great example of intraspecies mutation & change, yes indeed.

Speciation? Only with a great leap of -- dare I say it -- faith.

And there is quite a bit more to relativity than a simple restatement of the equations in non-Euclidean geometry.

I said nothing about E's non-Euclidean geometric laws being a "restatement " of N's Euclidean math. To the ability to measure effects, both law-sets give the same (numerical) predictions in non-extreme cases.

....speak intelligently and raise specific, relevant points of contention, instead of simply nay-saying with unapplicable gibberish.

I invite you to do the same.

No. Huntsman can, you can't. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

Your opinion and a cup of warm spit are of like value. See if you can demonstrate whose ideas are "correct". If my interpretation is demonstrated to be logically incorrect I will retract it.

 

[rppa]

The real question is if the Earth was flat when everyone believed it. If the sun was going in circles around our planet before Copernicus.

Your answer? OF COURSE NOT!

My answer? It is completly irrelevant.

Things "are" the way the consensus dictates. Other than that, we can't "know", even in principle. Cant you see this simple truth?

I can't see this simple truth. Not knowable even in principle? Regardless of consensus on roundness of the earth, there have always been practical experiments that were accessible to anyone, and in principal some more impractical ones, that could test the hypothesis.

For instance: if the consensus is that the world is flat, why does this make it impossible, even in principle, to circumnavigate the globe? I"m afraid that simple truth is indeed escaping me.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

rppa

The Earth is not round. The exact shape is more or less close to a sphere, but thats about it. The "roundness" of the planet resides on the minds of the believers. Suppose our culture was more serious about geometric shapes. Then, anyone who believed that the earth is round, would be considered as a retarded or something, because... everybody knows, that in reality, the earth has the exact shape of a "XCASDW121 fractal".

 

[hammegk]

B D Z: May your supply of Pearls be adequate.... and your patience infinite.

 

[c0rbin]

Dude,

It is a fact that "what goes up, must come down." The Theory is the explanation i.e. gravity being some force that acts upon matter.

It is a fact that traits are passed from one generation to the next via genes. It is a fact that those genes by "mixing" and by mutation change and that over time, speciation occurs.

Facts are what we observe, scientific theories are the tested explanations.

 

[hammegk]

Dude, I can't recall, did you ever agree the total energy in the universe is zero?

 

[Hellbound]

A great example of intraspecies mutation & change, yes indeed.
Speciation? Only with a great leap of -- dare I say it -- faith.

Ah, now we get to the crux.

And it's a consequence of logic, not a leap of faith.

So, then, tell me sHamm, what force/property/chemical/action limits natural selection to a set number of changes? What keeps the mutations that occur within a certain boundary range you're calling a species? The inaccuracy of species distinction is a consequence of evolutionary theory...something that would be predicted by evolution if it wasn't already known. There is no clear line between species, and until you can come up with hard data on what the line is between species, and then on what prevents mutation from crossing that line, you're just blowing so much hot air.

I said nothing about E's non-Euclidean geometric laws being a "restatement " of N's Euclidean math. To the ability to measure effects, both law-sets give the same (numerical) predictions in non-extreme cases.

Thank you for confirming your scientific illiteracy, in that you completely lack understanding of the difference between theory and law. The numerical values should give similar answers, because we know Newton's Laws worked well enough for all of our most common uses. The difference, and I'll type slowly so you can understand, is this:

Newton's gravitation was a Law because it was simply descriptive. It was derived by observing gravity in action and relating those actions to mathematical formula.

Einstein's Relativity was a Theory because it started with certain premises, and built up on those premises to derive the formulas for gravity from the base assumption. Thus, the reason for gravity (curvature of spacetime) leads directly to the equations for gravity in GR. It was not simply descriptive, it provided an explanatory framework that lead to the equations...equations which matched extremely well with observations later used to test it.

I invite you to do the same.

I have been, but apparantly you lack even the basic knowledge of the subject matter to understand what I'm saying. Either that or you're being contrary for the heck of it. Do you have an actual point? Anything that contradicts that Newton had a Law or Einstein had a theory? Or is that even what you are arguing? If people continually misunderstand what you're saying, this is much more likely to be with your own clarity of thought and ability to communicate than any deficiency in the intelligence of the audience.

Your opinion and a cup of warm spit are of like value. See if you can demonstrate whose ideas are "correct". If my interpretation is demonstrated to be logically incorrect I will retract it.

I can't speak for Dr. A, but I can say that I've shown rather conclusively that I was correct. As to your interpretation, perhaps if you'd state it instead of posting cryptic responses crafted to fool the gullible into believing you have knowledge, then we might be able to accomodate you there, as well.

 

[hammegk]

First, thanks for a rational response. Sorry you feel a need to mis-name me.

Ah, now we get to the crux.

And it's a consequence of logic, not a leap of faith.

Unfortunately for status of "fact", inductive logic.

So, then, tell me sHamm, what force/property/chemical/action limits natural selection to a set number of changes? What keeps the mutations that occur within a certain boundary range you're calling a species? The inaccuracy of species distinction is a consequence of evolutionary theory...something that would be predicted by evolution if it wasn't already known. There is no clear line between species, and until you can come up with hard data on what the line is between species, and then on what prevents mutation from crossing that line, you're just blowing so much hot air.

Well said. The problem for you is that I'm asking macro-evolution-is-a-fact proponents to defend that thesis. Species definitions are your terms, not mine. Reading what you just wrote, have you now concluded all life is single species?

Thank you for confirming your scientific illiteracy, in that you completely lack understanding of the difference between theory and law.

We are yet trying to figure out what is, or is not, a fact. See late Wittgenstein for the actually difficulty with the semantics.

The numerical values should give similar answers, because we know Newton's Laws worked well enough for all of our most common uses.

You may have me there. My understanding is that the predictions of Newton's Laws can be derived rigorously starting with the equations of Einstein.

Newton's gravitation was a Law because it was simply descriptive. It was derived by observing gravity in action and relating those actions to mathematical formula.

Einstein's Relativity was a Theory because it started with certain premises, and built up on those premises to derive the formulas for gravity from the base assumption. Thus, the reason for gravity (curvature of spacetime) leads directly to the equations for gravity in GR.

E used (actually found, and applied) math that more accurately describes the measureable effects of gravitation.

If you believe the concept of 4-d spacetime added anything to physics other than better numerical prediction of the effect of gravity, and yes, made other, measureable predictions as well, I admit missing it. The Mach effect is as mysterious today as it's ever been (please don't insult me here with grumbles about the speed of sound -- think inertia).

It was not simply descriptive, it provided an explanatory framework that lead to the equations...equations which matched extremely well with observations later used to test it.

Using normal sized objects at reasonable velocities, not so, unless you have demonstrated my potential error I mentioned above is an actual error.

I have been, but apparantly you lack even the basic knowledge of the subject matter to understand what I'm saying. Either that or you're being contrary for the heck of it. Do you have an actual point?

I am by nature contrary. A particular sore point is macro-evolution continually represented as "a fact" when by any rational definition it is not.

Again the problem of meaning, scientific vis-a-vis popular usage is key.

If people continually misunderstand what you're saying, this is much more likely to be with your own clarity of thought and ability to communicate than any deficiency in the intelligence of the audience.

Agreed. Lapses in assumed knowledge base render communication meaningless, and often, imo, not worth my effort to pursue.

I can't speak for Dr. A, but I can say that I've shown rather conclusively that I was correct.

You need to phrase that more specifically. We have chatted about several topics.

As to your interpretation, perhaps if you'd state it instead of posting cryptic responses crafted to fool the gullible into believing you have knowledge, then we might be able to accomodate you there, as well.

Discussions with the gullible are not on my agenda. I seek the ~gullible hoping to hear a new slant on things.

 

[Hellbound]

On species:

I don't argue that everything is a single species. I do argue that species is a human construction, developed for our ease of classification, somewhat arbitrary, and irrelevant to the subject of evolution. Arguing the definition of species is akin to arguing semantics...it makes no difference to the reality.

What I am saying is that evolution is an ongoing process, a continuous line of change from one creature to another by small steps, with occassional "plateaus" of stability. The distinction between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" is purely a construction of creationist propoganda, with no bearing in actual science. By any of the four major definitions of species, we have observed speciation events. THe only way to avoid calling this "macro-evolution" is to redefine species, but it doesn't matter. The changes are still there. We see increases in number of chromosomes, major changes in morphology, variations in dietary needs and climate viability, and much, much more. Natural selection is a fact, we know that anything alive changes. There is no mechanism to limit these changes, so trying to claim that natural selection stops at artifical boundaries of "species", boundaries that are human constructions, is completely unfounded. There is no evidence, nor a logical reason to assume that nature respects our arbitrary distinctions. By the same type of argument, we could claim macroevolution whenever a subgroup is reclassified (such as researchers discovering that a particular group of monkeys is not the same as similar ones elsewhere, causing them to gain a new species name). Such an event has as much meaning as any argument based on human-created, artifical deliniations of species.

However, even using species as a guideline, we've observed speciation events using any of the commonly accepted definitions. The only argument left to use against this is to redefine species to exclude these events. Such an argument is based entirely on semantics, and that is my point.

As to theory/law:

I was discussing Newton and Einstein as examples of theory and law. You seemed to not see a difference between the two, based ont he fact that they give similar results at generally observed speeds and masses. At that point I was not discussing fact, but the difference between law and theory.

One can get to Newton's Laws from GR, I believe, but I am not familiar enough with the specifics to answer that with certainty. It would not be suprising, however, because...as you stated, under normal conditions their results are close enough to each other.

The difference between GR and Newton that makes one a law and one a theory has nothing to do with their usefullness or what they have added to physics or taken from physics (that's another discussion entirely). What makes GR a theory is that it was based on an explanatory framework (curved spacetime) that developed into the equations and other things that are part of GR. Let's try an analogy.

We have a sports car, and we want to discover it's performance. Newt, our first tester, takes the car out on the track. He has a driver do various tests...he times the car from zero to 60, he measures the top speed, he takes readings of the stopping distance, etc. From this, he devlops a set of equations to predict what the car does. However, note that he makes no statements as to why the car has these values or follows these equations, simply that they do.

Now, Al, our second tech, takes his turn. Al decides that the car gets energy from burning gasoline, and expends this energy to overcome friction, inertia, and drag. BAsed on these principles, he reconstructs the equations that describe the performance of the car, including why acceleration is better from zero to 60 than from 60 to 120 (torque effects and gear ratios)...explaining why the car has a higher top speed on the east stretch than the west stretch (wind direction), explaining why it takes it 120 feet to go from 60 to 0 (friction forces, tire contact area, etc). There is an explanation there for wht the equations are what they are.

Even if both testers came up with the exact same equations, the second is analagous to a theory while the first is a Law. That was the only point I was making there. I have no idea where you're going with these, perhaps if you stated what, precisely, your issue is concerning GR/Newton? Are you claiming they're both laws, or that GR isn't a theory, or that Newton was a theory?

As to predictions, even with normal velocites GR does make testable predictions, In fact, it used daily in the GPS system. Satellites are well within normal velocities and masses. However, their location int he gravity well of Earth causes changes to the speeds of their clocks...for accurate GPS location, GR effects have to be accounted for. There are several other examples, as well.

As to "macro-evolution" being your sore point, why not argue against "micro-evolution"? That's the whole point, The difference between the two is entirely semantics, nothing based in reality. If micro-evolution is accepted, macro-evolution is a logical consequence. In science, there is no distinction between micro and macro evolution simply because they aren't seperate processes, but scales of the same process. The jump from one species to another is not some magical, mystical thing. It's an accumulation of small changes over long periods of time. What is popularly termed "macro-evolution" is not qualitatively different from "micro-evolution", because the entire concept of species is pretty much an arbitrary, artifical distinction. The arguments about what is a species simply add support for evolution, because the very difficulties in drawing our arbitrary lines, and the changing of where those lines are drawn, show that the species distinction is not qualitatively different from other, smaller distinctions.

As to my being correct, I was referring to Newton/Einstein, as far as which is a law and which a theory. As that was the only point I made regarding those two, the only conclusion to be reached from your post was that you disagreed with this somehow.

If you wish to reach anyone and have meaningful discussion, you need to present your contentions and ideas clearly. Cryptic responses, "hinting" at your ideas, and brushing off issues with "that's wrong" or "that's silly" or similar meaning phrases adds nothign to debate. I would suggest you line out issues of contention specifically for discussion, and let the debate carry from there. Your last post was much better, and I thank you. However, I still have no idea what your point is regarding Newton/Einstein. Perhaps you can clarify?

 

[epepke]

Actually, a lot of people have touched on some of my pet peeves, so I have to chime in here.

First off, Newton NEVER (yes, never) had a theory of gravity. He had Laws of gravity.

You are quite correct, in one sense. Newton was amazingly careful. "I frame no hypotheses," he is reputed to have said.

However, it was used as a theory in another sense, but only after his death. One of the attributes of a theory is that it can generate new hypotheses. Newton's laws of gravitation was used as a theory to generate hypotheses about hyperbolic orbits, which he never thought of. Newton's original arguments were all about properties of ellipses, including some esoteric ones that only apply to ellipses and not other conic sections.

It was also adapted in the 18th century as a theory of electromagnetic interactions, only with a different concept. The basic idea of treating gravity as a force, like the electromagnetic force, subsumed Newton's laws into a theory. (The weak and strong forces were as yet unknown.)

It is sometimes difficult to separate Newtonian physics from classical physics. I like to point out that there is nothing in Newton's three laws of motion as he wrote them that conflicts with Special Relativity. However, other physicists in the classical era stuck on bits to Newton's laws of motion which are in conflict with Special Relativity.

 

[Hellbound]

You are quite correct, in one sense. Newton was amazingly careful. "I frame no hypotheses," he is reputed to have said.

However, it was used as a theory in another sense, but only after his death. One of the attributes of a theory is that it can generate new hypotheses. Newton's laws of gravitation was used as a theory to generate hypotheses about hyperbolic orbits, which he never thought of. Newton's original arguments were all about properties of ellipses, including some esoteric ones that only apply to ellipses and not other conic sections.

Yes, but my understanding is that the defining aspect of a theory is that it provides explanation, not just description. IMO, a Law can also be used as the basis for hypotheses, but the Law does not provide an explanation (although the hypothesis might).

It was also adapted in the 18th century as a theory of electromagnetic interactions, only with a different concept. The basic idea of treating gravity as a force, like the electromagnetic force, subsumed Newton's laws into a theory. (The weak and strong forces were as yet unknown.)

Again, though, this is additions later on that are the theories...Newton had no theory of gravity, but other theories and hypothesis were developed based on his Laws. Least, that's my understanding.

It is sometimes difficult to separate Newtonian physics from classical physics. I like to point out that there is nothing in Newton's three laws of motion as he wrote them that conflicts with Special Relativity. However, other physicists in the classical era stuck on bits to Newton's laws of motion which are in conflict with Special Relativity.

Yes, agreed. However, Newton's Laws do fail to predict some of the effects that GR predicts (and that are found in observation). I've always preferred to call it incomplete rather than incorrect. I do tend to combine Newton's motion with Newton's gravity in my thinking, though, because SR and GR made so many additions to them both. My fault there for not being clear and accurate.