define hypothesis, theory, law, evidence

[gnostic]

One of the biggest hurdle I see with religious people who have no science background (and the literal creationists are the worse of their lot) is that they can't distinguish between hypothesis and theory, or between theory and law. And usually when they are defining theory (for instance), they usually use an ordinary dictionary, instead of definitions as used in science.

One of the lamest motto that creationists frequently used is "evolution is just a theory, not fact", demonstrated that they have no idea what THEORY means in science.

So here are the following questions:

So how do you define (scientific) theory, law, hypothesis and evidence?

What are the differences between theory and hypothesis? And how are they related to each other?

And what are the differences between theory and law? And again, how are they related to each other?

How does one arrive at theory? (For instance, how do hypothesis become theory.)

And why is evidence (as well as other observations, like testing) is so important?
​

Anyone can contribute here, though, I would prefer if one would use one's own words in answering my questions, instead of simply cut-and-paste. Anyone can cut-and-paste, which doesn't demonstrate one understand what any of these words mean.

ps, I would prefer any definition use comes from science, and not just any dictionary.

 

[johnhanks]

So how do you define (scientific) theory, law, hypothesis and evidence?

Cautiously.

What are the differences between theory and hypothesis? And how are they related to each other?

A hypothesis is an individual conjecture that is falsifiable on the basis of its predictions, which can be tested by experiment or observation. A theory is explanatory on a much larger scale, and is generally a synthesis of several ideas.

And what are the differences between theory and law? And again, how are they related to each other?

Laws describe relationships between variables; theories seek to explain them.

How does one arrive at theory? (For instance, how do hypothesis become theory.)

By consensus, I suppose.

And why is evidence (as well as other observations, like testing) is so important?

Because in science you are supposed to take nobody's word for it: nullius in verba as they say in the Royal Society.

 

[LuisDantas]

So how do you define (scientific) theory, law, hypothesis and evidence?

A theory is an explanation of how things work that has been proposed and been found consistent with testable facts and findings. One main characteristic of a theory is that it must be _falsifiable_, which is to say, it must be possible to test it and perhaps find it wrong.

A law is a description of behavior, involving for instance frequencies of specific results after a certain situation. It does not attempt to explain how or why things happen, just what we should expect to happen under certain conditions.

An hypothesis is a proto-theory; a provisional attempt at explaining how or why things happen in a certain context. It does not necessarily have the means to be tested, and may not even be finished.

Evidence is something that is found to exist or to be true when it could conceivably not be there, and that in some way hints at the accuracy of a hypothesis or theory.

What are the differences between theory and hypothesis? And how are they related to each other?

A hypothesis is above all _thematic_. It has the intent of offering an explanation, but no duty to actually predict or explain in detail how things are supposed to happen. It may be completed, perfected and tested to the point of becoming a theory, though.

And what are the differences between theory and law? And again, how are they related to each other?

A Law is essentially descriptive, and most often quantitative. A theory is an attempt at explaining how things happen and for which reasons, due to which causes.

How does one arrive at theory? (For instance, how do hypothesis become theory.)

By defining testable/falsifiable parameters to it and then testing them or issuing experiment that may verify whether it holds true. At every opportunity when it fails to, the theory must be revised.

And why is evidence (as well as other observations, like testing) is so important?

Because without it we can't ever have theories or any way of gauging the value of even hypothesis. We would end up stuck with endless disputes of hypothesis out of their aesthetical value alone.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And usually when they are defining theory (for instance), they usually use an ordinary dictionary, instead of definitions as used in science.

I've actually never used a dictionary specific to science. But out of curiosity I went to the Credo Reference database and the Sage database and looked at various definitions in dictionaries of science for the word hypothesis. The first interesting thing was that some dictionaries didn't have an entry for hypothesis, such as the following:

The Dictionary of Microbiology and Molecular Biology
Dictionary of Developmental Biology and Embryology
A Dictionary of Sociolinguistics
Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics
Dictionary of Optometry and Visual Science (this one actually did have an entry: "See significance")
Dictionary of Computing
Hargrave's Communications Dictionary

As for some dictionaries with an entry for hypothesis:

The Collins Dictionary of Biology has:

"a proposition assumed on the basis of observation which might account for or explain something which is not fully understood"

but the Collins Dictionary of Sociology has:

"any proposition which is advanced for testing or appraisal as a generalization about a phenomenon"

The Penguin Dictionary of Physics gives one definition:
"A provisional supposition that, if true, would account for known facts and serves as a starting point for further investigation by which it may be proved or disproved"

while The Penguin Dictionary of Science gives another:
"A provisional supposition, of questionable validity, that is used as a basis for further logical development. A hypothesis is tested by seeking experimental verification of predictions made using the hypothesis"

Same with Sage's dictionaries.

The Sage Dictionary of Social Research Methods has:

"An untested assertion about the relationship between two or more variables. The validity of such an assertion is assessed by examining the extent to which it is, or is not supported by data generated by empirical inquiry."

while The Sage Dictionary of Sociology has:

"This is a proposition (usually containing the two elements of a cause and an effect) that is framed in such as way as to be appraised or tested; ‘Catholic states are more repressive than Protestant ones’ is an example. The important point about an hypothesis is that it should be formulated in such a way that it is clear what would count as a test. In this example, the supposed ‘cause’ (the religious culture of the state) is relatively straight-forward but the effect (‘being repressive’) would require considerable elaboration before we could agree on what would count as appropriate measures."

There were some pretty complete definitions, but they were basically encyclopedia entries, not dictionary entries.

Also, although I didn't see a dictionary for something like AI or machine learning, I went with the next best thing I could easily access: Springer's Encyclopedia of Machine Learning, where we find:
"Learning can be viewed as a search through the space of all sentences in a concept description language for a sentence that best describes the data. Alternatively, it can be viewed as a search through all hypotheses in a hypothesis space. In either case, a generality relation usually determines the structure of the search space."

What does this mean? It refers to the ways learning algorithms can increase their accuracy over time, e.g.,:
"To make things precise, let us denote the (unknown) underlying distribution on the data (X,Y) ∈ R × {+1,−1} by P, and let us suppose that we want a hypothesis h ∈ H whose error with respect to P, namely err P (h)=P(h(X)≠Y) , is at most some ε"

they have no idea what THEORY means in science.

Neither does anyone else. Of course you are right, in that the use of the word "theory" in the sciences may differ depending on one's field or even preference, but the "just a theory" is completely misleading. It is true that within a given area of research multiple contradictory theories can exist, and therefore a theory can be speculative. Evolution is not one of these. In fact, as I have argued before, to call it a theory at all is misleading because it's really a meta-theory or umbrella term used to describe a large number of theories some of which were, are, and will be wrong, and others which are so established that falsifying them would be like falsifying them would be very much like falsifying an accepted mathematical proof.

At any rate, as the above was cheating, I'll post a reply that isn't mainly definitions of others and provide my own answers.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So how do you define (scientific) theory, law, hypothesis and evidence?

Scientific laws are, I believe, mainly an antiquated term that persists in some fields but even then not always consistently (i.e., a "law" may often be referred to as a theory"). When physics was basically the only science, and it was really only concerned with describing motion (whether the motion of planets or a rock rolling down a hill). From Newton onward, very general laws could be used to formulate predictive models for a vast range of systems. As time went on, the sciences became increasingly specialized and fewer and fewer laws had the kind of universal applicability the early laws in physics had. And then it turned out that most of these laws were wrong anyway (to be fair, they are often good approximations and still used all the time). So the term has fallen out of usage (albeit not entirely).

A theory is incredibly hard to define even within a discipline or set of related disciplines (e.g., the natural sciences). It can refer to one of many competing models of some phenomenon. For example, a theory of cloud dynamics in which galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) play an essential role in cloud seeding, which in turn would relate to competing theories on influence of the sun on the climate. Solar magnetic flux is a central factor because the solar magnetic field protects the Earth from GCRs, and thus flux means changes in how "strong" our solar "shield" is. In fact, there are competing theories in just about every research area in climate science, so much so that some argue we require not new theories but an entirely different approach across climate research:
"I think we should leave this paradigm in the 20th Century, where it belongs: for one thing, the threat of climate change is too important and the problems of predicting climate reliably too great. Firstly, climate model biases are still substantial, and may well be systemically related to the use of deterministic bulk-formula closure - this is an area where a much better basic understanding is needed. Secondly, deterministically formulated climate models are incapable of predicting the uncertainty in their predictions; and yet this is a crucially important prognostic variable for societal applications." (source)

However, the theory that human emission of GHGs both directly affects global temperatures (not such a big deal) and that they do so indirectly by messing with various atmospheric and oceanic climate systems (a very big deal) is of an entirely different type. It, like evolution, is really a set of theories with some well-established and others not so much.

What are the differences between theory and hypothesis? And how are they related to each other?

Typically, a hypothesis is formulated on the basis of existing theories and is designed to add to these theories (either by providing further support or by developing a new theory that "fits" existing theories), or to do the opposite (show that one set of theories, such as the biomedical model of mental health, is not supportable).

And what are the differences between theory and law? And again, how are they related to each other?

There's no good answer to this question.

How does one arrive at theory? (For instance, how do hypotheses become theory.)

By using existing evidence, theories, and/or frameworks and developing a way to test some aspect of one or all of these (in terms of evidence, experiments can challenge particular interpretations).

And why is evidence (as well as other observations, like testing) is so important?

Observations and testing are evidence. That's basically what scientific evidence is.

 

[freethinker44]

One of the biggest hurdle I see with religious people who have no science background (and the literal creationists are the worse of their lot) is that they can't distinguish between hypothesis and theory, or between theory and law. And usually when they are defining theory (for instance), they usually use an ordinary dictionary, instead of definitions as used in science.

One of the lamest motto that creationists frequently used is "evolution is just a theory, not fact", demonstrated that they have no idea what THEORY means in science.

So here are the following questions:

So how do you define (scientific) theory, law, hypothesis and evidence?

What are the differences between theory and hypothesis? And how are they related to each other?

And what are the differences between theory and law? And again, how are they related to each other?

How does one arrive at theory? (For instance, how do hypothesis become theory.)

And why is evidence (as well as other observations, like testing) is so important?
​

Anyone can contribute here, though, I would prefer if one would use one's own words in answering my questions, instead of simply cut-and-paste. Anyone can cut-and-paste, which doesn't demonstrate one understand what any of these words mean.

ps, I would prefer any definition use comes from science, and not just any dictionary.

By "no science background" you must mean uneducated past 5th grade, because I'm pretty sure I learned the difference in elementary school science.

Their problem isn't that they have no science background or that are uneducated, it is because they compartmentalize their beliefs. Many have had this argument over and over again before, they know full well the difference between theory and hypothesis and they know how science uses the term 'theory'. But they see evolution as a threat to their religious beliefs so attack it in any way they can. So they simply compartmentalize the theory of evolution and some crazy-person perception of science. Problem solved; they can keep all they know of other sciences without applying those same methods of proof to evolution, and then they don't have to deal with evolution threatening their religious beliefs.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

By "no science background" you must mean uneducated past 5th grade, because I'm pretty sure I learned the difference in elementary school science.

I find this hard to believe.

Many have had this argument over and over again before, they know full well the difference between theory and hypothesis and they know how science uses the term 'theory'.

"Theory" is used in different ways, but more importantly the divide between theory an hypothesis is not at all clear-cut.

So they simply compartmentalize the theory of evolution and some crazy-person perception of science.

I'm not sure what you mean by "compartmentalize", but in my experience people who don't actually do research tend not to understand how "Science" works. Going along with your example, I've found that the "evolution is just a theory" claim is disputed with an almost equally untrue description of what a theory is. There are frequently times when a theory is almost exactly what creationists mean when they say "evolution is just a theory". One problem is public dialogue. Except for researchers, very few people will be interested in the theories floating around in any given field. The things which tend to be described through mainstream media as "theories" are things like evolution, the big bang, special and general theories of relativity, global warming/climate change/AGW, etc. These make-up an extremely skewed depiction of what "theory" means.

Basically, the response to "evolution is just a theory" should be (IMO) "it is not a theory, but a vast collection of theories researched and produced by scientists in fields ranging from theoretical physicists Indo-European linguistics."

 

[freethinker44]

I'm not sure what you mean by "compartmentalize", but in my experience people who don't actually do research tend not to understand how "Science" works. Going along with your example, I've found that the "evolution is just a theory" claim is disputed with an almost equally untrue description of what a theory is. There are frequently times when a theory is almost exactly what creationists mean when they say "evolution is just a theory". One problem is public dialogue. Except for researchers, very few people will be interested in the theories floating around in any given field. The things which tend to be described through mainstream media as "theories" are things like evolution, the big bang, special and general theories of relativity, global warming/climate change/AGW, etc. These make-up an extremely skewed depiction of what "theory" means.

When a creationist says "evolution is just a theory" they mean it in the non-scientific way, meaning it is an educated guess. When they talk about gravity you can bet they don't mean gravity is an educated guess, they apply the scientific meaning of 'theory'. That is what I mean by compartmentalizing. They know what a scientific theory means when applied to science that doesn't threaten their belief system, such as gravity and germ theory, but when talking about evolution it's "oh that is just a theory, it's not fact". That's compartmentalizing.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

When a creationist says "evolution is just a theory" they mean it in the non-scientific way, meaning it is an educated guess.

That's what a theory is sometimes. In fact, most theories are wrong (they'd have to be, given that in any particular field, there could be hundreds of different theories which are inconsistent. I'm not defending creationism, of course, I'm just saying that I think there's a better response than trying to define what a theory for someone who says "it's just a theory."

That's also why (unless you went to an elementary school better than most colleges), I am nit-picky about the ease with which one can distinguish theory and hypothesis (among other things). Maybe you were taught differently, but I remember discussions about formulating a hypothesis, testing it, and then (hopefully) ending up with a theory. I even have several college textbooks that were either mine or those of students I tutored that describe research this way. But this isn't actually how it works.

Which is why I think it's far easier (and more accurate) not to respond to "it's just a theory" by explaining what a theory is, but by saying it isn't really a theory. It's lots and lots of theories across all kinds of sciences, because when we talk about evolution we refer to a phenomenon, like weather or climate. We have theories which we've developed, improved, rejected, or adapted for ~150 years which relate to evolutionary processes. We don't call cognitive development a theory, we have theories about cognitive development. To the extent that evolution is a theory, it is only so in that it involves numerous models and theories that have certain things in common.

When they talk about gravity you can bet they don't mean gravity is an educated guess

That's another problematic rejoinder. Until one gets fairly deep into physics, gravity is described by curvature and general relativity (or, if one is in high school, probably just by classical Newtonian terminology). At the same time (sometimes in the same course) one is taught about quantum mechanics. The problem is that something is missing or wrong as we haven't tide the two most important contributions of physics since Newton together (at least not sufficiently). So there really isn't a theory of gravity, but multiple theories of gravity that come into play with quantum field theories and cosmology.

That is what I mean by compartmentalizing.

Ah. You think that it is typically distortion/lying, rather than an honest belief that evolution hasn't been "proved". I've never really thought about that (I don't think I've known anybody who was a creationist outside of this forum). So I don't know. I suspect in many cases you are correct. But when one hears "evolution is just a theory; it hasn't been proven" (or some variation of that) it seems to me like a genuine misunderstanding. I say this because I often hear/read people talking about some new study or some research area in terms of "proof". People from all kinds of backgrounds still refer to Science as having "proven" something.

Also, as even those who know "proof" isn't really a term used in relation to scientific models/theories, the idea (or some similar variation) that hypotheses are developed, tested, and then do or do not become theories is pretty widely believed. Which isn't a surprise, because it's usually taught that way.

 

[paarsurrey]

One of the biggest hurdle I see with religious people who have no science background (and the literal creationists are the worse of their lot) is that they can't distinguish between hypothesis and theory, or between theory and law. And usually when they are defining theory (for instance), they usually use an ordinary dictionary, instead of definitions as used in science.

One of the lamest motto that creationists frequently used is "evolution is just a theory, not fact", demonstrated that they have no idea what THEORY means in science.

So here are the following questions:

So how do you define (scientific) theory, law, hypothesis and evidence?

What are the differences between theory and hypothesis? And how are they related to each other?

And what are the differences between theory and law? And again, how are they related to each other?

How does one arrive at theory? (For instance, how do hypothesis become theory.)

And why is evidence (as well as other observations, like testing) is so important?
​

Anyone can contribute here, though, I would prefer if one would use one's own words in answering my questions, instead of simply cut-and-paste. Anyone can cut-and-paste, which doesn't demonstrate one understand what any of these words mean.

ps, I would prefer any definition use comes from science, and not just any dictionary.

I think it is understandable that ordinary people would take definition of the words from an ordinary dictionary; why should they be compelled to use a dictionary with scientific terminology?

 

[freethinker44]

I think it is understandable that ordinary people would take definition of the words from an ordinary dictionary; why should they be compelled to use a dictionary with scientific terminology?

If you are trying to understand something scientific in nature, wouldn't it be prudent to define words in the way they are used in science?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If you are trying to understand something scientific in nature, wouldn't it be prudent to define words in the way they are used in science?

Precisely. The point of a dictionary is not actually to define a word, but to give the reader a general understanding of how the word is used. As you imply above, the way words are used in general frequently doesn't correspond to the way they are used in the sciences:

Here is a definition of a "group":
"Definition 1.8.1. A group G is a set with one binary operation (which we will denote by multiplication) such that
(1) The operation is associative.
(2) There exists an identity for this operation.
(3) Each g 2 G has an inverse for this operation."
from Abstract Algebra: Applications to Galois Theory, Algebraic Geometry and Cryptography.

Do you define groups like this?

When people use the word "mean", they usually are describing a personality trait, not the a mathematical average, and when they use average, they don't typically mean...well, mean (as in the average).

The OED is the largest, most complete, and most respected dictionary of the English language. And if you rely on it to understand terms used in the sciences, you will not understand the terms. In fact, as I showed earlier, even dictionaries of sciences do not necessarily agree on basic terms. Partly this is due to differences in fields. If I "training" a neural network or perceptron or whatever, I have a "hypothesis" that differs from that used just about anywhere else outside of machine learning. And we all know that physicists don't calculate probability directly, but use amplitudes.

Also, "probability", "amplitude", "function", "independent", "dependent", "likelihood", and many other words that are quite common not only have technical meanings but meanings which differ (usually slightly) depending on which scientific field one is referring to.

I think it is understandable that ordinary people would take definition of the words from an ordinary dictionary; why should they be compelled to use a dictionary with scientific terminology?

First, is the "ordinary" descriptor really necessary? Second, they don't have to use a special dictionary. I'm not sure scientists ever do, and the first time I did was for this post. But ordinary dictionaries often do not suffice for ordinary language. For technical definitions, you need to find a source that is specific to that usage.

 

[Sculelos]

I am probably one of a few of the only early creation scientist who understands general physics on a nano-scale.

You said "define hypothesis, theory, law, evidence"

My definitions of each of the above words may be different then the scientific or dictionary meaning as I also study word form and geometry of words in the nano-square structure. Also I have a lot of experience in number theory and word theory, which by itself doesn't make my own opinion fact, but rather take everything I say and measure it by the extent of your own intelligence and knowledge but please don't assume that I am an idiot simply because you don't understand what I might be talking about, if you ask for clarification I will try to clarify to a point that which is reasonable.

Hypothesis: The claim or idea that something works the way you think it does, however this is unproven until significant, repeatable data supports your claim. Without it, a Hypothesis is only a theory.

Theory: A claim that has not been proven through physical evidence of an observable, energetic nature or has been dis-proven through real evidence but people refuse to believe the evidence.

Law: Something that can be observed, tested, repeated and observed over and over and over again. If it can not be or is proven to be wrong then it is a theory and not a law.

Evidence: Any laws that can be used to support a claim.

This is my hard-line stance, I will not bend in my definition's and must measure things based on the prior criteria.

 

[paarsurrey]

Precisely. The point of a dictionary is not actually to define a word, but to give the reader a general understanding of how the word is used. As you imply above, the way words are used in general frequently doesn't correspond to the way they are used in the sciences:


When people use the word "mean", they usually are describing a personality trait, not the a mathematical average, and when they use average, they don't typically mean...well, mean (as in the average).

The OED is the largest, most complete, and most respected dictionary of the English language. And if you rely on it to understand terms used in the sciences, you will not understand the terms. In fact, as I showed earlier, even dictionaries of sciences do not necessarily agree on basic terms. Partly this is due to differences in fields. If I "training" a neural network or perceptron or whatever, I have a "hypothesis" that differs from that used just about anywhere else outside of machine learning. And we all know that physicists don't calculate probability directly, but use amplitudes.

Also, "probability", "amplitude", "function", "independent", "dependent", "likelihood", and many other words that are quite common not only have technical meanings but meanings which differ (usually slightly) depending on which scientific field one is referring to.


First, is the "ordinary" descriptor really necessary? Second, they don't have to use a special dictionary. I'm not sure scientists ever do, and the first time I did was for this post. But ordinary dictionaries often do not suffice for ordinary language. For technical definitions, you need to find a source that is specific to that usage.

The problem comes when the people working in the sciences start singling out the ordinary people as if they are ignorant people unless they well understand the scientific terms; I think it is not an appropriate approach; the ordinary people who are a large mass, they should not be overburdened and disturbed this way. The science is for human life; not that the humans are for science.

 

[gnostic]

I would like how people define the following individual terms that I had listed in the OP.

I don't think ordinary dictionary provide precise definition as used in science and in the science community. A dictionary is rather limited in the way they present their definitions. And because of that limitation, it doesn't really provide you with real understanding of what they mean in science environment (whether it be at educational institutes or at workplace).

So if you took some science subjects, do you know what they mean?

Were you taught the definitions or learn the differences between those terms (or how they are related to each other) from teachers or from some sort of science textbooks?

 

[gnostic]

The problem comes when the people working in the sciences start singling out the ordinary people as if they are ignorant people unless they well understand the scientific terms; I think it is not an appropriate approach; the ordinary people who are a large mass, they should not be overburdened and disturbed this way. The science is for human life; not that the humans are for science.

True.

However, if ordinary people want debate over issues science vs religion or evolution vs creationism, then the "ordinary people" should properly understand those scientific terms (like theory, hypothesis, law or evidence) as they were meant to be used in science, otherwise they are debating over something they don't understand, which only make them look like ignorant fools.

At the very least, they should at least understand the very basic of what theory mean, before they start saying stupid thing like "evolution is a theory, not a fact". Until they grasp what theory mean, they will only be seen as imbeciles.

I don't see myself as a scientist, but with my background and education in civil engineering and in computer science, I took the time to learn what I can from science. I took the time to learn about the Big Bang cosmology and about evolution, even though they are not my areas of expertise.

Similarly, I am not religious, and yet I took the time to read and learn religious literature (scriptures, for instance). So I do have understanding of creation and flood, even though I may personally see these stories as allegory or myths.

My point is that I can see both side of argument, even though I may agree with one side more than the other. And you need to be able to understand both sides to debate properly, even in a place as informal as RF forums.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The problem comes when the people working in the sciences start singling out the ordinary people as if they are ignorant people unless they well understand the scientific terms

I can't speak for others, but most scientists are ordinary people (the exceptions are quantum physicists, who just make stuff up that can't be true, and members of the Bayesian conspiracy).

For the vast bulk of scientific terms, I don't think anybody really expects anybody else to be aware of how they are used, because not only are there lots of scientific terms, many of the terms mean different things depending upon one's field.

I think the important point in this thread is that their are a certain small number of terms used in certain ways which are really abuses of these terms. The classic is "evolution is just a theory". Despite the slew of technical terms of any field (even those which aren't sciences), there is a disconnect between how people who don't do scientific research tend to understand the research process compared to those who do research.

I think it is not an appropriate approach; the ordinary people who are a large mass, they should not be overburdened and disturbed this way.

You don't have to be burdened at all. If you don't want to know how theories are formulated then nobody is making you. If you want to say things about a theory, then you are putting a burden on yourself. You have put yourself into contact with scientific research on your own, without anybody asking you to, and you should therefore no what it is you are talking about. This is true of everything. I don't really have any idea what baroque music is or any number of terms from musicology, art history, and similar fields (and I played the piano, violin, and trumpet for years!). So I don't say that baroque music is inferior, or that early expressionist paintings were actually the best, because I have basically no idea what either statement entails. I do know baroque is a kind of music played during a particular period, and I believe it is defined more by the period (and possibly geography) than anything else, but that is also has certain characteristics unique or partially unique to it.

But if I want to say it is inferior, I need to know a lot more, and it is my responsibility to learn. Otherwise, I'm going to be acting like an arrogant SOB talking about things I don't know, or I'm going to just keep my mouth shut because I'm really not interested enough to do the work it would take to inform myself how baroque music is defined and how it differs from other periods, styles, types, etc., of music.

The science is for human life; not that the humans are for science.

The sciences are for many things. Given that you are accessing an online forum, I'll hazard a guess that you use a computer with internet access. Nobody is asking you to know anything about logic gates, programming languages, algorithms, dimensionality reduction for file compression, TCP/IP, APIs, ASCII, and a lot more that you use any way. However, if you want to tell the computer science community that they should be using many-valued logic instead of Boolean, you should actually know what this entails.

You are constantly using things the sciences produce, from modern medicine to everyday appliances. Yet you are not asked to understand engineering or obtain a MD.

As a human, you use the sciences just like most people on the planet, and without having to understand them. When you step forward and make statements about this or that field, however, I don't think it is too much to ask of you that you educate yourself about what it is you are talking about (and again, this is true of anything, not just science).

 

[gnostic]

Because in science you are supposed to take nobody's word for it: nullius in verba as they say in the Royal Society.

"nullius in verba"

Latin?

I've never come across the phrase before, but I'd certainly agree that we shouldn't take any claim too seriously...unless we can support the claim with logic or with evidences...or better yet, BOTH.

 

[Sculelos]

We really are in the age of technology. If you want to find information on something chances are that you can look at all the evidence for or against pretty much anything.

However not many people these days actually take much time to investigate instead preferring social media and television in large.

Just that fact that you are here reading this post gives you a high chance that you have already discovered many things and made up your own choice on what to believe in by now.

However I admit with some sort of sadness that out of the real life people I've contacted with my findings they seemed flabbergasted.

 

[gnostic]

As a human, you use the sciences just like most people on the planet, and without having to understand them. When you step forward and make statements about this or that field, however, I don't think it is too much to ask of you that you educate yourself about what it is you are talking about (and again, this is true of anything, not just science).

Precisely. (Especially what I had quoted in blue. But is also true what you in parenthesis.

If anyone want to question or challenge science, they should know what they are really questioning or challenging.

It is also true, if one try to compare what is in verse of scripture, say in the Qur'an for instance, with a specific field in science, then they should understand that particular scientific phenomenon in their proper scientific context, before making the claim. It would avoid embarrassing oneself.

I find it frustrating and most irritating that one would talk of THEORY, and yet don't understand the proper scientific context of the term.

I can't remember which thread it was or wrote a particular post, quite recently, believing that law is better than theory, not realizing how they are related to one another.

The way I understand "law" in science, it is a very brief statement, sometimes with mathematical expression. But a theory explain not only the phenomenon it is trying to investigate, but it would provide deeper detail of what that law is, or when or how the law could be used.

I think that these people assume that law in science is unchangeable, permanent. Newton's laws on motion and gravity (especially gravity), for instance, have been superseded by Einstein's theory on relativity, because they don't take into account of object (mass) moving at or near the speed of light. When dealing with, out in deep space, Newton's theory on gravity is pretty much outdated, and when dealing with quantum physics, Newton's law can be thrown out the window.

Nothing in science, especially physics, are set in stone.