Differences between Facts and Theories!

[Slapstick]

A fact is something that has to be proven and can be repeated threw scientific experimentation. Meaning the results do not change.
--------
A theory is something that relies on (or is a result of) scientific experimentation, but the results are not dependent on the experiment itself.

How do you view the differences between "FACTS" and "THEORIES"?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Facts are what, theories are why/how.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Scientific facts are well established theories.

It is established and accepted as true but truth is never final in science. EVER.

 

[dgirl1986]

For me a fact is something that has evidence or something solid to back it up where as theories do not.

Too many theories are treated as fact.

 

[gnostic]

Theories are explanations to observable, verifiable and testable facts.

Facts are evidences.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

For me a fact is something that has evidence or something solid to back it up where as theories do not.

Too many theories are treated as fact.

You mean outside of science, correct? Those are your personal definitions for our everyday usages of the terms theory, hypothesis ect. But not your view on scientific fact and scientific theory.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

A fact is something that has to be proven and can be repeated threw scientific experimentation. Meaning the results do not change.
--------
A theory is something that relies on (or is a result of) scientific experimentation, but the results are not dependent on the experiment itself.

How do you view the differences between "FACTS" and "THEORIES"?

Facts are by definition true. Theories are defined in different ways even in technical literature.

 

[LuisDantas]

Facts just are. Many are impossible to gauge for whatever reason, but no less facts for that.

Theories, in common parlance, are just sophisticated guesses. What in science would be more properly called hypothesis.

In rigorous scientific use, though, a theory is a hypothesis that has been developed to the point of being passible of tests by confrontation with reality facts. It is falsifiable. It is indeed as close as science proper dares to come to stating things as facts.

 

[Hawkins]

A fact is something that has to be proven and can be repeated threw scientific experimentation. Meaning the results do not change.
--------
A theory is something that relies on (or is a result of) scientific experimentation, but the results are not dependent on the experiment itself.

How do you view the differences between "FACTS" and "THEORIES"?

To move a little bit closer.

-----
There's a reason why science can prove things beyond doubt where faith is considered having no bearing.

For a simplified example, water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen. You can make such a prediction before each experiment that "water will dissolve into hydrogen and oxygen disregarding when and where you do the experiment". If your this prediction shall fail, you can get a Nobel Prize because this is the way how the formula is falsified. You make predictions which will never fail (or else you can get a Nobel Prize), this is what the nature of science is. A human brain will know for sure (without faith) that it is a truth because the endless repeatedly made predictions never fail.

This is regarding to the predictability of science. Predictability depends on repeatability (things must be repeatable to make the predictions), and without predictability it's not a science. However, today's human call everything a science even that without any predictability.

For another example, if you try to conclude that cat is a result of evolution, you need to make a cat from a single cell repeatedly till you can predict that "if you follow these procedures, the single cell will certainly be turned to a cat (but not a dog)". And your this prediction never fail, then you are holding the truth. This is what science is.

However, humans (including scientists) know that the above (turning cell to cat) is not possible. That's why the scientists have already abandoned the true scientific approach. Instead of confirming a scientific truth by repeated predictions without failure, they start to use another approach to try to find out the truth of the origin of species. They try to look into the past to collect the so-called "evidence". However, this approach is hardly a science.

You need to know what limits humans are facing, before you draw your own conclusion.

Yet another example, why the Big Bang Theory is controversial because the Big Bang itself never repeats in front of humans. Strictly speaking it's not a science because you can never get the predictability out of it until it repeats. Subsequently, since it cannot be confirmed scientifically, you can have multiple theories about what it is. And you can choose one of them to believe with faith.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

This is regarding to the predictability of science. Predictability depends on repeatability

There goes quantum physics. And cosmology.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Just to be specific.

When using the scientific concept it is preferred to use the word principle and not fact and all theories are based upon principles as we all know.

 

[Skwim]

Just to be specific.

When using the scientific concept it is preferred to use the word principle and not fact and all theories are based upon principles as we all know.

So it's a principle that the Earth revolves around the Sun? And it's a scientific principle that the heart is an organ that pumps blood through the body?

Personally, I've always considered principles to be laws or rules rather than truths; facts.

 

[Sha'irullah]

So it's a principle that the Earth revolves around the Sun? And it's a scientific principle that the heart is an organ that pumps blood through the body?

I am not going to claim more than what I know here .

But the basis for a theory is based upon a principles or multiple set of principles.

Gravity I know for a fact is regarded as a principle of physics. Evolution is a principle but the evolution of man is a theory which is based upon multiple principles and fulfillment of a hypothesis.

I also heavily disliked astronomy and medical sciences. So you are asking the wrong person with regards to these questions.

But I can give you the milk that squirteth from the breasts of Wikipedia!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

 

[Skwim]

Gravity I know for a fact is regarded as a principle of physics.

Err, don't you mean, "Gravity I know for a principle is regarded as a principle of physics."

Evolution is a principle but the evolution of man is a theory which is based upon multiple principles and fulfillment of a hypothesis.

So evidently you don't by the claim of science that Homo sapiens evolved. Hmmmm . . . .

I also heavily disliked astronomy and medical sciences. So you are asking the wrong person with regards to these questions.

Are you saying that in some sciences facts are just facts and not principles?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Err, don't you mean, "Gravity I know for a principle is regarded as a principle of physics."

Took me a while to recognize the word play in that .

But yes facts and principles are often used synonymously in scientific classification for the levels of conclusive understanding.

I just like quibbling about technicalities.

So evidently you don't by the claim of science that Homo sapiens evolved. Hmmmm . . . .

I do not understand this. It seems that you are missing a phrase.

" evidently you don't by"
You should insert a word between don't and by.

Are you saying that in some sciences facts are just facts and not principles?

This may be true but my memory is not fresh on this. I tend to skip over subject matter the minute a celestial body is mentioned or a human organ.

So I am quite ignorant on these issues which is why I rarely get involved in them.

 

[Skwim]

I do not understand this. It seems that you are missing a phrase.

" evidently you don't by"
You should insert a word between don't and by.

My sorry mistake. I meant to write "buy." As in . . .

"So evidently you don't buy the claim of science that Homo sapiens evolved. Hmmmm . . . ."​

 

[metis]

Most of us in science tend to not use the word "fact" as it seemingly implies that it's a done deal. Instead, we tend to use "axioms", "theorems", and "hypotheses", with the closest one to "facts" being "axioms".

And instead of "proof" and it's variations, we tend to use the word "evidence". Nothing is so "sacred" so as to not be beyond challenge.

 

[Skwim]

Most of us in science tend to not use the word "fact" as it seemingly implies that it's a done deal. Instead, we tend to use "axioms", "theorems", and "hypotheses", with the closest one to "facts" being "axioms".

And instead of "proof" and it's variations, we tend to use the word "evidence". Nothing is so "sacred" so as to not be beyond challenge.

And just importantly, in the sciences the provisional nature of facts is taken as a given.

 

[michel]

There goes quantum physics. And cosmology.

There goes a heck of a lot more than the above.............

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Most of us in science tend to not use the word "fact" as it seemingly implies that it's a done deal. Instead, we tend to use "axioms", "theorems", and "hypotheses", with the closest one to "facts" being "axioms".

Theorems and axioms aren't so much used in the sciences themselves (more by the sciences I would say) as they belong to the language of mathematics. Theories in the sciences, theorems in mathematics. Axiom doesn't really have a corresponding term in the sciences, for precisely the reason that proofs only exist in mathematics (logic being included): the discourse realm is closed.