Universal Gravity: theory or fact?

[Stevicus]

More likely lack of education in these matters.

This is probably true on most things related to public policy. Can't expect people to have a professional expertise on all subjects (or even most subjects).

 

[exchemist]

Yes, this makes sense. I think the OP commentary about the phrase "just a theory" illustrates a kind of disconnect between how terms are used on an esoteric level in specific situations, as opposed to how the general public might perceive them.

It makes me wonder if all the argument and fuss over evolution (or other scientific-related topics, such as COVID, masks, vaccines, gravity) is all due to a simple misunderstanding or miscommunication.

"Just a theory" is or was a favourite creationist rhetorical gambit. It exploits the distinction you refer to, between "theory" in its usage to mean a hunch or unsupported speculation, and theory in the sense in which it is used in science, namely a successful, testable, explanatory model for a natural phenomenon.

But this only works rhetorically, with audiences that are slow to catch on to this distinction, for example the congregation at some hick Bible Belt, born-again church.

 

[Stevicus]

"Just a theory" is or was a favourite creationist rhetorical gambit. It exploits the distinction you refer to, between "theory" in its usage to mean a hunch or unsupported speculation, and theory in the sense in which it is used in science, namely a successful, testable, explanatory model for a natural phenomenon.

But this only works rhetorically, with audiences that are slow to catch on to this distinction, for example the congregation at some hick Bible Belt, born-again church.

Well, I think it's like what Reagan once said, when it comes to some things "Americans are all from Missouri. You have to show us." With gravity, it's easy enough to prove simply by picking up an object and dropping it to the ground. It doesn't appear that easy with evolution.

And then, these two memes might illustrate the difference in misunderstanding.

The second one suggests that a theory never becomes a law, which would mean that the term "law of gravity" is a misnomer.

However, the point is that, even if most people may not have the expertise to understand the actual theories, a few lines of explanation as to the differences in usage of the various terms in question might help avoid a lot of arguments and confusion. Too many people want to be cagey, clever, and cute about it, rather than simply coming out and explaining it in clear, easy-to-understand terms.

 

[exchemist]

Well, I think it's like what Reagan once said, when it comes to some things "Americans are all from Missouri. You have to show us." With gravity, it's easy enough to prove simply by picking up an object and dropping it to the ground. It doesn't appear that easy with evolution.

And then, these two memes might illustrate the difference in misunderstanding.

The second one suggests that a theory never becomes a law, which would mean that the term "law of gravity" is a misnomer.

However, the point is that, even if most people may not have the expertise to understand the actual theories, a few lines of explanation as to the differences in usage of the various terms in question might help avoid a lot of arguments and confusion. Too many people want to be cagey, clever, and cute about it, rather than simply coming out and explaining it in clear, easy-to-understand terms.

Yes a law is generally a mathematical formula describing the relation between various quantities, usually given the name of the person who formulated it, which is part of a theory. But there is no distinction in principle between laws and theories.

In your quote above, the error is to think that any theory is "proven". They never can be, and nor can most laws in science either.

"The law of gravity" is a term I avoid. I have no idea what people think they mean by it, except perhaps in the trivial sense that objects on the Earth's surface tend to fall towards it. That's hardly a law, in science terms. Newton's Law of Gravitation is more typical of laws in science: F= GmM/r², r being the distance between the centres of mass of two masses, m and M, and G being the universal constant of gravitation.

 

[Stevicus]

In your quote above, the error is to think that any theory is "proven". They never can be, and nor can most laws in sciecne either.

Yes, although I think this where some of the disconnect comes from when science is often presented to the general public. I don't know how many times I come across the phrase "science has proven that..."

Sometimes it's used in advertisements for the latest in snake oil, but I've also seen it made in other discussions with such a degree of confidence and certitude that it comes across as "the final word" on the subject. But if it's really not the final word, then such a position can be problematic in trying to interpret it for the general public.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, although I think this where some of the disconnect comes from when science is often presented to the general public. I don't know how many times I come across the phrase "science has proven that..."

Sometimes it's used in advertisements for the latest in snake oil, but I've also seen it made in other discussions with such a degree of confidence and certitude that it comes across as "the final word" on the subject. But if it's really not the final word, then such a position can be problematic in trying to interpret it for the general public.

I agree. Many of the laws and theories have been so successful that they are treated almost as facts about nature. One sometimes has to make an effort to recall that observations of nature can't prove any theory. All they can do is disprove it, if they don't fit, or add to the evidence in favour, if they do.