What is a 'theory' ?

[Iasion]

Greetings all,

THEORY has 2 meanings

It is all too common for people to confuse the two meanings of the word "theory", it happens here quite a bit with creationists.

In popular terms, "theory" means a guess, or speculation. Thus the common phrase "just a theory" meaning "just speculation".

But,
in scientific terms, there is another, different, meaning to the word "theory" - it means an EXPLANATION.


Theories EXPLAIN facts

Theories explain the facts we observe :

Gravity is a fact, we observe its effects.
Gravitational Theory describes how gravity works.

Electricity is a fact, we use it everyday.
Electromagnetic Theory explains the details of how it operates.

Germs are a fact.
Germ Theory explains how they cause disease.

Evolution is a fact, it is observed.
The Theory of Evolution explains how it works.



the ToE is an EXPLANATION, NOT speculation

The Theory of Evolution is NOT "speculation about evolution" - that is NOT what the phrase means at all.

Rather -
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION for how evolution works, it models the behaviour of the FACTS of evolution, and allows predictions to be made.

Just as Electromagnetic Theory is the explanation or model of how electricity works.
Would one say "electricity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Gravitational Theory is the explanation or model of how gravity works.
Would one say "gravity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Germ Theory is the explanation or model of how germs cause disease.
Would one say "germs are just a theory" ?
Of course not.


Yet
some people say
"evolution is (just) a theory"

as if it means
"evolution is merely untested speculation" (false)

when it really only means
"evolution is an explanation, or model" (true)


Claiming "evolution is just a theory" indicates lack of understanding of the word, and how science operates, and that the ToE is an explanation for observed facts.



EVOLUTION = FACT & THEORY

Evolution is a FACT.
We observe evolution.
And,
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION, or model, for the observed facts of evolution.



Iasion

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Yes I'm aware that a theory in the field of science isn't merely a guess, or a speculation with little evidence. I don't reject the very proveable theories like evolution or that the earth is 4 billion years old. I do reject some of these theories about space though, that they really have nothing to go on but peer reviews.

 

[PolyHedral]

I wonder what they'll say if we ever get the theory of everything sorted out.

 

[outhouse]

You can tell the uneducated this over and over

and next week a whole new crop of creationist come in and we repeat ourselves

this should be required reading to debate evolution.

 

[Alex_G]

Yes I'm aware that a theory in the field of science isn't merely a guess, or a speculation with little evidence. I don't reject the very proveable theories like evolution or that the earth is 4 billion years old. I do reject some of these theories about space though, that they really have nothing to go on but peer reviews.

Im no expert on physics but there is often quite rigorous mathematics behind a lot of it. Just out of interest, any particular theories you reject?

 

[andys]

Alex G,
You can not reject a (scientific) theory. That is the whole point. A scientific theory, such as the Theory of Evolution, is not a speculation or a hypothesis that is debatable or controversial and thereby subject to the layman's rejection.
This is what creationists don't (or won't) understand, and why they are deservedly the object of extreme ridicule. For, to argue in the face of reason is bad enough, but to insist upon rejecting which is known with absolutely certainty, is simply neurotic. Rejecting certain knowledge only to avoid the threat of truth conflicting with ludacris beliefs spawned in the Iron age, is so self-centered and so cowardly it is contemptible. Even worse, when an organized, outright assault on the truth is conducted by self-serving, agenda-driven Neanderthals, who succees in removing all reference to the Theory of Evolution from our schools' textbooks, and they promote their absurd ideas under the guise of an "alternative theory", these cave dwellers are no longer merely contemptible, they are dangerous. For they threaten science itself and all that we stand to benefit from it. In so doing, creationists have elevated themselves from an odd curiosity to a lethal virus seeking to infect the unwary.

Nearly 50% of Americans reject Evolution and believe we were created by God 10,00 years ago. And over 40% of the countries in the world share this belief. Astonishing. Scietist should not sufer the burden to educate the masses. It is up to us to be as informed as possible and to seize any opportunity to contest creationist proponents and their propaganda with all our conviction. Just as our precious freedom is worth fighting for, so our precious science requiresr aggressive vigilance.

 

[astarath]

I would go with a guess at something true.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I would go with a guess at something true.

When discussing a scientific theory, you would be wrong.

 

[sandandfoam]

My head mustn't be working today because it seems to me that the op is saying that a theory = fact.
I'm reading it wrong - am I?

 

[Alceste]

When discussing a scientific theory, you would be wrong.

Likewise music theory, incidentally. I've never had a student insist that the fact there are two sharps in the key of D is just idle speculation.

 

[andys]

stephenw,
Technically a theory is a full explanation of "why", which is based upon certain Laws, which are based on a foundation of facts. In common language, peopole tend to say things like "Evolution is a fact", meaning it is "true".

 

[Alceste]

My head mustn't be working today because it seems to me that the op is saying that a theory = fact.
I'm reading it wrong - am I?

The OP is saying evolution, like gravity, is a fact. The scientific theories of evolution and gravity are explanations of how these observed phenomena work.

 

[sandandfoam]

stephenw,
Technically a theory is a full explanation of "why", which is based upon certain Laws, which are based on a foundation of facts."

ok

In common language, peopole tend to say things like "Evolution is a fact", meaning it is "true".

Ok.

Am I misreading the op when I take from it that it says that theory = fact?

 

[sandandfoam]

ok




Ok.

Am I misreading the op when I take from it that it says that theory = fact?

I see Alceste has already clarified.

 

[sandandfoam]

EVOLUTION = FACT & THEORY

Evolution is a FACT.
We observe evolution.
And,
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION, or model, for the observed facts of evolution.

What does it mean to say something is a FACT?

 

[LuisDantas]

My head mustn't be working today because it seems to me that the op is saying that a theory = fact.
I'm reading it wrong - am I?

Not by much. A more accurate description would be that

A scientific theory, much unlike the popular interpretation of the word, is not just any idea without comprovation (that would be a hypothesis).

It can only properly be called a theory by scientists once it has been formulated in a way that could conceivably be proven false. That is, it must be falsifiable. And of course, it must prove coherent with known facts at any given time, lest it become a disproven and therefore discredit theory.

 

[Alceste]

What does it mean to say something is a FACT?

In the sense of evolution, I think it means we have observed new species emerge both inside and outside a laboratory and in the excavation of layered fossilized remains that delineate the timing of emergent species, and every scrap of evidence we have ever discovered, bar none, appears to affirm that the theory of evolution accurately explains this phenomenon.

 

[astarath]

We see a lot of new species however the "evolutionary" gaps are huge. I would question the authoritarian view of evolution while the gaps are yet to be filled.

 

[LuisDantas]

Which gaps would those be? All that I have heard of are legend.

 

[sandandfoam]

In the sense of evolution, I think it means we have observed new species emerge both inside and outside a laboratory and in the excavation of layered fossilized remains that delineate the timing of emergent species, and every scrap of evidence we have ever discovered, bar none, appears to affirm that the theory of evolution accurately explains this phenomenon.

I am not arguing against evolution because given our current state of knowledge I believe it would be daft to do so.

But there's something in the manner of this blunt wielding of FACT (whats wrong with plain old facts?) in the op that gets up my nose. The browbeating, lecturing tone of the op makes me want to disagree, even though I agree.