-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is a 'theory' ?
- Thread starter Iasion
- Start date
newhope101
Active Member
Theoretical modelling is based on many assumptions.
For example you have fossils. These are evidence. You can see them, you MAY be able to sort them into an individual organism, they are surely there without the need for hypothesis,
However, dating and working out where they fit into the scheme of things is based on many sciences including theoretical modeling. This modelling is scaffolded against the presumption of ancestry. Hence new data changes dates and can change anything eg LUCA, arch was the missing link an is now a sister species, the theory was that bipedal walking was tied to brain increase. This has now been invalidated.
If evolutionary theory was robust, you would not have been convinced that humans decended from knucklewalkers at one time. Again Ardi changed all that. Hence one can see the lack of scientific robustness connected to theoretical modelling. This is taking EVIDENCE and making false ASSUMPTIONS about it. Evo researchers have done this time and time again.
That is one example of the difference between evidence and theoretical assumptions.
Hypothesis are what is made of the evidence. A creationists scientist would not be looking for ancestry, but would conclude that there were many varieties of non human primates around, some of which are now extinct. The dating can be scewed to fit creation similarly to making it fit in with Toe through models. Creationists reseachers could use any evidence to fit in with creation, with less need, for many assumptions to make it work.
For example you have fossils. These are evidence. You can see them, you MAY be able to sort them into an individual organism, they are surely there without the need for hypothesis,
However, dating and working out where they fit into the scheme of things is based on many sciences including theoretical modeling. This modelling is scaffolded against the presumption of ancestry. Hence new data changes dates and can change anything eg LUCA, arch was the missing link an is now a sister species, the theory was that bipedal walking was tied to brain increase. This has now been invalidated.
If evolutionary theory was robust, you would not have been convinced that humans decended from knucklewalkers at one time. Again Ardi changed all that. Hence one can see the lack of scientific robustness connected to theoretical modelling. This is taking EVIDENCE and making false ASSUMPTIONS about it. Evo researchers have done this time and time again.
That is one example of the difference between evidence and theoretical assumptions.
Hypothesis are what is made of the evidence. A creationists scientist would not be looking for ancestry, but would conclude that there were many varieties of non human primates around, some of which are now extinct. The dating can be scewed to fit creation similarly to making it fit in with Toe through models. Creationists reseachers could use any evidence to fit in with creation, with less need, for many assumptions to make it work.
Last edited:
Gday,
I thought I made it clear :
There are FACTS, and there are theories that explain those facts.
Theories EXPLAIN facts.
However - there ARE still 2 meanings to the word :
1. speculation
2. explanation
Bear in mind that THEORIES (of both types) can still be WRONG.
Speculation can be wrong of course.
An explanation can be wrong.
Consider these two theories which attempt to explain the
CAUSE of DISEASE :
A. the DEMON theory of disease
B. the GERM theory of disease.
Disease is a fact - both theories attempt to explain how disease is caused.
One theory is correct.
One theory is wrong.
So - a theory is not a fact, and a theory can be wrong.
Iasion
I thought I made it clear :
There are FACTS, and there are theories that explain those facts.
Theories EXPLAIN facts.
However - there ARE still 2 meanings to the word :
1. speculation
2. explanation
Bear in mind that THEORIES (of both types) can still be WRONG.
Speculation can be wrong of course.
An explanation can be wrong.
Consider these two theories which attempt to explain the
CAUSE of DISEASE :
A. the DEMON theory of disease
B. the GERM theory of disease.
Disease is a fact - both theories attempt to explain how disease is caused.
One theory is correct.
One theory is wrong.
So - a theory is not a fact, and a theory can be wrong.
Iasion
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Lasion, did you get the idea for this OP from Richard Dawkins' 2009 book: The Greatest Show on Earth? If so, then you ought to cite him. If not, then you ought to read his very lucid explanation of why the ToE is a "fact" and not a "theory". The quotes signify that I am using the special senses of those words that Dawkins describes.
I ask this question, because I have just gotten around to reading the book, and this is really the first topic of substance that he addresses in the book. (See the list of topics under "Synopsis" on the Wikipedia page I referenced.)
In fact, Dawkins pulled his two words senses of "theory" from the Oxford English Dictionary. One sense of theory is that it is something known and accepted as truth that is based on observation. The other sense is the "speculation/hypothesis/conjecture" sense--something that has yet to be established as proven. The scientific sense of "theory" is only in the first sense--as something that is taken as settled truth based on observation. Some scientific theories are regarded as irrefutable, e.g. the theory that the diameter of the sun is larger than that of the earth. Evolution is that sort of theory. Hence, it is also regarded as a scientific fact. What Dawkins does in his book is lay out the reason why scientists consider Evolution an established fact in the same sense that the relative sizes of the earth and sun are considered established facts.
Gday,
Hmmm...
I see you quoted the EVOLUTION part, and questioned about "facts".
But I see you snipped out the other examples - gravity and electricity.
I am sure you agree that gravity and electricity are "facts" of nature right? They clearly exist (even if we cannot directly see gravity or electricity with our eyes.)
AND, we have theories to explain those facts - there are actually TWO theories of gravity :
* Newton
* Einstein
(So which is correct? Einstein is 100% correct but it's dang hard maths, Newton is 99.9% correct and it's easy maths. Newtons theory has been fine for 400 years.)
I think the problem is this :
Some people think evolution is still "just a theory", and when we have enough proof it will become a "fact".
Wrong.
Wrong wrong wrong.
Evolution is already considered a fact, we observe it effects daily.
K.
Hmmm...
I see you quoted the EVOLUTION part, and questioned about "facts".
But I see you snipped out the other examples - gravity and electricity.
I am sure you agree that gravity and electricity are "facts" of nature right? They clearly exist (even if we cannot directly see gravity or electricity with our eyes.)
AND, we have theories to explain those facts - there are actually TWO theories of gravity :
* Newton
* Einstein
(So which is correct? Einstein is 100% correct but it's dang hard maths, Newton is 99.9% correct and it's easy maths. Newtons theory has been fine for 400 years.)
I think the problem is this :
Some people think evolution is still "just a theory", and when we have enough proof it will become a "fact".
Wrong.
Wrong wrong wrong.
Evolution is already considered a fact, we observe it effects daily.
K.
Gday,
Yes, I propose we all avoid the bare word "theory" and say explicitly either :
* scientific theory (an explanation)
* speculative theory (a guess)
A very good point that I omitted, thanks
Yes - a scientific theory must be falsifiable - there must be some test or experiment or observation which would show it to be false.
This is (one of the many reasons) why I.D. is not a scientific theory - it cannot be falsified - it's compatible with ANYTHING and EVERYTHING - which makes it useless as a scientific theory. Don't be fooled by IDists that this makes it a strong theory - it doesn't.
I.
Yes, I propose we all avoid the bare word "theory" and say explicitly either :
* scientific theory (an explanation)
* speculative theory (a guess)
A very good point that I omitted, thanks
Yes - a scientific theory must be falsifiable - there must be some test or experiment or observation which would show it to be false.
This is (one of the many reasons) why I.D. is not a scientific theory - it cannot be falsified - it's compatible with ANYTHING and EVERYTHING - which makes it useless as a scientific theory. Don't be fooled by IDists that this makes it a strong theory - it doesn't.
I.
LuisDantes makes an important point.
That a scientific theory must be falsifiable (at least in principle) distinguishes it from those theories that are "true" by definition, such as music theory.
Permit me to offer some basic information in case it is unfamiliar to some readers:
Scientific theories are based upon a foundation of facts, via actual empirical observation and testing. Statements of fact are classified as "a posteriori" truths, i.e., knowledge known after experience (observation). In contrast, theories which are NOT based on empirical observation, are classified as "a priori" truths, i.e., knowledge known before (without) experience or observation. These so-called truths are commonly referred to as trivial truths, since they are made up, so to speak.
Here are examples of the two classifications of statements:
1) "The Earth is round" is a fact. It is, solely based on empirical observation and testing. It's truth is known a posteriori. It is subject to falsification providing that future observation and testing reveal it is not true.
2 )"A circle is round" is not a fact. It is not based on any empirical observation or testing. It cannot be falsified ever, not even in principle. Its "truth" is indeed trivial because it is true by its own definition. It is circular (no pun intended, really.) Think of how many trivial truths sound like knowledge, but are only circular definitions. "1+1 = 2", and "Ghosts are spirits of the dead", and (dare I?) "God is the creator of heaven and Earth".
That these a prori truths are said to be trivial, does not entail that they are necessarily without value. Indeed, theories comprised entirely of a priori truths can rival scientific theories in their power to ascertain and predict facts about our universe.
That a scientific theory must be falsifiable (at least in principle) distinguishes it from those theories that are "true" by definition, such as music theory.
Permit me to offer some basic information in case it is unfamiliar to some readers:
Scientific theories are based upon a foundation of facts, via actual empirical observation and testing. Statements of fact are classified as "a posteriori" truths, i.e., knowledge known after experience (observation). In contrast, theories which are NOT based on empirical observation, are classified as "a priori" truths, i.e., knowledge known before (without) experience or observation. These so-called truths are commonly referred to as trivial truths, since they are made up, so to speak.
Here are examples of the two classifications of statements:
1) "The Earth is round" is a fact. It is, solely based on empirical observation and testing. It's truth is known a posteriori. It is subject to falsification providing that future observation and testing reveal it is not true.
2 )"A circle is round" is not a fact. It is not based on any empirical observation or testing. It cannot be falsified ever, not even in principle. Its "truth" is indeed trivial because it is true by its own definition. It is circular (no pun intended, really.) Think of how many trivial truths sound like knowledge, but are only circular definitions. "1+1 = 2", and "Ghosts are spirits of the dead", and (dare I?) "God is the creator of heaven and Earth".
That these a prori truths are said to be trivial, does not entail that they are necessarily without value. Indeed, theories comprised entirely of a priori truths can rival scientific theories in their power to ascertain and predict facts about our universe.
Gday,
Yes.
Yes yes yes.
This is quite a key point that evolution deniers usually fail to grasp.
Evolution has been studied and discussed for over a century. In that time millions of tests, and experiments, and observations, have been done by thousands of scientists, in dozens of countries.
How many disagree with evolution?
Zero.
Not some, not a few.
0.00% of the tests.
How many support evolution?
Millions.
100.00% of the tests.
That's one of the reasons it is so well accepted by scientists - the support is VAST, DEEP and CLEAR.
But still we have people bringing up this phrase "THEORY of evolution' ! Like :
"Last I checked, evolution was still just a THEORY ! pwned! haha 11!one1!"
Does any believer say :
"Last I checked, gravity was still just a THEORY ! pwned! haha 11!one1!"
Nope.
Because gravity doesn't challenge fundamental Christian beliefs.
But of course if the Bible had mentioned "invisble gravity faeries" who held everything down, THEN we WOULD see exactly that.
Evolution denial springs only from religious beliefs in ancient myths.
I.
Yes.
Yes yes yes.
This is quite a key point that evolution deniers usually fail to grasp.
Evolution has been studied and discussed for over a century. In that time millions of tests, and experiments, and observations, have been done by thousands of scientists, in dozens of countries.
How many disagree with evolution?
Zero.
Not some, not a few.
0.00% of the tests.
How many support evolution?
Millions.
100.00% of the tests.
That's one of the reasons it is so well accepted by scientists - the support is VAST, DEEP and CLEAR.
But still we have people bringing up this phrase "THEORY of evolution' ! Like :
"Last I checked, evolution was still just a THEORY ! pwned! haha 11!one1!"
Does any believer say :
"Last I checked, gravity was still just a THEORY ! pwned! haha 11!one1!"
Nope.
Because gravity doesn't challenge fundamental Christian beliefs.
But of course if the Bible had mentioned "invisble gravity faeries" who held everything down, THEN we WOULD see exactly that.
Evolution denial springs only from religious beliefs in ancient myths.
I.
Gday,
So what?
Fossilisation is rare - there will always be gaps.
Meanwhile we have MILLIONS of tests etc. that support evolution. a VASY body of clear facts.
But do you believe we need to see EVERY fossils of EVERY creature from the past before you will believe?
The evidence we have is VAST and it clearly supports evolution.
What authoritarian view?
Evolution is supported by FACTS, not authority.
It is the CHURCH that rules by authority. In fact your claim about 'gaps' comes from church authority, not from science.
There will always be gaps in the fossil record - so what?
We have vast amounts of other types of evidence.
(And what about all the gaps in Christian beliefs? Do they matter to you?)
Somehow you believe a vague claim about 'gaps' somehow over-rules the VAST body of facts that clearly support evolution.
I.
So what?
Fossilisation is rare - there will always be gaps.
Meanwhile we have MILLIONS of tests etc. that support evolution. a VASY body of clear facts.
But do you believe we need to see EVERY fossils of EVERY creature from the past before you will believe?
The evidence we have is VAST and it clearly supports evolution.
What authoritarian view?
Evolution is supported by FACTS, not authority.
It is the CHURCH that rules by authority. In fact your claim about 'gaps' comes from church authority, not from science.
There will always be gaps in the fossil record - so what?
We have vast amounts of other types of evidence.
(And what about all the gaps in Christian beliefs? Do they matter to you?)
Somehow you believe a vague claim about 'gaps' somehow over-rules the VAST body of facts that clearly support evolution.
I.
Gday,
Hmmm...
You don't like that I sometimes used capitals for "FACT" ?
It's just a common form of emphasis.
I.
Hmmm...
You don't like that I sometimes used capitals for "FACT" ?
It's just a common form of emphasis.
I.
Gday,
Wrong.
Evolution deniers always try to falsely call evidence 'presumption'.
In fact - evolution is a fact supported by a vast body of evidence.
Specific details DO change.
So what?
Please explain why you think it's so important that one point was changed?
True Believers think they have the truth which can never be changed. So when science learns something new - they scream "AHA - see? science was wrong all along. Evolution is false! pwned! "
What a joke.
This change did NOT invalidate evolution - although newhope101 is trying to pretend it does. In fact science learns new things all the time - including learning new details about evolution.
And everyone of those new details SUPPORTS evolution. But deniers pretend that making a tiny change to some detail means the WHOLE THING is wrong. What nonsense.
Essentially the denial argument goes like this :
Science has found out something new;
so this means everything we know is wrong,
so this means Christian dogma is right
What a joke - no wodner they never spell the argument out in full - it's a crap argument.
Bollocks.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Evolution is supported by a vast body of clear evidence. Stop pretending that changing some minor detail invalidates the whole theory - it doesn't.
Wrong.
Evolution is supported by a vast body of clear evidence.
Oh dear -
You're STILL stuck on what 'theory' and 'hypothesis' mean.
But back in the real world -
Evolution has been confirmed by MILLIONS of tests by THOUSANDS of scientists over more than a century.
100.0% of those tests support evolution.
0.0% disagree with it.
If you had even ONE test or experiment that disagreed - evolution eniers would shout it from the rooftops.
Instead all we get is these lame claims that some minor detail has been changed - pathetic.
I.
Wrong.
Evolution deniers always try to falsely call evidence 'presumption'.
In fact - evolution is a fact supported by a vast body of evidence.
Specific details DO change.
So what?
Please explain why you think it's so important that one point was changed?
True Believers think they have the truth which can never be changed. So when science learns something new - they scream "AHA - see? science was wrong all along. Evolution is false! pwned! "
What a joke.
This change did NOT invalidate evolution - although newhope101 is trying to pretend it does. In fact science learns new things all the time - including learning new details about evolution.
And everyone of those new details SUPPORTS evolution. But deniers pretend that making a tiny change to some detail means the WHOLE THING is wrong. What nonsense.
Essentially the denial argument goes like this :
Science has found out something new;
so this means everything we know is wrong,
so this means Christian dogma is right
What a joke - no wodner they never spell the argument out in full - it's a crap argument.
Bollocks.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Evolution is supported by a vast body of clear evidence. Stop pretending that changing some minor detail invalidates the whole theory - it doesn't.
Wrong.
Evolution is supported by a vast body of clear evidence.
Oh dear -
You're STILL stuck on what 'theory' and 'hypothesis' mean.
But back in the real world -
Evolution has been confirmed by MILLIONS of tests by THOUSANDS of scientists over more than a century.
100.0% of those tests support evolution.
0.0% disagree with it.
If you had even ONE test or experiment that disagreed - evolution eniers would shout it from the rooftops.
Instead all we get is these lame claims that some minor detail has been changed - pathetic.
I.
DeistPrimate
Member
Reply to Stephenw
You asked (me?) if "theory = fact.
No. They are related, but quite different. Take the Theory of Evolution, for example.
FACTS supporting Evolution:
- It is a fact that the earth is more than 3.6 billion years old.
- It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half that time.
- It is a fact that many life forms here today were not at all living in the past. (E.g., birds and mammals did not exist 250 million years ago.)
- It is a fact that many life forms in the past are not here today. (Dinosaurs are long gone.)
- It is a fact that all life forms evolve from from previous life forms.
THEORY of evolution:
Darwin 's theory is an explanation of the mechanism that drives evolution, namely, natural selection.
You see the relationship? FACTS are empirically, observably true phenomena that exist all on their own. They are not related to one another nor do they provide an explanation of any "big picture". A THEORY incorporates certain facts to support its hypothesis in order to explain an unobserved/unobservable mechanism that operates behind the scenes.
Therefore, a theory can never be a fact or vise versa. You may hear/read reputable scientists retorting that "Evolution is a fact!", but they are surely using the word "fact" to emphasize their certainty of Evolution.
I urge you not to take my word for any of this in favour of researching the information so abundant and readily available on the internet.
You asked (me?) if "theory = fact.
No. They are related, but quite different. Take the Theory of Evolution, for example.
FACTS supporting Evolution:
- It is a fact that the earth is more than 3.6 billion years old.
- It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half that time.
- It is a fact that many life forms here today were not at all living in the past. (E.g., birds and mammals did not exist 250 million years ago.)
- It is a fact that many life forms in the past are not here today. (Dinosaurs are long gone.)
- It is a fact that all life forms evolve from from previous life forms.
THEORY of evolution:
Darwin 's theory is an explanation of the mechanism that drives evolution, namely, natural selection.
You see the relationship? FACTS are empirically, observably true phenomena that exist all on their own. They are not related to one another nor do they provide an explanation of any "big picture". A THEORY incorporates certain facts to support its hypothesis in order to explain an unobserved/unobservable mechanism that operates behind the scenes.
Therefore, a theory can never be a fact or vise versa. You may hear/read reputable scientists retorting that "Evolution is a fact!", but they are surely using the word "fact" to emphasize their certainty of Evolution.
I urge you not to take my word for any of this in favour of researching the information so abundant and readily available on the internet.
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
The following is something I posted in another thread.
See if it reads the way you might like......as for theory.
....imaginative contemplation of reality...
...an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principals or circumstances.
...as distinguished from applied art or science.
...the coherent set of hypothetical, conceptual, and pragmatic principles forming the general frame for a field of inquiry
...a judgment, preposition, or formula formed by speculation
...a hypothetical entity or structure explaining or relating to an observed set of facts.
...a working of hypothesis given probability by experimental evidence or by factual or conceptual analysis...BUT NOT conclusively established or accepted as law.
...something taken for granted esp. on trivial or inadequate grounds
syn...conjecture...speculation...supposition
Through out the entire definition ...which you can read....in Webster's...
the word 'proof' is not there.
There are many 'facts' that you can fall back on.
And the collection of facts led to theory.
No proof yet.
This is not to say...I don't believe in evolution...I do.
But I also hold God as the Source.
God did it.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
No it won't.