When does theory become fact?

[bobhikes]

I have a theory that there are no facts. I

1.
To summarize: fact = repeatable observation

Major problems with your definition of fact.

My son smelled a flower and sneezed. A year later he did the same to a different flower. Is it a fact that my son sneezes when he smells flowers.

The problem with repeatable observation is that it is not always repeatable. There are to many variants in the world. Yes when the observation fails science will do due diligence to prove why it failed. For example atmospheric pressure effects the boiling temperature of water. So unless you label all the variants a law like(just saying) pure H2O boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level with stable air quality and temperature and current rotation parameters of the earth your fact would be wrong some day. You fact fails if your not at sea level, it raining while your trying to do it or your trying it on top of a mountain in Denver Colorado. This is why everything is theory. Facts only exist in a specific time and place and vary in all other times and places.

Water in a microwave can be dangerous-Truth!

Oh and water can be heated beyond the boiling point and not boil. I've done it in a microwave. The link above explains the truth. So why is 100 degrees Celsius the boiling point of water with all these exceptions.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

When does your theory become fact/

-When a group of 'prominent' people espouse your theory/belief
-When certain regional 'academia' teaches your theory/belief
-When you have 'figured out' that the most reliable answer is the one coming from someone you respect.

How about when any given idea amounts enough evidence to the point it would be perverse to deny it?

 

[Thief]

I think to understand your question, you have to understand terminology of "theory" and "fact", before you can even begin to debate them together.

Not only that. You have to understand both of these terms in their scientific contexts, and not everyday, non-scientific definitions.

The (scientific) theory is an scientific explanation to a phenomena, whether it be natural or artificial (like computers), that are verifiable through observation (that could be through repeated and rigorous testings, or through empirical evidences).

Fact is something (phenomena) that can be verified to be true or false. And in science, evidence is preferable usage to fact.

In another word, (scientific) theory is observation of and well-defined explanation to "fact".

Of course, not all scientific theory can use empirical evidences, for examples, superstring theory and M-theory. These theories rely more on mathematical model, like set of complex equations to prove the theory to be "scientific", and they are currently untestable.

Evolution is not theoretical science, because it doesn't rely on mathematical proofs, and the conclusion to the theory can be reach through verifiable evidences.

I believe gravity is more than theory......
Gravity is real....that's a fact.

But there seems a problem deciding how it forms....last I heard.

Got a theory for that?

 

[gnostic]

I believe gravity is more than theory......
Gravity is real....that's a fact.

But there seems a problem deciding how it forms....last I heard.

Got a theory for that?

What you don't understand, you ignorant thief, is that theory EXPLAIN fact, or nature, or the mechanism of nature.

Newton had his own theory on gravity, and his theory has become outdated, because it only take into account on earth, and moving at much slower pace.

Newton's theory on gravity is outdated because it doesn't take into account gravity out in deep space, where objects are larger and move at greater speed (like the speed of light or near the speed of light), hence Einstein's general relativity. And Newton didn't know the effect of gravity on particles of subatomic levels (meaning smaller than the protons and electrons), hence we have theory about quantum physics.

No, thief. The theory of gravity is far from a done deal, because scientists have been working on the last 3 (or more) decades in unifying General Relativity and Quantum Physics theories about gravity, as one theory - the String Theory, or Superstring Theory.

General Relativity and Quantum Physics are incompatible with each other, hence the String Theory, and the theory of gravity is still work in progress.

The theory on evolution is more well-establish and complete than that of gravity, and we still don't fully understand gravity.

 

[Altfish]

My understanding of fact, hypothesis and theory is best described in this crude and simple example…

Fact: - A scientist notices that when he repeatedly drops an apple it falls to the ground every time; he also notices that his pencil falls in the same way. He also thinks that this is related to planetary motion. These events/observations are called facts, these facts are currently unconnected.
Hypothesis: - The same scientist based on the ‘facts’ above (and probably many more observations) says, “I believe that larger objects attract small objects to them”. This proposal is called a hypothesis. He publishes this hypothesis in a learned journal.
Theory: - Having read the learned journal many other scientists try to repeat the experiment, invent new experiments and refine the experiments to test the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is found to be wanting the hypothesis fails and we return to a state of unconnected ‘facts’.
However, if after repeated testing and retesting the hypothesis is seen to be sound it will eventually become a theory.

Obviously, the above crude example relates to Newton and gravity, but similarly a scenario could be put together that describes evolution, germ theory, etc. It must be remembered that even when a hypothesis becomes a theory it is still constantly being tested and refined and could be proven false. With Gravity and Evolution this is very unlikely but a Nobel Prize, wealth and fame awaits anyone who manages to do that. Remember Einstein, he refined Newton’s work.

 

[Desert Snake]

How about when any given idea amounts enough evidence to the point it would be perverse to deny it?

?? ^
Doesn't make sense.


So your saying gravity isn't obviously a fact? Like there isn't enough 'evidence' to point to gravity being a 'fact'? Sure seems like it.

 

[Desert Snake]

How about when any given idea amounts enough evidence to the point it would be perverse to deny it?

It's interesting how this becomes in your view something that gains adherence when someone stops 'denying' it. Sounds like religious beliefs.

 

[Skwim]

My understanding of fact, hypothesis and theory is best described in this crude and simple example…

Fact: - A scientist notices that when he repeatedly drops an apple it falls to the ground every time; he also notices that his pencil falls in the same way. He also thinks that this is related to planetary motion. These events/observations are called facts, these facts are currently unconnected.

The fact would be that in the trials he made, the unsupported objects he held fell to the ground. His erroneous conclusion plays no part in the fact.

Hypothesis: - The same scientist based on the ‘facts’ above (and probably many more observations) says, “I believe that larger objects attract small objects to them”. This proposal is called a hypothesis. He publishes this hypothesis in a learned journal.

A belief that is partially right.

Theory:

- Having read the learned journal many other scientists try to repeat the experiment, invent new experiments and refine the experiments to test the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is found to be wanting the hypothesis fails and we return to a state of unconnected ‘facts’.
However, if after repeated testing and retesting the hypothesis is seen to be sound it will eventually become a theory.

Pretty much so.

 

[Trantorfuzz]

I have a theory that there are no facts. I


Major problems with your definition of fact.

My son smelled a flower and sneezed. A year later he did the same to a different flower. Is it a fact that my son sneezes when he smells flowers.

The problem with repeatable observation is that it is not always repeatable. There are to many variants in the world. Yes when the observation fails science will do due diligence to prove why it failed. For example atmospheric pressure effects the boiling temperature of water. So unless you label all the variants a law like(just saying) pure H2O boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level with stable air quality and temperature and current rotation parameters of the earth your fact would be wrong some day. You fact fails if your not at sea level, it raining while your trying to do it or your trying it on top of a mountain in Denver Colorado. This is why everything is theory. Facts only exist in a specific time and place and vary in all other times and places.

Water in a microwave can be dangerous-Truth!

Oh and water can be heated beyond the boiling point and not boil. I've done it in a microwave. The link above explains the truth. So why is 100 degrees Celsius the boiling point of water with all these exceptions.

And yet your examples seem to concern verifiable facts. The manner in which the boiling point of water varies with atmospheric pressure, for example, can be mathematically modeled and generalized--it's not bound to one time and one place only. So too with the other factors you mention. Also, note the absence of any *explanation* for the facts that you mention. To explain your facts, you need atomic theory.

 

[bobhikes]

And yet your examples seem to concern verifiable facts. The manner in which the boiling point of water varies with atmospheric pressure, for example, can be mathematically modeled and generalized--it's not bound to one time and one place only. So too with the other factors you mention. Also, note the absence of any *explanation* for the facts that you mention. To explain your facts, you need atomic theory.

Well is it a fact that water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit or not or are there many conditions some we still may not know that make it a theory. I'm pretty sure they didn't know about the microwave thing until just recently.

 

[bobhikes]

My understanding of fact, hypothesis and theory is best described in this crude and simple example…

Fact: - A scientist notices that when he repeatedly drops an apple it falls to the ground every time; he also notices that his pencil falls in the same way. He also thinks that this is related to planetary motion. These events/observations are called facts, these facts are currently unconnected.

Our scientist happens to be in space what happens. Maybe he is on the moon are the results the same. You fact is pretty vague like if I put a screen between where he drops it and the ground it may of may not reach the ground and definitely at a different speed.

What you consider a fact is a vague reference to a specific event and if I change just one variable it won't be true. Yet you glance over the variables as if they don't matter.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

?? ^
Doesn't make sense.


So your saying gravity isn't obviously a fact? Like there isn't enough 'evidence' to point to gravity being a 'fact'? Sure seems like it.

Do you understand what I said? apparently not.

When something is so obvious that it is perverse to deny it would make it a fact. The earth goes round the sun is a fact and is held as such because the amount of evidence is so overwhelming that to deny it would be a perverse act.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It's interesting how this becomes in your view something that gains adherence when someone stops 'denying' it. Sounds like religious beliefs.

I didn't say its when someone stops denying it. Its when it becomes a perverse act to deny it.

If something is obvious or factual its because we accept it as true based on the overwhelming evidence to the point it is no longer a question if it is correct or not. Take evolution for example. It is a fact. People question it all the time but its not in true scientific discussion but in religiously held beliefs that poisons their ability to accept reality.

 

[Desert Snake]

Do you understand what I said? apparently not.

When something is so obvious that it is perverse to deny it would make it a fact. The earth goes round the sun is a fact and is held as such because the amount of evidence is so overwhelming that to deny it would be a perverse act.

What? Apples and oranges. I have scientific material to read, so what, this idea of 'don't deny' a theory is just foreign to me. anyway, I think we have finished this conversation, I actually do understand what your saying, it's just nonsense.

 

[bobhikes]

Do you understand what I said? apparently not.

When something is so obvious that it is perverse to deny it would make it a fact. The earth goes round the sun is a fact and is held as such because the amount of evidence is so overwhelming that to deny it would be a perverse act.

What evidence, I only believe it because I have been taught it. I was never shown any practical applications to test if it was true. I was never given any equipment to show me it was true. In fact I don't have the equipment to test the statement.

In general I choose to be ignorant and accept the current scientific explanation as probably 80% of the world does. 10% probably have the means to test it and 10 % believe it is wrong and don't care to test it. It doesn't matter to me and my life whether we move around the sun or it moves around us or if Apollo pulls it across the sky every day as long as it is there I'm happy.

 

[Trantorfuzz]

Well is it a fact that water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit or not or are there many conditions some we still may not know that make it a theory. I'm pretty sure they didn't know about the microwave thing until just recently.

Separate observations (facts) from theories (explanations). A scientific theory isn't a speculation or a statement of probable or possible fact; it's an account of the reasons for those facts. It makes no sense to say that "water boils at 212 degrees Farenheit at one atmosphere of air pressure" is a theory.

The fact that we might not know about one or more conditions that could falsify this claim doesn't make it any less a putative fact. Again, for an explanation of this alleged fact, you have to invoke theoretical models of the behavior of atoms and molecules.

If it turned out that water boils at 230 degrees F at one atmosphere under certain conditions, then we would have to qualify our generalization about the boiling point of water--in other words, admit that our putative statement of fact is wrong under certain conditions. Whether we would have to change atomic theory on that account is a related but separate issue.

 

[bobhikes]

Separate observations (facts) from theories (explanations). A scientific theory isn't a speculation or a statement of probable or possible fact; it's an account of the reasons for those facts. It makes no sense to say that "water boils at 212 degrees Farenheit at one atmosphere of air pressure" is a theory.

The fact that we might not know about one or more conditions that could falsify this claim doesn't make it any less a putative fact. Again, for an explanation of this alleged fact, you have to invoke theoretical models of the behavior of atoms and molecules.

If it turned out that water boils at 230 degrees F at one atmosphere under certain conditions, then we would have to qualify our generalization about the boiling point of water--in other words, admit that our putative statement of fact is wrong under certain conditions. Whether we would have to change atomic theory on that account is a related but separate issue.

So if I understand correctly Facts don't have to always be true. They could be facts today but slightly different tomorrow. Well if that's how you define facts, I can't argue.

 

[bobhikes]

When does your theory become fact/

-When a group of 'prominent' people espouse your theory/belief
-When certain regional 'academia' teaches your theory/belief
-When you have 'figured out' that the most reliable answer is the one coming from someone you respect.

When scientists say it it so is the only correct answer.

Science is just another religion. The top 1% of the world have been put through higher education(the missionary's of the past). They are given and trained on the use of special equipment which the average person can not hope to use. There thoughts are published and once a consensus agrees taught in school as fact to children with no experience.

Scientists themselves are guided mostly by money from government and the corporate world much as religions incorporate themselves in to governments. The average person is not allowed to question science but told to just accept it. The average person is not allowed near the areas with the expensive equipment(all under government protection) much less allowed to touch it.

We are not taught how to prove things just that we can and maybe shown some of the work the scientists have done the proof. Thankfully in today's world there is freedom of the press and competing ideas get measure because they draw interest which creates money. Also most of it doesn't matter to day to day life.

 

[Altfish]

Our scientist happens to be in space what happens. Maybe he is on the moon are the results the same. You fact is pretty vague like if I put a screen between where he drops it and the ground it may of may not reach the ground and definitely at a different speed.

What you consider a fact is a vague reference to a specific event and if I change just one variable it won't be true. Yet you glance over the variables as if they don't matter.

It wasn't meant to be a detailed scientific paper I was writing it was a simple example of the differences between fact: hypothesis and theory.
I didn't think about it, what I meant with my space reference was that Newton realised that celestial bodies are controlled by the same force that causes and apple to fall to earth.

I notice that you only selectively quoted my post, I assume you accept the rest of it as true.

 

[bobhikes]

It wasn't meant to be a detailed scientific paper I was writing it was a simple example of the differences between fact: hypothesis and theory.
I didn't think about it, what I meant with my space reference was that Newton realised that celestial bodies are controlled by the same force that causes and apple to fall to earth.

I notice that you only selectively quoted my post, I assume you accept the rest of it as true.

I am only concerned with facts. Facts simply don't exist unless specifically defined so that they are useless or require complex mathematics and graphs that only a scientist would use. As for Newton what he learned on earth was not 100 % accurate for what happens with Celestial bodies. Hey it was close enough the guy was brilliant.