When does theory become fact?

[HiEv]

When does your theory become fact/

Theories don't become facts.

Facts are things which are explained by scientific theories, which makes theories more important than facts when it comes to understanding the world.

A fact is something like "the percentage of dark moths found in area X at time Y is Z".

If you have many facts, you may be able to make hypotheses which can predict future facts.

If a hypothesis is repeatedly proven to be accurate, cannot be disconfirmed, and its predictions are demonstrated to be more accurate than any other relevant hypothesis after peer review and independent replication, it may graduate to becoming a scientific theory.

Now, regarding evolution, evolution is both a theory AND a fact.

The fact of evolution is that the frequency of traits in a population change over multiple generations. That's it. We've seen examples of this repeatedly in things such as antibiotic resistant bacteria becoming more common.

On the other hand, the theory of evolution is what explains these kinds of facts. In this case antibiotics tend to kill off the bacteria that aren't resistant, leaving more of the resistant ones, which causes that strain of bacteria to evolve towards antibiotic resistance. The theory explains the facts.

-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.

None of the above. That simply isn't how science works.

There are numerous misconceptions about science and how it works. In science, "theory" doesn't simply mean "guess" as it does in common parlance. To quote Wikipedia: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."

Now, it should be noted that sometimes the term "theory" is applied inappropriately, even within science. However, there are few explanations that have been more subject to rigorous scrutiny than the theory of evolution and come out the other end shining as brightly.

Thanks to the theory of evolution we can design drugs which are less likely to provoke new resistant strains forming, we can predict where to find fossils and what those fossils will look like without having seen them first, we can solve crimes using DNA evidence, we've even produced crops that have staved off worldwide starvation, and much much more.

Creationists love to pretend that evolution is a "theory in crisis" or that it's merely opinion. The fact is, few explanations are more soundly confirmed, and without it this world would most likely be much much worse off.

 

[Trantorfuzz]

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.

I apologize for being unclear. It's not the facts that are necessarily true today but untrue tomorrow. Rather, it is the *statements* of fact that could be accepted as true today but proven wrong tomorrow.

I'm assuming that we have put aside, for the moment and for the sake of discussion, time-sensitive facts such as "that Rainchild guy is alive," which is true today but will be false in the future.

 

[LuisDantas]

Creationists love to pretend that evolution is a "theory in crisis" or that it's merely opinion. The fact is, few explanations are more soundly confirmed, and without it this world would most likely be much much worse off.

Not to mention considerably different. It is not like evolution has no practical effects or even viable commercial and technological applications.

 

[bobhikes]

Question for anyone who reads this. When is the last time you physically verified a scientific fact. Not just read about some one else who did. I mean following the scientific method proved science right.

Like a simple one, sort of(its more complicated than you believe) the boiling temperature of water.

 

[HiEv]

Question for anyone who reads this. When is the last time you physically verified a scientific fact. Not just read about some one else who did. I mean following the scientific method proved science right.

Like a simple one, sort of(its more complicated than you believe) the boiling temperature of water.

It depends on what you mean by "physically verified" and "scientific fact".

I verify every day that gravity works. I'm pulled towards the ground.

I frequently verify that the Earth rotates about its axis when I see the Sun rise in the East and set in the West.

During a thunderstorm I can usually verify to a reasonable degree of certainty that light travels faster than sound.

I can see water freeze outside when the temperatures drop below 0c/32f.

I've also written software that uses genetic algorithms that use evolution to solve problems, so I've personally "physically" verified that evolution works.

Do those count?

 

[bobhikes]

It depends on what you mean by "physically verified" and "scientific fact".

I verify every day that gravity works. I'm pulled towards the ground.

I frequently verify that the Earth rotates about its axis when I see the Sun rise in the East and set in the West.

During a thunderstorm I can usually verify to a reasonable degree of certainty that light travels faster than sound.

I can see water freeze outside when the temperatures drop below 0c/32f.

I've also written software that uses genetic algorithms that use evolution to solve problems, so I've personally "physically" verified that evolution works.

Do those count?

No this is not verification of the scientific fact

How do you know you are pulled to the ground and not being pushed. More importantly is the planet pulling you or are you pulling to the planet.
How do you know the sun doesn't rotate around the earth. How do you know Apollo is not pulling the sun across the sky.
Reasonable degree of certainty is not scientific but the fact would be the speed they travel
But is the temperature exactly 0 degrees/ 32 degrees probably not because the water is mostly contaminated.
Using software is not physically verifying anything it is software verification using as you say algorithms.

 

[HiEv]

No this is not verification of the scientific fact

Well, as I said before, it depends on what you mean by "physically verified" and "scientific fact".

You weren't particularly clear what you meant by that.

How do you know you are pulled to the ground and not being pushed.

There is actually a difference between being pushed and pulled. If you push against something it moves different than if you pull on it. Furthermore, any pushing would have to come from an outside source, and would have to consistently point towards the center of the Earth's mass. The pull of gravity is the simplest explanation that's consistent with the facts.

I suppose, improbably it could be tiny fairies pulling every atom towards the fairy kingdom in the center of the Earth, but you're confusing the explanation for the observation with the observation itself of the perception of the pull of gravity.

How do you know the sun doesn't rotate around the earth. How do you know Apollo is not pulling the sun across the sky.

Again, you're confusing explanations for facts. The Sun moves East to West across the sky every day that I have observed it. This is a physical verification of a scientific fact.

Whether it's Ra or gravity, the fact of its movement across the sky has been observed.

Reasonable degree of certainty is not scientific

Uh... Yes it is. A reasonable degree of certainty is all that's possible outside of mathematics.

but the fact would be the speed they travel

The verifiably true information that light travels faster than sound is also a fact.

But is the temperature exactly 0 degrees/ 32 degrees probably not because the water is mostly contaminated.

I didn't say "exactly" I said "below". You're distorting my words and making irrelevant points that don't change the facts I was discussing.

Using software is not physically verifying anything it is software verification using as you say algorithms.

As I said before, it depends on what you meant by "physically verifying". To me, software running on a physical device is a way of physically verifying something.

In any case, what was your point?

 

[bobhikes]

Well, as I said before, it depends on what you mean by "physically verified" and "scientific fact".

You weren't particularly clear what you meant by that.



There is actually a difference between being pushed and pulled. If you push against something it moves different than if you pull on it. Furthermore, any pushing would have to come from an outside source, and would have to consistently point towards the center of the Earth's mass. The pull of gravity is the simplest explanation that's consistent with the facts.

I suppose, improbably it could be tiny fairies pulling every atom towards the fairy kingdom in the center of the Earth, but you're confusing the explanation for the observation with the observation itself of the perception of the pull of gravity.



Again, you're confusing explanations for facts. The Sun moves East to West across the sky every day that I have observed it. This is a physical verification of a scientific fact.

Whether it's Ra or gravity, the fact of its movement across the sky has been observed.



Uh... Yes it is. A reasonable degree of certainty is all that's possible outside of mathematics.



The verifiably true information that light travels faster than sound is also a fact.



I didn't say "exactly" I said "below". You're distorting my words and making irrelevant points that don't change the facts I was discussing.



As I said before, it depends on what you meant by "physically verifying". To me, software running on a physical device is a way of physically verifying something.

In any case, what was your point?

My point is has anybody physically themselves recently verified any scientific fact

Such but not limited to
The earth revolves the sun
funny fact I asked my kids this one they agreed it does but then I asked them how they know and they said because they were told in school.

Gravity is much to hard for anyone to prove.

The boiling or freezing point of water at 1 atmosphere of pressure.

Its probably the easiest to do. You need to distill tap water make sure you are in 1 atmosphere of pressure,(need an atmospheric gauge) bring to a boil or freeze with a proper thermometer(probably the hardest thing to get). Measure the temperature. Of course is it the temperature when the first ice crystal forms or the first bead boils.

If no one verifies scientific discovery other than scientists how do we know we aren't being mislead. If all you do is read and take consensuses do you really know it is true? Talk about indoctrination. Kids in the US from 5 years old to 18 mostly are taught and told the scientific method is the most and only reliable system for accurate information.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

Its actually a phrase that I have picked up when researching human evolution and it has been repeated several times. Its not a new Idea and some of the most prominent biologist don't seem to think that it is nonsensical.
From Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
- Stephen J. Gould

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

You have not taken any science in college then. Or been subject to a decent high school science program. You learn the basics behind the science usually through diagrams and worded information but then you usually get to go out and do the basics in practical application.

To say there is no evidence is wrong. And anyone that cares to know usually can have the means to find out. It doesn't mean you have to build your own laboratory but most places are more than happy to show people the evidences.

 

[bobhikes]

Actually I had Physics, Fortran, Biology and Differential Calculus in College Illinois Institute of Technology EE degree. I also had 2 years of technical school for computers and electronics DeVry Technical Institute.

What tests have you preformed to verify any scientific law. Pick one there's plenty or have you just accepted what you have been told. Please explain the test. Its easy to say I did but the explanation will show the truth. Who do you know that is not a scientist that has verified any scientific law.

If you haven't how do you know the information is correct. Maybe you have faith in Scientists the corporations and governments that sponsor them.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.

I think you have to differentiate between the laws of nature, and theories. For instance one might make theory about the differences in height of mountains, but nature itself does not compare the height of mountains. That just happens in our minds only.

The laws of nature on the other hand, are inherent in the objects themselves. Objects consist of the laws of nature, like the Newtonian law of gravity.

To which category the theory of natural selection belongs is unclear, but for the comparision part it seems to be happening just in our minds. In nature ofcourse same competes with same, as well as variant competing with variant, irrespective That natural selection focuses on variants competing is not something in nature.

On the other hand, one could say that organisms have a natural law of reproduction, and populations have a natural law of natural selection, but then I think natural selection would need to be redefined in terms of a more general sorting out in terms of reproduction. So if there would be a population consisting of 100 percent the same organisms, and they are wiped out, then we would say the organisms are selected against. And if the population increases then they would be selected for.

In current theory natural selection is only relative. That means that if one variant goes up in population share, while the actual number of them go down, then it would be said that the reproductive succes is increasing.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Actually I had Physics, Fortran, Biology and Differential Calculus in College Illinois Institute of Technology EE degree. I also had 2 years of technical school for computers and electronics DeVry Technical Institute.

What tests have you preformed to verify any scientific law. Pick one there's plenty or have you just accepted what you have been told. Please explain the test. Its easy to say I did but the explanation will show the truth. Who do you know that is not a scientist that has verified any scientific law.

If you haven't how do you know the information is correct. Maybe you have faith in Scientists the corporations and governments that sponsor them.

I have done several chemical tests, biochemical tests and physical tests on the laws of science. A good example is in elementary school we shown that two objects of different weight fall at the same speed. Then we talked about the drag rule and had someone run normally and another run with a parachute like thing behind their back.

If you go to most scientific institutions or learning centers you can actually see these things being done. Some of the higher concepts you probably cannot though I admit. But the difference is that we are given basic understanding and evidence of the concepts we deal with every day and we usually trust the scientists who are trained for years in their own fields to bring the new studies and if we ever wanted to see the tests themselves we could. It is available but most people don't care enough to or trust them enough to not verify. I have not gone to CERN but I accept what they have provided.

 

[Thief]

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.

I know very well....science has NOT the answer to the riddle of gravity.....that's a fact.
Without knowing the nature of it we have only theory....that's a fact.

But you won't find me testing any notion about gravity, as I stand on the edge of a sure dead fall.

Gravity is real.......
That's a fact.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Speak for yourself.

I'm an engineer, not a scientist, but I can do soil tests that show conclusively that there hasn't been a global flood since the Great Lakes area was covered with a glacier.

It's too bad if you were always told to accept scientific findings unquestionably, but that's definitely not the case for everyone.

When the conditions are right, there are events all over the world where school kids observe the transit of Venus, learn how Galileo used this to prove that the planets orbit the Sun (as opposed to the Earth), and test it for themselves. School groups regularly bounce lasers off the reflectors that the Apollo astronauts left on the moon to measure the distance for themselves. Every modern science curriculum I've ever heard of is infused with training in critical thinking skills.

And not just in science. I remember when I was in high school, we did an interdisciplinary thing where we read Richard III in English and the Daughter of Time (a non-fiction book also about Richard III) in history, and then were asked to think about how we should try to figure out what actually happened from these conflicting accounts.

I was never told to just accept what I was taught. If you were, that's unfortunate.

 

[gnostic]

I know very well....science has NOT the answer to the riddle of gravity.....that's a fact.
Without knowing the nature of it we have only theory....that's a fact.

But you won't find me testing any notion about gravity, as I stand on the edge of a sure dead fall.

Gravity is real.......
That's a fact.

Did I say at any time that gravity isn't real?

I was merely pointing out that Isaac Newton only understood gravity as he did, with the current technology and ability to test his hypothesis. Newton had only limited his theory on forces of much slower moving objects.

Technology has changed since Newton's time, when Einstein came up new way to explain the forces and on gravity, especially on objects that move at greater speed, as its speed move closer to the speed of light.

Gravity have always exist, but the level understanding gravity have changed, and newer explanation are required, especially with understanding objects that are moving outside of the solar system. Einstein's theory on general relativity has done just that. Einstein had revolutionised the way we can understand or explain the effects of gravity.

Except for calculating forces of masses at moving slower speed, Newton's theory has pretty much being replaced by Einstein's theory. And relativity have been tested repeatedly to be true.

What you seemed to be failing to understand theory is explanation to observable or verifiable facts.

Yes, gravity is a fact, but both Newton and Einstein have provided verifiable explanations (theories) in which can test their theories to be true or not.

Evolution (biological evolution) is also fact, Charles Darwin had provided testable theory on Natural Selection, which was a biological theory on changes of life being effected by the environment.

But unlike gravity, natural selection is still a very valid theory today, because newer evolutionary mechanics, like mutation, didn't replace theory of natural selection; instead theory on mutation has complemented and supplemented natural selection. Mutation and other mechanics has only enhance our understanding on natural selection.

The problem is that you don't understand how theory and fact are linked together. Fact, the natural phenomena, is being explain by testable or verifiable theory.

Thief, you call yourself a "rogue theologian", which probably mean you don't follow church dogma, and yet you still allow the dogma surrounding creationism to hamper understanding of science.

 

[gnostic]

Actually I had Physics, Fortran, Biology and Differential Calculus in College Illinois Institute of Technology EE degree. I also had 2 years of technical school for computers and electronics DeVry Technical Institute.

What tests have you preformed to verify any scientific law. Pick one there's plenty or have you just accepted what you have been told. Please explain the test. Its easy to say I did but the explanation will show the truth. Who do you know that is not a scientist that has verified any scientific law.

If you haven't how do you know the information is correct. Maybe you have faith in Scientists the corporations and governments that sponsor them.

So with all your education, you never once carry out tests or experiments, to verify if the theories were true?

Is that what you are saying?

My experiences in science and maths have being that of (civil) engineer and of computer scientist, so a lot of my testing of theories that were related to my studies.

In civil engineering, I had to test construction materials, like concrete, wood and steel (or other metals), their strength and how they handle stress and strains. My course also required me to learn geology, but it wasn't just about rocks and minerals, but also about testing soils.

In computer science, the electronics side to my course, required me to wire up the circuit boards, to see me learn about electricity as well as any basic component for the circuit, hence to test what I know about transistors, resistors, capacitors, etc, meet with theories on AC and DC circuits.

Both courses cover the practical side of science, hence my bachelor in "applied science". And required me to learn a great deal of physics, but in my studies, I didn't have to deal with theoretical physics, for instance, superstring theory.

 

[Thief]

Did I say at any time that gravity isn't real?


What you seemed to be failing to understand theory is explanation to observable or verifiable facts.

Yes, gravity is a fact, but both Newton and Einstein have provided verifiable explanations (theories) in which can test their theories to be true or not.


Thief, you call yourself a "rogue theologian", which probably mean you don't follow church dogma, and yet you still allow the dogma surrounding creationism to hamper understanding of science.

The second sentence above has always been my position.
As explanation....theory is all fine and good.
It is not however.....proof.

We can be sure of reality...at anytime.
It's all the hoopla....such as yours....that leads to the confusion.

First say to me....theory is an explanation.
Then say to me ....it is not proof.
THEN we have mutual understanding.

Reality doesn't need proving....it's all around you.
Theory (explanation) is only as good as the next repeatable experiment.

And of course....most of reality won't fit in the petri dish.
You just have to think about it.

btw...I am not your typical creationist.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Theories don't become facts.


Facts are things which are explained by scientific theories, which makes theories more important than facts when it comes to understanding the world.

“The goal of theory is not so much to explain things as to use explanations to predict things.”

Shoemaker, P. J., Tankard, J. W., & Lasorsa, D. L. (2004). How to build social science theories. Sage.

If a hypothesis is repeatedly proven to be accurate, cannot be disconfirmed, and its predictions are demonstrated to be more accurate than any other relevant hypothesis after peer review and independent replication, it may graduate to becoming a scientific theory.

“Generally speaking, theories are used at each and every step in the research process...Theories come into play most centrally, however, at three points: (a) idea generation, (b) hypothesis generation, and (c) interpretation of results. The initial steps in an empirical study involve the first two, generating the idea to be studied and forming hypotheses, or at least research questions.” (emphases added)

Gelso, C. (2006). Applying theories to research: The interplay of theory and research in science. In F. Leong, & J. Austin (Eds.), The psychology research handbook: A guide for graduate students and research assistants. (2nd ed., pp. 455-465).

Now, regarding evolution, evolution is both a theory AND a fact.

“a scientific theory is a statement of science that implies considerable evidence but not complete uniformity of findings. Given the nature of science, it is therefore understandable why science consists primarily of theories and research testing theories…If scientists can be wrong about scientific laws, they certainly can be wrong about scientific theories. Thus, although there is a vast amount of evidence supporting the theories of electromagnetism, evolution, and relativity, it is perhaps better to think of them nonetheless as theories rather than as laws.


Considerably more confusion exists regarding the differences between a theory and a hypothesis. Even dictionaries can lead one astray. Webster's New World Dictionary (1962), for example, defines a hypothesis as an “unproved theory.” However, no theory is ever completely proven or disproved” (emphases added)

(Shoemaker et al; 2004)

The theory explains the facts.

“Theory is generally understood as a systematic representation of a genuine problem, articulated as far as possible in mathematical terms in the natural sciences or logical (or strictly linguistic terms) in the life and social sciences. The systematic nature of theory is normally aimed at providing explanatory leverage on a problem, describing innovative features of a phenomenon or providing predictive utility. The empirical adequacy required of a theory is a controversial feature of theories and often differs radically across disciplines. As most research in the sciences and social sciences is theory driven, that is, is concerned with the refinement or refutation of theoretical claims, the design of that research will have an immediate impact on the nature of theory construction and the presumed relationship among theory construction, observation, and the outcome of empirical research.” (emphases added)


Stam, H. (2010). Theory. In Neil J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Research Design. (pp. 1499-1503).

In science, "theory" doesn't simply mean "guess" as it does in common parlance.

“The term ‘theory’ is used variously in science to refer to an unproven hunch, a scientific field (as in ‘electromagnetic theory’), and a conceptual device for systematically characterizing the state-transition behaviour of systems.”
(Theories, Scientific)


The Scientific Method does not exist. Scientists haven’t used it for probably a century at least (to the extent they ever did), and groups like the AAAS have been trying to correct the seemingly deeply ingrained notion passed on in science classes up to and including college this incorrect model of scientific research, which simplistically runs as follows:

1) Form hypothesis

2) Test hypothesis repeatedly, trying to disprove it

3) If it is continually confirmed, it becomes theory.


This is wrong. First, because as stated in one of the quotes above theories inform both the generation of hypotheses and the interpretation of findings. Second, most of the uses of theory within scientific literature are used in an often radically different context (e.g., field theory, theory of hypothesis testing, facet theory, Theory of Everything, etc.). Third, theories are rarely singular. Evolutionary theory is so broad it encompasses multiple fields and some sciences (notably, evolutionary psychology) are founded upon it. It is probably more accurate to understand evolutionary theory as field rather than a theory, as there is no singular theory that encompasses all of that which is evolutionary theory (and there are competing theories within evolutionary theory, such as how best to conceptualize and/or quantify fitness).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Gravity is real.......
That's a fact.

No it isn't. If the attraction between bodies explained in classical physics as "gravity" turns out to be the result of spacetime curvature as in general relativity then gravity is as real as the "ether" that light was thought to propagate through.