When does theory become fact?

[shawn001]

So then what is your problem with what I am arguing. People argue that things like religions need to be proven all the time. Asking if these same people make scientists prove the basic facts once in a while or challenge the basic facts from time to time is wrong. Perhaps a big event every 50 or 100 years. People could dress like Newton or Einstein and redo there results.

How many times have you read in this thread that evolution is a Law as if that makes it unchallengeable.

Bob, evolution is not a law.

"People argue that things like religions need to be proven all the time."

They fall under supernatural. Religions make a lot of supernatural claims, some we know are flat out wrong of course.
Science gets things wrong and works to correct for it.

Evolution is challenged everyday and has been for a long time, which is why we know its a fact. What problem do you have with it?


"One of the great triumphs of modern evolutionary science, evo devo addresses many of the key questions that were unanswerable when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, and Carroll has become a leader in this nascent field. Now a professor of molecular biology and genetics at the University of Wisconsin, he continues to decode the genes that control life’s physical forms and to explore how mutations in those genes drive evolutionary change. These days, Carroll also devotes increasing energy to telling the public about his field’s remarkable discoveries through a series of books—Endless Forms Most Beautiful, The Making of the Fittest, and the brand-new Remarkable Creatures. He spoke with DISCOVER senior editor Pamela Weintraub about what his work has taught him about Darwin, the nature of evolution, and how life really works.

It has been 150 years since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in On the Origin of Species, yet in some ways the concept of evolution seems more controversial than ever today. Why do you think that is?
It is a cultural issue, not a scientific one. On the science side our confidence grows yearly because we see independent lines of evidence converge. What we’ve learned from the fossil record is confirmed by the DNA record and confirmed again by embryology. But people have been raised to disbelieve evolution and to hold other ideas more precious than this knowledge. At the same time, we routinely rely on DNA to convict and exonerate criminals. We rely on DNA science for things like paternity. We rely on DNA science in the clinic to weigh our disease risks or maybe even to look at prognoses for things like cancer. DNA science surrounds us, but in this one realm we seem unwilling to accept its facts. Juries are willing to put people to death based upon the variations in DNA, but they’re not willing to understand the mechanism that creates that variation and shapes what makes humans different from other things. It’s a blindness. I think this is a phase that we’ll eventually get through. Other countries have come to peace with DNA. I don’t know how many decades or centuries it’s going to take us."

DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right | DiscoverMagazine.com

 

[Altfish]

Theories don't become facts.

Spot on.

Asking 'when does a theory becomes a fact' is like asking 'when does an apple become a pear'

 

[bobhikes]

This morning.

Then you wouldn't mind explaining it has to be fresh in your mind. Mind you verified a scientific law not observed, not participated in but verified.

 

[bobhikes]

Bob, evolution is not a law.

"People argue that things like religions need to be proven all the time."

They fall under supernatural. Religions make a lot of supernatural claims, some we know are flat out wrong of course.
Science gets things wrong and works to correct for it.

Evolution is challenged everyday and has been for a long time, which is why we know its a fact. What problem to you have with it?

In general I have no problems with science at all. I have been trained in it. I use it at work. What I have problems with is with people treating it as Fact and not just Fact absolute Fact.

I have been trained and work enough with it to know it all has exceptions Newton for example. Even math has exceptions such as you can't divide by zero. Yes I know it can be explained science and math is very good at explaining exceptions such as using a microwave to bring water to a higher then boiling temperature without boiling(see previous post).

But even you evolution is absolute without exception. We have proved it over and over in what 200 years. How many years did the flat earth last or Newtons laws of gravity or name some previous laws. But evolution new even on a scientific scale of laws is absolute fact.

Everything is challenge able or it is worthless. So if you say evolution is unchallengeable then you are saying it is worthless and I have a problem with that.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I will say that I've looked at my endorsements and they're a joke.

More or less. I actually did a social network analysis (actually, it was a little more complicated) on researchgate and found (surprise!) that endorsements tended to include the researchers specialty but frequently below others (I have one endorsement in cognitive science, for example) and that they are highly biased by reciprocity. The actually surprising factor was the connection between the number of answers given in a topic and endorsements. The site suggests endorsements in part based upon these, and thus the more questions one answers the more one is likely to have a representative set of endorsements in that they include more skills/topics that aren't spurious (though the ranking is still off). RG scoring could be better too. But then, I only participated because I get bored and answering questions relieves this.

If I went by those endorsements I'd be Indiana Jones with blue suit and a red cape, and that's not really me ... Dirk Pitt ... maybe, but that's another story.

I am apparently a quantum physicist highly skilled in interviewing and textual criticism, despite 0 training in textual criticism or interviewing and all the physics comes from my doctoral dissertation work on neuroscience and computation biology. People have tried to endorse me for skills I've never heard of.

As far as literature citations are concerned, I have about large number of actual publications.

I never put up all of mine and have removed most or all. I found myself getting misquoted and I would rather establish my reputation the "normal" way (citations that aren't do to the fact that google scholar and google both search researchgate documents). Also, a lot of my research is consult work and proprietary. You have the advantage of longer experience and more publications.

i feel that listing acknowledgements and/or thanks is very déclassé and I would never bother to do so.

I agree. However, I have spent god knows how many posts trying to point to someone who has claimed to be an expert in multiple different fields yet refuses to acknowledge research, ignores explanations, and dismisses without comment any and all evidence. This was my last desperate attempt. Sometime today I'll be removing the picture.

 

[shawn001]

In general I have no problems with science at all. I have been trained in it. I use it at work. What I have problems with is with people treating it as Fact and not just Fact absolute Fact.

I have been trained and work enough with it to know it all has exceptions Newton for example. Even math has exceptions such as you can't divide by zero. Yes I know it can be explained science and math is very good at explaining exceptions such as using a microwave to bring water to a higher then boiling temperature without boiling(see previous post).

But even you evolution is absolute without exception. We have proved it over and over in what 200 years. How many years did the flat earth last or Newtons laws of gravity or name some previous laws. But evolution new even on a scientific scale of laws is absolute fact.

Everything is challenge able or it is worthless. So if you say evolution is unchallengeable then you are saying it is worthless and I have a problem with that.

As I said its challenged and even studied everday and has been for hundreds of years with the evidence going back billions of years! What part do you wish to challenge?

Also we are carbon based life forms, where did the element carbon come from, or iron or any element for that matter?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sorry mate, can't be bothered dredging through all of that. As I said, your educational claims are not inventions of yours I am interested in engaging with

I don't want you to. You didn't accept what I said as being correct. I cited some sources to support my view. You haven't read them but you claim I misinterpreted them. I would like you to act like you were one of the various experts you've claimed to be and take research seriously rather than either ignoring it or saying I misunderstood it because...you say so. However, not only will you not accept or even acknowledge my explanations/arguments, you have made it impossible for me to use other experts:

Sure. But clearly you did not understand what you read.

You offer no evidence for this, but you nicely contradict yourself here:

There is no "the scientific method"

Of course there is,
Frankly it seems amazing that you did not kmow that there was such a thing as the scientific method. It is anout the most basic and essential element of understanding science.

You have simply misunderstood your sources - there are different forms of the scientific method - which is in fact what your own citations are arguing. That there are different forms does not mean that there is no such thing as a scientific method.

Note that I never said there weren't scientific methods. However you argued that there is a singular "thing" that is "the scientific method" and "it" (again, singular) "is about the most basic and essential element of understanding science."

Then, you backtracked. As expected.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Nobody cares mate, it is the argument that counts.

So offer one. Here's mine:
Let’s start with a sensationalist claim: Evolution isn’t “just a theory” because it isn’t even a theory.



Why would I assert something so preposterous? For one, it’s a better rejoinder than many I’ve witnessed to some proponent of Creationism/Intelligent Design. Too many a stalwart guardian of The Scientific Method has educated any attackers of evolutionary theory, often with pained tones of one nobly suffering for a just cause, by misrepresenting what it is. Worse still, our noble warrior will often simultaneously bemoan the state of science education while explaining how The Scientific Method works in ways that no practicing scientist would recognize. Evolution is not a theory in this sense: there is no Scientific Method that exists which could make any “hypothesis” into a “theory”, because The Scientific Method (as it is still taught even at the university level) is a simplification of an outdated 19th century notion. It is a theory more in this sense: “evolutionary theory (ET) is not one theory but a system of theories” (p. 380 of Dagher, Z. R., & Boujaoude, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions of the nature of evolutionary theory. Science Education, 89(3), 378-391.)



Needless to say, a dialogue over any theory is unlikely to be of any value unless at least one side knows what a scientific theory actually is. Most people learn the wondrous fantasy of The Scientific Method in High School, but even university level textbooks rely on it to explain the very foundations of the sciences. By “The Scientific Method” I mean some variation of the following:

1) The scientist ponders over some phenomenon, such as what causes things to move (whether Aristotle’s spear or Galileo’s stone dropped from a ship’s mass), and formulates a hypothesis (possible explanation).

2) The scientist tests this hypothesis, trying to prove herself or himself wrong.

3) If the scientist cannot, they determine that the hypothesis is confirmed and it becomes a “theory”.



In reality, most experiments in the sciences are motivated by, interpreted using, and intended to extend or alter an existing theory. For example, evolutionary psychology requires the framework of evolutionary theory both to develop experiments and to interpret the results of these. No study in this field is possible without evolutionary theory being assumed from the start, and insofar as it extends evolutionary theory it does so by assuming its mechanisms and using them to explain how certain cognitive, emotional, or similar traits humans exhibit or possess are due to conditions tens of thousands of years ago. Most work in evolutionary theory, however, is more direct. Some involve species that die so fast we can test how they “evolve” in laboratory conditions in real time. Yet what we test in such experiments is not “evolutionary theory”.



This is true of theories in general. Most of the time, the things people associate with theories or laws in science, like the “law of gravity” or the “theory of relativity” are either things we know are wrong (like the “law of gravity”) or at least problematic (like relativity). Relativity is a theory in precisely the same way quantum physics is. In fact, these are two of the most successful theories of all time. Yet they remain problematic in part because they are currently incompatible (it’s a lot more complicated than that so physicists- please excuse the simplification).



Here’s the takeaway- theories are frameworks within which all scientific research is conducted. Quantum physics is “just a theory”. Most of the time peer-reviewed research doesn’t contain the word “theory” and there is never any description of a single hypothesis that was “confirmed” making it “theory” (hypothesis testing, both what it really is and why it is often an issue, will have to wait for another day). Don’t defend evolution by trying to equate theories with something akin to “proof”. Defend it by noting that for over a century entire fields of research from astrobiology & biophysics to computer science & evolutionary psychology are able to make successful predictions, develop real-world models, and explain observed phenomena all because of evolutionary theory.

 

[bobhikes]

As I said its challenged and even studied everday and has been for hundreds of years with the evidence going back billions of years! What part do you wish to challenge?

Also we are carbon based life forms, where did the element carbon come from, or iron or any element for that matter?

Why are you hung up on evolution. I want to challenge Facts, All Facts, Every Fact. Personally evolution is not a big one to me other than the group that calls it fact as if that means something special.

 

[shawn001]

Why are you hung up on evolution. I want to challenge Facts, All Facts, Every Fact. Personally evolution is not a big one to me other than the group that calls it fact as if that means something special.

That the universe and all life in it evolved and how it evolved is something very special.

Okay challenge the fact of where carbon comes from and let me know what you find out.

 

[shawn001]

Also was Homo floresiensis an island dwarf or a distinct hominid?

 

[bobhikes]

That the universe and all life in it evolved and how it evolved is something very special.

Okay challenge the fact of where carbon comes from and let me know what you find out.

Yeah and without water we'd all be dead so.

 

[Thief]

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.

Time isn't real.
You are attempting to use a non-entity to make your argument.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Didn't say I didn't do testing, said I never verified a scientific law. I did plenty of testing.

Tested acidity of chemical and soil using the litmus test. Match a color to a prepared chart.
Tested blood type dropped a chemical in resulting matched a chart blood type.
Refracted light into a rainbow
Wave test with water.
Plus quite a few more.

They were planned results not verification of law. Match a chart only shows the chart matches.

The coolest test Beaming the moon I never did but it still doesn't qualify. What did you match your results to. Did you run a tape measure or beam some other type of signal to verify the distance you had as accurate? If you did you got me. If you beamed a light got a result you verified a light can bounce off a mirror at really far distances.

So verifying that it works isn't actually count? Then perhaps there is no pragmatic way to satisfy your need. Personally I find that the simple functioning of all of our technology that we developed based on teh scientific findings is enough to verify that the science is correct.

 

[gnostic]

Didn't say I didn't do testing, said I never verified a scientific law. I did plenty of testing.

As I stated earlier, I am more of engineer than a scientist, but even I know that you are putting too much emphasis on "law" instead of scientific "theory".

In science, (scientific) law is just a very brief statement, sometimes included with mathematical equation or statement. The explanation in law is too limited, for any understanding. Scientific law is seen more of a very brief introduction to the theory.

The theory should encompass everything, from explanation, to some mathematical proofs, to prediction that have been verified through observation, testings, or through evidences that have verified the theory. It is theory that provide detailed explanation to the phenomena, not the law.

And you are putting too much emphasis on terms like "proving" and "proof". "Proof" and "proving" are more of language of mathematicians than scientists.

Unless, you are a theoretical physicist of some sorts, which I doubt very much, you would rely more on evidences and testings than on mathematical proofs. So scientists do less "proving", and more of testings or evidence-gathering. Although, scientific theories often come with and use mathematical equations or models, they are not be-all-end-all solution.

I would like to say more, but I gotta go.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Time isn't real.

I didn't say it was. In fact, the term "spacetime" implies it isn't real, and for those physicists and philosophers whose view of spacetime is ontologic (not just mathematic), it means there is no space or time.

 

[Bunyip]

'Evolution' is a fact is an asinine statement. No, we have not observed one species changing into another etc.

Mate, that would be Harry Potter not evolution. We certainly have observed one species diverging into two or more new species. In fact speciation was first observed more than a century ago - although creationists still deny it.

i'm not going to waste my time explaining why we don't have direct evidence for human evolution as in one 'type' of animal into another /argument there aren't 'types ok cool "looks really different is that better? lol. Anyways, I'm more curious who told all these people that telling others 'evolution is a fact' is kosher.

Science. Evolution is fact, it was proven by direct observation more than a century ago.

 

[Bunyip]

More or less. I actually did a social network analysis (actually, it was a little more complicated) on researchgate and found (surprise!) that endorsements tended to include the researchers specialty but frequently below others (I have one endorsement in cognitive science, for example) and that they are highly biased by reciprocity. The actually surprising factor was the connection between the number of answers given in a topic and endorsements. The site suggests endorsements in part based upon these, and thus the more questions one answers the more one is likely to have a representative set of endorsements in that they include more skills/topics that aren't spurious (though the ranking is still off). RG scoring could be better too. But then, I only participated because I get bored and answering questions relieves this.



I am apparently a quantum physicist highly skilled in interviewing and textual criticism, despite 0 training in textual criticism or interviewing and all the physics comes from my doctoral dissertation work on neuroscience and computation biology. People have tried to endorse me for skills I've never heard of.


I never put up all of mine and have removed most or all. I found myself getting misquoted and I would rather establish my reputation the "normal" way (citations that aren't do to the fact that google scholar and google both search researchgate documents). Also, a lot of my research is consult work and proprietary. You have the advantage of longer experience and more publications.


I agree. However, I have spent god knows how many posts trying to point to someone who has claimed to be an expert in multiple different fields yet refuses to acknowledge research, ignores explanations, and dismisses without comment any and all evidence. This was my last desperate attempt. Sometime today I'll be removing the picture.

I haven't claimed to be an expert in any field buddy - not sure what point your inventions have, but I am getting pretty tired of you trolling me with such accusations.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I haven't claimed to be an expert in any field buddy

Do you mind if I quote where you have done so?

 

[Bunyip]

So offer one. Here's mine:
Let’s start with a sensationalist claim: Evolution isn’t “just a theory” because it isn’t even a theory.



Why would I assert something so preposterous? For one, it’s a better rejoinder than many I’ve witnessed to some proponent of Creationism/Intelligent Design. Too many a stalwart guardian of The Scientific Method has educated any attackers of evolutionary theory, often with pained tones of one nobly suffering for a just cause, by misrepresenting what it is. Worse still, our noble warrior will often simultaneously bemoan the state of science education while explaining how The Scientific Method works in ways that no practicing scientist would recognize. Evolution is not a theory in this sense: there is no Scientific Method that exists which could make any “hypothesis” into a “theory”, because The Scientific Method (as it is still taught even at the university level) is a simplification of an outdated 19th century notion. It is a theory more in this sense: “evolutionary theory (ET) is not one theory but a system of theories” (p. 380 of Dagher, Z. R., & Boujaoude, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions of the nature of evolutionary theory. Science Education, 89(3), 378-391.)



Needless to say, a dialogue over any theory is unlikely to be of any value unless at least one side knows what a scientific theory actually is. Most people learn the wondrous fantasy of The Scientific Method in High School, but even university level textbooks rely on it to explain the very foundations of the sciences. By “The Scientific Method” I mean some variation of the following:

1) The scientist ponders over some phenomenon, such as what causes things to move (whether Aristotle’s spear or Galileo’s stone dropped from a ship’s mass), and formulates a hypothesis (possible explanation).

2) The scientist tests this hypothesis, trying to prove herself or himself wrong.

3) If the scientist cannot, they determine that the hypothesis is confirmed and it becomes a “theory”.



In reality, most experiments in the sciences are motivated by, interpreted using, and intended to extend or alter an existing theory. For example, evolutionary psychology requires the framework of evolutionary theory both to develop experiments and to interpret the results of these. No study in this field is possible without evolutionary theory being assumed from the start, and insofar as it extends evolutionary theory it does so by assuming its mechanisms and using them to explain how certain cognitive, emotional, or similar traits humans exhibit or possess are due to conditions tens of thousands of years ago. Most work in evolutionary theory, however, is more direct. Some involve species that die so fast we can test how they “evolve” in laboratory conditions in real time. Yet what we test in such experiments is not “evolutionary theory”.



This is true of theories in general. Most of the time, the things people associate with theories or laws in science, like the “law of gravity” or the “theory of relativity” are either things we know are wrong (like the “law of gravity”) or at least problematic (like relativity). Relativity is a theory in precisely the same way quantum physics is. In fact, these are two of the most successful theories of all time. Yet they remain problematic in part because they are currently incompatible (it’s a lot more complicated than that so physicists- please excuse the simplification).



Here’s the takeaway- theories are frameworks within which all scientific research is conducted. Quantum physics is “just a theory”. Most of the time peer-reviewed research doesn’t contain the word “theory” and there is never any description of a single hypothesis that was “confirmed” making it “theory” (hypothesis testing, both what it really is and why it is often an issue, will have to wait for another day). Don’t defend evolution by trying to equate theories with something akin to “proof”. Defend it by noting that for over a century entire fields of research from astrobiology & biophysics to computer science & evolutionary psychology are able to make successful predictions, develop real-world models, and explain observed phenomena all because of evolutionary theory.

No idea whatsoever why you address this comment to me. Nor does it appear to relate either to the OP or to anything I have said. I have placed you on ignore.

I don't want you to. You didn't accept what I said as being correct. I cited some sources to support my view. You haven't read them but you claim I misinterpreted them. I would like you to act like you were one of the various experts you've claimed to be and take research seriously rather than either ignoring it or saying I misunderstood it because...you say so. However, not only will you not accept or even acknowledge my explanations/arguments, you have made it impossible for me to use other experts:



You offer no evidence for this, but you nicely contradict yourself here:



Note that I never said there weren't scientific methods. However you argued that there is a singular "thing" that is "the scientific method" and "it" (again, singular) "is about the most basic and essential element of understanding science."

Then, you backtracked. As expected.

I am not interested in persuing yet another pointless off topic diversion. When Bob referred to the scientific method in his comment, you know perfectly well what he meant - you are simply obfuscating.