When does theory become fact?

[Bunyip]

“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.


“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. In Craig, E. (ed.)(1998). Philosophy of Science (Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Routledge.

There was a time when words like theory, law, hypothesis, etc., had much more meaning. One can still find sources that argue that laws are superior to 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.
(Shoemaker et al; 2004)

However, this fails to reflect how scientists actually work. A term like theory can apply to something that more or less a guess in scientific literature or it can apply to an entire field. The vast semantic differences among different but common uses is completely different from you description.


Consensus.

Both my points remain true and unadressed. Just leave it buddy, you must have something better to do. Theories do explain facts - you even agreed to that. Theories are the highest level a body of knowledge can get in science, that is also still true.
Your point regarding consensus is a pithy dig at the scientific community, but not actually superior to theory in any more meaningful sense than as a pithy dig at the scientific community. But sure, ok.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Both my points remain true and unadressed.

If you truly believe this...well I don't know I guess cognitive dissonance is more powerful than I thought. Perhaps, rather than describing theories, I should talk about facts. Facts are by definition true. However, outside of formal systems in which proof is possible we can't ever really know (or can't prove) that any statement is a fact (by outside of formal systems I mean both mathematics/logic but also mean that we can't prove empirical claims). As facts are necessarily true, and scientific theories are never necessarily true and arguably always partially incorrect ("all models are wrong..."), theories can't explain facts because we cannot know whether something is, in fact, a fact.

Approaching it another way, guesses explain facts, hypotheses explain facts, religious experiences explain facts, etc. Scientific theories, though, do something else which makes them different from explanations like "the crops died because of the local witch" or "god did it". They concern propositions that are subject to empirical tests and, if accurate (or close to) are able to predict. This is true even when one takes into consideration the widely varying uses of "theory" among scientist.

Those theories of which one can say "it" is true, in that "it" (the theory) can be expressed in an unambiguous way such that it is necessarily true or false, are little known outside the fields in which they are developed. There is no 'theory of evolution" that one can formulate in this way, as evolutionary theory involves multiple different claims, some of which are contested. It is a theory more of the kind the Routledge encyclopedia refers to as a field. It cannot be a fact, because there are disagreements within evolutionary theory about core aspects of the theory. Rather, the bulk of evolutionary theory is about the most tested and certain body of knowledge that exists anywhere in the sciences or elsewhere.

Just leave it buddy, you must have something better to do.

I spend a lot of my time trying to correct misconceptions about the sciences. I consider this worth my time. Nor am I particularly interested in your repeated assertions that you are correct and I should leave it alone because you say you are correct and repeat yourself to show this (or rather, as if it did).

Theories do explain facts - you even agreed to that.

I said they "may". One reason for this is that while facts are necessarily true, we can only assert that something is a fact and thus can't know whether or not a theory explains a fact or not (this is similar to how nothing in science is proven).

Theories are the highest level a body of knowledge can get in science, that is also still true.

What in the scientific literature, or reference material intended for scientists/researchers, makes you think this is true?

Your point regarding consensus is a pithy dig at the scientific community

It isn't a dig. There's a reason that almost no scientists buy creationism and almost every single one supports evolutionary theory: mountains of evidence and research and argument that has swayed scientists into their current positions of belief thanks to well over a century of research. I am not arguing that the sciences are driven by consensus or that the consensus can't be wrong or even that consensus should be accorded a special status (at least not among scientists). You asked if there was something superior. There are thousands upon thousands of theories, many based on a single study or one researcher's work. What makes scientific claims most likely to be true is the support of the majority (especially the vast majority) of those with relevant expertise.

 

[HiEv]

So then what is your problem with what I am arguing.

My problem is that you're acting like something that happens all the time isn't happening at all or not enough. I really don't think you understand that scientific hypotheses are challenged all the time. Every time researchers use a hypothesis, they're also testing that hypothesis.

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

Because religions make claims, but almost never bother to test those claims in an unbiased manner. The few times they do, their claims always fail, yet they usually persist in making those claims anyways. Science, on the other hand, is all about testing claims in an unbiased manner and rejecting claims which fail such testing.

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.

Again, you're failing to understand that basic facts are challenged many times every day. For example, if the weight of an electron were wrong, then every result that depends on it being correct would test that measurement. We don't need to have "special events" to test things which are already being tested to death all the time.

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

Zero.

Evolution isn't a "law", it's both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is the change in frequency of traits within a species over generations. This is something that undeniably happens. It's inevitable in any population that has genetic variety and reproduces through sexual reproduction or in any species that does not reproduce with 100% copying accuracy. The theory of evolution is the explanation of what can, does, and has happened due to the fact of evolution.

Neither of these things is a law.

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.

But your error is that this simply isn't happening with anywhere near the frequency that you think it is.

First of all, you seem to be calling lots of things "facts" that nobody else is calling "facts", but rather "hypotheses" or "theories". You also don't seem to understand that all such hypotheses in science are provisional. They will be accepted as long as they continue to be the best explanations for the facts of the world that we see around us, until the moment a better explanation comes along.

Facts are simply what we get when taking measurements. What most people in science are using are the hypotheses which result from these facts.

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.

Exceptions don't always make things entirely wrong, it may just mean that they have to be applied appropriately.

Newtonian physics is correct, as long as extreme gravity and/or speed is not relevant, the scale is macroscopic, and ultra-high precision is unnecessary. As long as the hypothesis' domain is clearly understood and applied, it's still accurate.

But even you evolution is absolute without exception.

I think you a word there. ;-)

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.

The "flat Earth" was never a scientific claim, so you're comparing apples and oranges here. Also, Newton's laws are still essentially correct within their domain. However, evolution is not a law, so again, apples and oranges. Furthermore, you're comparing the state of science today to pre- and early scientific cultures. All of this brings us more into the "comparing apples and break fluid" territory again.

But evolution new even on a scientific scale of laws is absolute fact.

What is "a scientific scale of laws"??? In any case "newness" and "laws" are irrelevant.

That said, yes, it's mathematically provable that the fact of evolution will occur when you have heritable traits and recombination of traits with a varied gene pool and/or imperfect copying during reproduction. It's the only possible result given those two factors.

Run the numbers yourself and you can verify that 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.

I never said it was "unchallengeable". In fact, quite the opposite. I said it was challenged all the time. The thing is, it's consistently stood up to those challenges far, far, far more robustly than any competing explanations.

No I have to take it at the group of people trained the same with the same concerns and basically working for the same people. The data being available is my point. Have you ever checked and verified the data or do you just assume the scientists did there job right. You have faith in the scientists.

I don't like the word "faith" because people too easily conflate "blind faith", like the kind you see in religion, with "trust". I trust the scientific method.

So please don't use "faith" when what you mean is "trust".

Furthermore, I know that many other people have checked and verified the data, and if they'd found it wrong, it would have been big news.

How do you know the mirror is there. Do you no how to calculate the position so you can hit it with your own laser. I honestly believe it is there but it is a belief. I have no way of knowing. Can you view it from a telescope on earth. If your going to just use there equipment and there coordinates your putting using faith as your guide.

I don't use "faith", I use probability to lead me to the most likely conclusion.

There are basically two options here:

1) There actually are reflectors on the Moon and numerous private individuals, companies, and governments around the world have verified this fact.

2) There are no reflectors on the Moon, and numerous private individuals, companies, and governments, many of which are in competition with each other and would have no reason to work together, have somehow conspired to lie to the world and agreed to say that there are reflectors on the Moon when there are not.

Which is more likely? The airtight global conspiracy or there being reflectors on the Moon?

Questioning things is fine, but it's more reasonable to believe probable explanations over improbable explanations.

So the moon rotates on its axis and rotates around the earth yet the coordinates to hit the mirror remain the same. Fortunately I know you are wrong otherwise I would really doubt science but it also shows me you use faith for science.

The Moon is tidally locked to the Earth, so while it rotates on its axis, the same side of the Moon is always facing Earth. Furthermore, even if the Moon did rotate away from it, the coordinates are just the location on the surface of the Moon. Any rotation wouldn't change those coordinates, just as the coordinates of things on the Earth don't change when the Earth rotates on its axis.

Just so you know they lost the position of one of the 3 mirror arrays on the moon and it took them years to find it again.

Actually, there are 5 retroreflectors on the Moon, 3 placed during the Apollo missions and 2 placed by the Soviet Lunokhod rovers. It was the reflector placed by the Lunokhod 1 rover that was unable to be found until 2010 because they didn't know exactly where the rover had placed it (and the type placed by the rovers had poorer performance in daylight than the ones placed by the Apollo astronauts). They never "lost the position", the fact is that they were never entirely certain of its exact coordinates to begin with. (source)

None of that changes the fact that the retroreflectors placed on the Moon are indeed still there and have been repeatedly verified to exist.

 

[Bunyip]

If you truly believe this...well I don't know I guess cognitive dissonance is more powerful than I thought. Perhaps, rather than describing theories, I should talk about facts. Facts are by definition true. However, outside of formal systems in which proof is possible we can't ever really know (or can't prove) that any statement is a fact (by outside of formal systems I mean both mathematics/logic but also mean that we can't prove empirical claims). As facts are necessarily true, and scientific theories are never necessarily true and arguably always partially incorrect ("all models are wrong..."), theories can't explain facts because we cannot know whether something is, in fact, a fact.

Approaching it another way, guesses explain facts, hypotheses explain facts, religious experiences explain facts, etc. Scientific theories, though, do something else which makes them different from explanations like "the crops died because of the local witch" or "god did it". They concern propositions that are subject to empirical tests and, if accurate (or close to) are able to predict. This is true even when one takes into consideration the widely varying uses of "theory" among scientist.

Those theories of which one can say "it" is true, in that "it" (the theory) can be expressed in an unambiguous way such that it is necessarily true or false, are little known outside the fields in which they are developed. There is no 'theory of evolution" that one can formulate in this way, as evolutionary theory involves multiple different claims, some of which are contested. It is a theory more of the kind the Routledge encyclopedia refers to as a field. It cannot be a fact, because there are disagreements within evolutionary theory about core aspects of the theory. Rather, the bulk of evolutionary theory is about the most tested and certain body of knowledge that exists anywhere in the sciences or elsewhere.


I spend a lot of my time trying to correct misconceptions about the sciences. I consider this worth my time. Nor am I particularly interested in your repeated assertions that you are correct and I should leave it alone because you say you are correct and repeat yourself to show this (or rather, as if it did).


I said they "may". One reason for this is that while facts are necessarily true, we can only assert that something is a fact and thus can't know whether or not a theory explains a fact or not (this is similar to how nothing in science is proven).



What in the scientific literature, or reference material intended for scientists/researchers, makes you think this is true?



It isn't a dig. There's a reason that almost no scientists buy creationism and almost every single one supports evolutionary theory: mountains of evidence and research and argument that has swayed scientists into their current positions of belief thanks to well over a century of research. I am not arguing that the sciences are driven by consensus or that the consensus can't be wrong or even that consensus should be accorded a special status (at least not among scientists). You asked if there was something superior. There are thousands upon thousands of theories, many based on a single study or one researcher's work. What makes scientific claims most likely to be true is the support of the majority (especially the vast majority) of those with relevant expertise.

An awful lot of words, but not really saying anything - an ability you have truly mastered..
You are just trolling mate, I don't see the point. Back on ignore.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

An awful lot of words, but not really saying anything - an ability you have truly mastered..

That means a lot coming from someone who rarely even attempts to argue his views but dismisses arguments without reason in posts without substance. Your ability to to say nothing in a short post isn't particularly impressive. It would be nice if you could at least pretend you had a basis for your dogma.

 

[Thief]

Yes, you've repeatedly asserted this. However, you've offered nothing to substantiate it.



Whose "we"? First, within the physics literature it is more common to find "gravitation" than gravity, but either way it usually isn't referenced as a theory. Second, in some relativistic quantum field theories and in general relativity it doesn't exist. Third, while gravitation is a major unsolved problem in modern physics (as you've noted before), that just lends less credence to the idea that it is a "fact". However, if you can describe what this "gravity" is such that you can say it is a "fact", maybe that would help.

Take a leap....and if you survive let me know your conclusion.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Take a leap....and if you survive let me know your conclusion.

Does this require stealing scientific concepts without understanding them to distort them into some epistemology combined with pseudo-intellectual., arcane statements and an absolute refusal to engage in anything remotely resembling analytic reasoning in favor of a confused mixture of teenage pop new age, misunderstood concepts from science, and an education a 14 year old could obtain after a few hours of watching youtuve clips? Or do you refer to a leap you haven't taken?

 

[Thief]

Does this require stealing scientific concepts without understanding them to distort them into some epistemology combined with pseudo-intellectual., arcane statements and an absolute refusal to engage in anything remotely resembling analytic reasoning in favor of a confused mixture of teenage pop new age, misunderstood concepts from science, and an education a 14 year old could obtain after a few hours of watching youtuve clips? Or do you refer to a leap you haven't taken?

A leap of faith is no big deal.
You can do it laying safely in your bed.

You can also fail to believe and die without God......while laying in your bed.

You won't be taking youtube with you.....either way.

 

[Thief]

That means a lot coming from someone who rarely even attempts to argue his views but dismisses arguments without reason in posts without substance. Your ability to to say nothing in a short post isn't particularly impressive. It would be nice if you could at least pretend you had a basis for your dogma.

you see a dogmatic point?.....describe it more to point.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

A leap of faith is no big deal.

True enough. However, I don't walk into traffic due to faith that cars and trucks can't injure me. Likewise, claiming a concept developed within physics such as gravity is a "fact" in ways that contradict the very physics that one doesn't understand but form the only real basis for one's beliefs isn't a leap of faith, it's just ignorance. You claim "science" doesn't have the answers when it comes to gravity. Were it not for science, you wouldn't have any conception of gravity, even the woefully inadequate one you do possess. And as for answers? You offer nothing whatsoever. Your leap of faith is based on the research in physics you subsequently ignore, distort, and misrepresent to make claims for which you have refused to offer any basis other than the "leap of faith" from the physics that gave you the concept in the first place into nonsense.

You can do it laying safely in your bed.

You can use basic logic there to. Try it.

 

[sandandfoam]

Shouldn't a scientific outlook regard all knowledge as provisional?

 

[Thief]

True enough. However, I don't walk into traffic due to faith that cars and trucks can't injure me. Likewise, claiming a concept developed within physics such as gravity is a "fact" in ways that contradict the very physics that one doesn't understand but form the only real basis for one's beliefs isn't a leap of faith, it's just ignorance. You claim "science" doesn't have the answers when it comes to gravity. Were it not for science, you wouldn't have any conception of gravity, even the woefully inadequate one you do possess. And as for answers? You offer nothing whatsoever. Your leap of faith is based on the research in physics you subsequently ignore, distort, and misrepresent to make claims for which you have refused to offer any basis other than the "leap of faith" from the physics that gave you the concept in the first place into nonsense.


You can use basic logic there to. Try it.

Been doing the logic thing (in bed) all of my life.
(natural born insomniac)

I see you won't do that leap.....just to be sure gravity is real.
or maybe you know it's real and don't need science to prove it.
much like knowing God is real and you don't need the leap....to prove it.

 

[Thief]

Shouldn't a scientific outlook regard all knowledge as provisional?

Pray tell.....believe in science with provision of ....what?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I see you won't do that leap.....just to be sure gravity is real.

What is your basis for thinking gravity exists, and what do you understand it to be?

 

[Thief]

What is your basis for thinking gravity exists, and what do you understand it to be?

One of the four basic forces in our reality.
One mass draws to another.

Ready for that leap?

 

[LuisDantas]

Shouldn't a scientific outlook regard all knowledge as provisional?

Yes, but in practice that makes little difference. We are only humans.

 

[Thief]

Yes, but in practice that makes little difference. We are only humans.

Are you leaning to human that can only know science?
or human that can rationalize a belief in God?
then deciding which one is human and the other isn't?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

One of the four basic forces in our reality.

I know how gravitation is treated in physics. That's the problem. You mischaracterize, misunderstand, and inaccurately represent physics research yet the entirety of your notions concerning "gravity" are based on simplifications of this same research.

One mass draws to another.

Or not. Mass curves spacetime, causing systems with mass to move without gravity.

Ready for that leap?

The leap from borrowing concepts from physics not understood in order to make claims based upon them that are incompatible with them?

 

[Thief]

I know how gravitation is treated in physics. That's the problem. You mischaracterize, misunderstand, and inaccurately represent physics research yet the entirety of your notions concerning "gravity" are based on simplifications of this same research.


Or not. Mass curves spacetime, causing systems with mass to move without gravity.


The leap from borrowing concepts from physics not understood in order to make claims based upon them that are incompatible with them?

And you are still using a non-entity in your discussion.
Time is not real.
It is not a force.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And you are still using a non-entity in your discussion.
Time is not real.
It is not a force.

I never used time. Point to where I did. Please indicate that you equate spacetime with the claim that time exists by quoting my use of the term to indicate how thoroughly you don't understand what you are talking about.