Scientific Terms

What does a theory mean?
In every day usage, a theory is usually just a educated hunch.
Sherlock Holmes used them all the time to great avail.

However, a scientific theory is a little different.
A scientific theory is a observation or falsifiable hypothesis used to explain a known fact.
For instance, we know gravity exists, and the Theory of gravity is used to try to explain the mentioned fact.

Using the theory, we base calculations using of a inverse square law which we then use to extrapolate the movement of the planets and our Solar System.

We did so with such accuracy that the Voyager probe, which was launched 33 years ago, and is currently leaving our solar system, having entered the heliopause.

So, perhaps the theory of gravity has some flaws,(I don't know of any myself) but we can use it to make and test predictions and get solid results from it.

Now, theories do not become laws. Laws explain things yet don't describe them, laws are vague and not specific.

Theories go into detail in an attempt to explain definites. Sometimes they are dropped, usually they become more defined over time.

However they are never "just a theory."
All theories have to be scrutinized, examined, and falsifiable.
Under peer review they have to hold up to examination and usually it's good if they're not self supporting.

reply to post by RuneSpider


i post theorys all the time on ats
sometimes i call them thought experiments
the idea is to stimulate conversations on the topic so that
others can imput and collective ideas can be tested in theory
and any flaws or arguments can be resolved from group imput

one mind is good
two minds are better
three minds or more are best

xploder

we dont know that gravity exists, all we see is the affect of it like a shadow. Have we ever seen a gravition.. not yet..
there is no such thing as a scientific fact.
As you stated above science works on falsification of theorys. so by its nature it is impossible to have a fact..

I really would not give too much credence to science. It is useful in helping us do things, but does very little to explain things in real terms..

For examle you know that you exist, it is one of the very few things you really know to be true. It is not based on knowledge it is a sense of being... Your conscience..
but one of the few things science cannot prove to exist is you conscience.......

kx

Originally posted by RuneSpider
We did so with such accuracy that the Voyager probe, which was launched 33 years ago, and is currently leaving our solar system, having entered the heliopause.

So, perhaps the theory of gravity has some flaws,(I don't know of any myself) but we can use it to make and test predictions and get solid results from it.

Gravity calculations are very accurate, but we've found small discrepancies in Pioneer 10 and 11 that are an unsolved problem in physics.:

Pioneer anomaly

The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviation from predicted trajectories and velocities of various unmanned spacecraft visiting the outer solar system, most notably Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11.

Both Pioneer spacecraft are escaping from the solar system, and are slowing down under the influence of the Sun's gravity. Upon very close examination, however, they are slowing down slightly more than expected. The effect can be modeled as a slight additional acceleration towards the Sun.

The anomaly has no universally accepted explanation. The explanation may be mundane, such as measurement error, thrust from gas leakage or uneven radiation of heat. However, it is also possible that current physical theory does not correctly explain the behaviour of the craft relative to the sun.

The fact that we can even measure this discrepancy is amazing, it's only a tiny fraction of a percent different than expected. But it gives physicists a new problem to solve.

The theory of gravity still works very well, but it might need a little fine tuning. Or else the theory of gravity is fine, and there's a factor we're not accounting for properly. It's an interesting discrepancy!

reply to post by purplemer

there is no such thing as a scientific fact.

Yes, there are.

For example, the Newton's Laws, are facts.

Evolution is both a scientific fact and theory.
We know evolution occurs, the theory goes on to explain the diversity of life as we know it.

As you stated above science works on falsification of theorys. so by its nature it is impossible to have a fact..

Science works off of making an observation, then making a hypothesis (or guess), and then testing to see if it bears out. If it does, it is accepted as a theory when passed through peer review.
Ones it's passed peer review, and has been repeated, then it's accepted as a valid theory.

For examle you know that you exist, it is one of the very few things you really know to be true. It is not based on knowledge it is a sense of being... Your conscience..
but one of the few things science cannot prove to exist is you conscience.

Perhaps you'd be interested in studying neurology?

I don't know I exist, it depends on what classifications you put on what qualifies as an individual.
After all, I am a concept formed from the input of external stimuli returned outwards in a pattern that fits how I view the world.
Does that make me an individual or simply the result of a input of data?

Science works fairly well, otherwise the results of it, medicine, exploration, and the technology you use, wouldn't be here.

Originally posted by RuneSpider

What does a theory mean?
In every day usage, a theory is usually just a educated hunch.
Sherlock Holmes used them all the time to great avail.

However, a scientific theory is a little different.
A scientific theory is a observation or falsifiable hypothesis used to explain a known fact.
For instance, we know gravity exists, and the Theory of gravity is used to try to explain the mentioned fact.

Using the theory, we base calculations using of a inverse square law which we then use to extrapolate the movement of the planets and our Solar System.

We did so with such accuracy that the Voyager probe, which was launched 33 years ago, and is currently leaving our solar system, having entered the heliopause.

So, perhaps the theory of gravity has some flaws,(I don't know of any myself) but we can use it to make and test predictions and get solid results from it.

Now, theories do not become laws. Laws explain things yet don't describe them, laws are vague and not specific.

Theories go into detail in an attempt to explain definites. Sometimes they are dropped, usually they become more defined over time.

However they are never "just a theory."
All theories have to be scrutinized, examined, and falsifiable.
Under peer review they have to hold up to examination and usually it's good if they're not self supporting.

Adj. 1. falsifiablefalsifiable - capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation
confirmable, verifiable
empirical, empiric - derived from experiment and observation rather than theory; "an empirical basis for an ethical theory"; "empirical laws"; "empirical data"; "an empirical treatment of a disease about which little is known"


hy·poth·e·sis

1.
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2.
a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3.
the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4.
a mere assumption or guess.

Sorry but a Theory is a guess and is not testable to fully prove it or else it would not be a theory, it would be a law.

So the Theory of evolution is an assumption with untestable hypothesis all around its faith base belief.

Kind of like one of my pet mysteries.

Who and when was the zero point of the global warming theory.

Its strange that no one seams to be the zero point person and there is no zero time when the latest global warming theory got started.

Sometimes finding the zero point time and person can answer a lot of questions about a event.

If it a group with a common history it then may be proven to be a conspiracy.

You would think there would be a scientist out there that would want the fame but no one has ever claimed it.

reply to post by ACTS 2:38

Sorry but a Theory is a guess and is not testable to fully prove it or else it would not be a theory, it would be a law.

So the Theory of evolution is an assumption with untestable hypothesis all around its faith base belief.

A theory is not a guess. A hypothesis is a guess based off of observations. That hypothesis is tested,and becomes a theory.
A scientific theory is different from a common theory.
A theory has to be able to be tested, and found to be correct, so far.

# S: (n) scientific theory (a theory that explains scientific observations) "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

Besides which evolution,in fact and theory,is backed by observations, testing,and through science fields like geology and molecular biology.

reply to post by RuneSpider


Sorry but the theory of evolution is still a guess that it happened it is not scientific in any way.

The observable evidence is dead bones which does not prove evolution, and mutations which are always harmful and does not prove evolution.

So when it comes to the theory of evolution one can jump up and down and claim that in science words have different meanings, so that means it is real.

No proof not testable, no visible evidence, plus in the beginning of the theory something made from nothing, life from non life, and winding up when everything else is winding down.

reply to post by RuneSpider

Yes, there are. For example, the Newton's Laws, are facts.

No there not facts, they are models of reality and by there very nature approxomations.

Evolution is both a scientific fact and theory.

Evolution is not fact it is a theory, there are and have been many different theories of evolution... How do you think it can be fact. You said yourself that science works on falsifcation. Falsification does not prove anything right...ever...
Every scientific theory in time is proved wrong... that is a fact...

Perhaps you'd be interested in studying neurology

How can science study the mind. You stated yourself that science works with objectivity it also works works with subject too... Classic science needs subject/object orintation... so how can you study the mind.. something that is subject by nature... subject/subject does not work...
The model breaks down..

kx

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by RuneSpider

 

Evolution is both a scientific fact and theory.

Evolution is not fact it is a theory, there are and have been many different theories of evolution..

Dr. Hazen explains why evolution is both a fact, and a theory, at about 9 minutes in this video:


At the risk of paraphrasing him, that some type of evolution occurred, is a scientific fact. However there are various theories about all the details regarding evolution, those are not facts. But to get the undiluted message from Dr. Hazen, you need to watch the video.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

As for evolution being scientific fact. I ask you again to explain how a scientific fact can exixt when science works on fasfication....???

reply to post by purplemer


No matter what the definition of the term, we observe and comprehend things in the world as we are able to see them. While our means may be "subjective" because we are human and not a magical space fairy who can see the universe for what it truely is without bias.

The facts we see are what we must go by, unless you have a better idea? Sit around and debate the fact that we cant subjectively study it so why try?

The truth is alot of these things are facts, to our understanding of it as human beings. To try and conceive it any other way is a waste of energy, we never will.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

As for evolution being scientific fact. I ask you again to explain how a scientific fact can exixt when science works on fasfication....???

Wikipedia has a separate article about this:

Evolution as theory and fact

The statement "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature. Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term "theory"; it is an established scientific model that explains observations and makes predictions through mechanisms such as natural selection.

When scientists say "evolution is a fact", they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical: evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations.

Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists.

Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental or empirical data or objective verifiable observations. "Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any theory for which there is overwhelming evidence.

"A fact is a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true." —Douglas Futyuma

Evolution is a fact in the sense that it is overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently, evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact.

If that explanation is too brief, all I can suggest is reading the entire article at the link I posted. I can't explain it any better than that.

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
So the Theory of evolution is an assumption with untestable hypothesis all around its faith base belief.

Sorry, but it IS testable and has been tested, from vestigial organs and limbs to genetic material and ongoing changes in species. Some try to sneak around this by saying that "microevolution is proven but macroevolution isn't." That's kind of a cop-out.

Here's a whole list of how it was tested
www.talkorigins.org...

This goes into material that I've personally dealt with and seen (which is common stuff for anyone who took a degree in biology) :
www.talkorigins.org...

It's kind of a shame that you're not into anatomy and physiology -- the bones very clearly show a chain of evidence.

reply to post by Byrd

Thanks for the links, some of that I hadn't seen in that much detail before. I knew about the human embryo having a tail and that some humans were born with a tail but I didn't know some were so well developed with cartilage, etc. That's pretty fascinating.

It's also pretty devastating to the theories of those who deny evolution.