Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
A theory
Topic Started: Oct 27 2009, 12:57 AM (1,196 Views)
fire lord
Member Avatar
Newbie
[ * ]
that was rude.

and very uncalled for.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
According to the United States National Academy of Sciences:

Quote:
 
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena


According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

Quote:
 
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
Hmmm....

I googled the term 'scientific theory' and didn't find your definition listed.

Apparently, your definition theory, joins other definition theories, of what the term 'scientific theory' means. :33:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
What definition did you find, Mike?

I'm sure the words will vary, but the essential meaning should remain.

Here is part of Wikipedia's definition:

Quote:
 
Essential criteria

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.

In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria:

It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.

It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.

This is exactly shown by the theories of Evolution and Climate Change.

When Darwin first proposed the theory of Evolution, the main objection was that there were very few examples of "Intermediate species", or missing links. Darwin's theory predicted many would be found. That was exactly so. in the last 150 years, whe have found huge numbers of such creatures in the fossil record. And there have been many strands of evidence, following the evolution of Whales, Humans, birds, etc. They all follow similar patterns.

The same follows from Arrhenius' first calculations about the effects of CO2 proposed over a century ago - in spite of early objections that CO2 effects would be swamped by others, and right up to more modern ideas that it would reach the "saturation point", long term temperatures have continued to follow his calculations, and research into the past have confirmed that CO2 has always had the same effect.

Many lines of inquiry have been followed, and while other effects have been noted,
nothing else has the equivalent long term results - they produce cyclic patterns, but the signature of CO2 warming is always present.

Quote:
 
Non-essential criteria

Additionally, a theory is generally only taken seriously if:

It is tentative, correctable, and dynamic in allowing for changes as new facts are discovered, rather than asserting certainty.

Both Evolution and Climate Science meet this criterion, being gradually modified by research while staying within the original definitions.

Quote:
 
It is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations—commonly referred to as passing the Occam's razor test.

In other words, in all alternative explanations of either creation of species or global temperatures, the explanations are either far more complex, requiring special circumstances not shown to exist, or some kind of supernatural explanation, by their very nature not observable.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
From About.com:
Quote:
 
1. What Is a Scientific Theory?
Scientists don't use the term "theory" in the same way that it's used in the vernacular. In most contexts, a theory is a vague and fuzzy idea about how things work — one with a low probability of being true. This is the origin of complaints that something in science is "only a theory" and so isn't credible. For scientists, a theory is a conceptual structure used to explain existing facts and predict new ones.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Summer
No Avatar
Sr. Member
[ * ]
ngc1514
Oct 27 2009, 12:57 AM
After a review of Richard Dawkins' new book, The Greatest Show on Earth in the NY Times Book Review sections a couple weeks back, some of the letters concerned themselves with the concept of a scientific theory. I found this one to be particularly interesting.

Quote:
 
To the Editor:

In his review of “The Greatest Show on Earth,” Nicholas Wade charges that Richard Dawkins is guilty of a philosophical error. According to Wade, philosophers of science divide scientific propositions into three types — facts, laws and theories — and, contrary to Dawkins’s assertions, evolution, which is plainly a systematic theory, cannot count as a fact. However, contemporary philosophy of science offers a vastly more intricate vocabulary for thinking about the sciences than that presupposed in Wade’s oversimplified taxonomy and in his confused remarks about “absolute truth.” Although philosophers may quarrel with aspects of Dawkins’s arguments on a range of issues, he has a far firmer and more subtle understanding of the philosophical issues than that manifested in Wade’s review.

The crucial point is that, as Dawkins appreciates, the distinction between theory and fact, in philosophical discussions as in everyday speech, can be drawn in two quite distinct ways. On the one hand, theories are conceived as general systems for explanation and prediction, while facts are specific reports about local events and processes. On the other hand, “theory” is used to suggest that there is room for reasonable doubt, whereas “fact” suggests something so amply confirmed by the evidence that it may be accepted without debate.

Opponents of evolution slide from supposing that evolution is a theory, in the first sense, to concluding that it is (only) a theory, in the second. Any such inference is fallacious, in that many systematic approaches to domains of natural phenomena — like the understanding of chemical reactions in terms of atoms and molecules, and the study of heredity in terms of nucleic acids — are so well supported that they count as facts (in the second sense). Many scientists and philosophers who have written about evolution have pointed out that the contemporary theory that descends from Darwin has the same status — it, too, should count as a “fact.” Dawkins is entirely justified in following them.

PHILIP KITCHER
New York
The writer is the John Dewey professor of philosophy at Columbia University and a former editor in chief of Philosophy of Science, the journal of the Philosophy of Science Association.

As soon as you hear someone say evolution is "only a theory," that's a good sign the speaker has no idea what a scientific theory actually is.
Please educate me...

I always thought that scientific theory uses formal logic and rules that can be observed and tested by experimentation. To me, with all we've found out about DNA and such is that Darwin's theory is more fact than theory now.

I always thought that philosophical theory is a theory that is believed to be true. It's more than likely not to be able to be proven by experimentation.

Maybe you all could put the first post more in layman's terms for us dummies!

Thanks

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Quote:
 
I always thought that scientific theory uses formal logic and rules that can be observed and tested by experimentation. To me, with all we've found out about DNA and such is that Darwin's theory is more fact than theory now.

Sounds like you've pretty much got it, Summer.

Except that no scientist ever makes that leap and declares any theory a fact.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Facts support theories, but are never, in themselves, a theory. A good theory explains the facts in a coherent manner.

Evolution is a fact. Evolution has been seen endless times both in the wild and in the lab and is defined by science as "the change in allele frequency of a gene over time."

What drives the change in allele frequency of a gene and how this drive selects works to formulate the history of life on the planet is the Theory of Evolution. The observed facts of evolution are explained in a coherent, predictive package known as the Theory of Evolution.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · RV AND CAMPING DISCUSSION · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis