When people that rely on it don't die out.
When does a theory becomes a fact?
- Thread starter Tee Kay
- Start date
Insert complaint about how theory is being misused in the opening post here, and how "it's only a theory" is not even remotely a valid defense.
Nah. A law in science is a statement of a generalization of empirical results. It's a claim about physics; It also needs to be falsifiable. In this sense, it's a subset of a theory. For example, Newton's Laws of Motion, or Hooke's Law, are probably the quintestessential examples of scientific laws. Neither are true in general, but both are falsifiable and are statements which generalize phenomena over a st of conditions. Newton's Laws being valid under nonrelativistic, low gravity, and high energy (last relative to QM), Hooke's Law being
Yes, in reality, "fact" does not exist in science, because a fact implies that a claim about reality that is deductive, and science is inductive. And yes, we can always be wrong about various phenomena. But we can get pretty damned close to it!
For the layman, or for that matter, in parts of science which you are not an expert in, the most reasonable view of reality (and thus "fact) is whatever is the scientific consensus is on the matter. They know a whole of a lot more crap than you would on the matter, and it is entirely unreasonable to claim that there is a conspiracy. To assume otherwise is a discredit to one's own ratonal mind. Of course, this doesn't cover subjects in which there isn't a scientific consensus - for example, quantum gravity.
But in climate change, for example, there is a scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is real; the vast, vast majority of scientific papers related to the subject support this. The fact that it has been politicized so much has no bearing on the fact that the scientific consensus supports the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Truthiness ain't truth.
Nah. A law in science is a statement of a generalization of empirical results. It's a claim about physics; It also needs to be falsifiable. In this sense, it's a subset of a theory. For example, Newton's Laws of Motion, or Hooke's Law, are probably the quintestessential examples of scientific laws. Neither are true in general, but both are falsifiable and are statements which generalize phenomena over a st of conditions. Newton's Laws being valid under nonrelativistic, low gravity, and high energy (last relative to QM), Hooke's Law being
Yes, in reality, "fact" does not exist in science, because a fact implies that a claim about reality that is deductive, and science is inductive. And yes, we can always be wrong about various phenomena. But we can get pretty damned close to it!
Nope! Both are entirely falsifiable. Evolution is falsifiable by the discovery of a species which has been extinct for millions of years, for example. Atomic theory is falsifiable by the discovery of phenomena which would not coincede with an atomic picture of nature. It just so happens that all the evidence has not sofar falsified either theory.
For the layman, or for that matter, in parts of science which you are not an expert in, the most reasonable view of reality (and thus "fact) is whatever is the scientific consensus is on the matter. They know a whole of a lot more crap than you would on the matter, and it is entirely unreasonable to claim that there is a conspiracy. To assume otherwise is a discredit to one's own ratonal mind. Of course, this doesn't cover subjects in which there isn't a scientific consensus - for example, quantum gravity.
But in climate change, for example, there is a scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is real; the vast, vast majority of scientific papers related to the subject support this. The fact that it has been politicized so much has no bearing on the fact that the scientific consensus supports the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Truthiness ain't truth.
Mise
isle of lucy
Theories don't become facts. Facts become theories.
(Or rather, facts are explained by theories.)
(Or rather, facts are explained by theories.)
CartesianFart
Deity
No,it is more like saying-Facts that is tested or widely accepted are grouped up together to make a particular theory that can make predictions about a phenomena.
angeleyes
mood indigo
A theorie becomes a fact when people stop questioning it.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
A theory never really does become a fact. There's always the possibility that the "proof" has a flaw in it.
Julian Delphiki
Anton's key
When you repeat it enough; just like the "fact" that "De Gaulle will be in Beyond the Sword expansion for Civ IV" (check out general forum, even if nothing is confirmed by Firaxis).
Verbose
Deity
How on earth does this work?
At best it disproves the presumed extinction of this species (since it's obviously alive it never went extinct), which might do the trick if it was "the theory of extinction" and not the theory of evolution. There are plenty of these "living fossils" in the form of very ancient kinds of organisms that never went extinct. It in no way falsifies evolution.
Yeah, that was a stupid example. It's seems circular, but it must be falsifiable because it's a scientific theory. I was trying to clarify that, (that it cannot be "pretty much unproven") but I just gave a poor example.
its also stupid because it makes the logical leap that extinction is either a yes or no question.
Are dinosaurs as we think of them extinct? Yes because we have not found a live one and based on the criteria of what a dinosaur is, we will likely never find one alive again. The chances are so remote of finding a live dino based on the model of how life reproduces etc etc that we can safely say that they are extinct. unless we find one. but that will raise even bigger questions.
Are volcanoes extinct? They are until they arent.
Exactly. Just like the fact Pluto was a planet but now isn't. The rock called Pluto didn't change one bit during this time.
Which theories are now called facts?
Though theories do not become laws either. Again, they are different things - a law is an expression of some observed behaviour (e.g., a formula).
Verbose
Deity
Sure, but there is this model of the process of research which has been labelled "black-boxing".
One way of looking at science is as relying on strings of these "black-boxes" which are simply assumed to work a certain way. It can be a theory, a method, a procedure, a piece of machinery, just about anything which is simply assumed to work in a certain way or mean some specific thing.
The black-boxes support each other, and you once you have made some aspect of the scientific process into a "black box", you won't open it up again until somehow the science goes haywire. That's when there is a realisation that somehow one of our assumptions/theories/observations/machines is turning out something which isn't working.
Then the faulty black box, whatever it is, or a whole string of them as they are usually dependant on each other, is sough out, opened up, and again becomes the attention of research. In the end it might get fixed or more likely entirely discarded in favour of something which works better.
In any case stuff which goes into black-boxing is what scientists feel they are finished with and no longer needs researching. The novel research being done should turn up new results/machines/theories that can eventually be black-boxed as science moves on.
Quiet Sound
- This title left blank -
Germ Theory, i.e. the theory that disease is caused by microorganisms, is still "just a theory" I believe.
angeleyes
mood indigo
Exactly. Just like the fact Earth was flat but now it isn't. The rock called Earth didn't change one bit during this time.
Not the "flat earth myth" again. It was badly exaggerated.
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
That wasn't a change in terms of "facts". That was a change in terms of classification.
No it's not. That one is actually a genuine change of what most people would consider to be a "fact". Flat earth versus round earth was a much better example of scientific paradigm shifts than the nomenclature non-issue you brought up.
The flat earth myth:
http://nabataea.net/flatearth.html
http://nabataea.net/flatearth.html
The flat earth myth was created to make those who lived in the medieval period look more stupid than they really were. It appeals to man's ego to think they are a lot smarter than their ancestors/parents.
I agree
