There is a difference between proven, verifiable facts and theory.
This ought to clear up some of the misconceptions you have about the scientific terms.
From an NSF abstract:
“As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.
In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.
Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have."
Nice post. But like my links, I fear it may go un-read by those who could benefit the most. Whatcha gonna do?
How so? I understand the explanatory power, but is there any predictive benefit in the macro sense?
Also, why guild the lilly with subtle distinctions on terminy when by normative understandings of prior claims such as chromosome pairs and heliocentricity could just as easily be called "wrong."
OK, first of all, blindly following these guidelines is just as bad as blindly following the guidelines of the creationists.
You presume that this statement is free of bias, arrogance, and scientific dogma.
Don't expect the scientific community to be free of bias.
In some ways, their own terms and rules can reflect their own religious dogma.
>> However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely
There is a problem with this statement.
1. How the hell does one know the likeliness of abandonment in order to say that "their subsequent abandonment very unlikely"? That's akin to saying "what I say is absolutely true until in an unlikely event proves otherwise." It's an arrogant statement of self accreditation.
2. The presumption is that that the evidence itself is indisputable. Bodies of evidence can in fact, be incorrect. Bodies of evidence *do* give creedence, but do not mean a theory is true. (As you well know, there is always the causation versus correlation problem, among other problems, when it comes to "evidence".)
As far as facts being more likely to be disproven than theories, I beg to differ to a degree.
On the macro level, this statement isn't true -- For example, under typical circumstances gravity will cause items such as an apple on a tree to fall to earth.
On the micro/quantumn level however, "facts" become less factual. Things that apply at the macro level don't necessarily apply here. On this statement I could agree.
And I do agree that *consensus* does give crediblity to a theory, but doesn't place it in the "unlikely to be abandoned" category.
Science isn't a religion, and the scientific community needs to try harder in eliminating it's religious dogma. It's ok to believe in God, and it's ok to say theories are best guesses and not indisputable -- neither of these fly in the face of pure science.
As I stated earlier, many theories have been wrong. Hawkings theories on black holes turned out to be wrong, despite being "unlikely to be abandoned."
OK, first of all, blindly following these guidelines is just as bad as blindly following the guidelines of the creationists.
You presume that this statement is free of bias, arrogance, and scientific dogma.
Don't expect the scientific community to be free of bias.
In some ways, their own terms and rules can reflect their own religious dogma.
>> However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely
There is a problem with this statement.
1. How the hell does one know the likeliness of abandonment in order to say that "their subsequent abandonment very unlikely"? That's akin to saying "what I say is absolutely true until in an unlikely event proves otherwise." It's an arrogant statement of self accreditation.
2. The presumption is that that the evidence itself is indisputable. Bodies of evidence can in fact, be incorrect. Bodies of evidence *do* give creedence, but do not mean a theory is true. (As you well know, there is always the causation versus correlation problem, among other problems, when it comes to "evidence".)
As far as facts being more likely to be disproven than theories, I beg to differ to a degree.
On the macro level, this statement isn't true -- For example, under typical circumstances gravity will cause items such as an apple on a tree to fall to earth.
On the micro/quantumn level however, "facts" become less factual. Things that apply at the macro level don't necessarily apply here. On this statement I could agree.
And I do agree that *consensus* does give crediblity to a theory, but doesn't place it in the "unlikely to be abandoned" category.
Science isn't a religion, and the scientific community needs to try harder in eliminating it's religious dogma. It's ok to believe in God, and it's ok to say theories are best guesses and not indisputable -- neither of these fly in the face of pure science.
As I stated earlier, many theories have been wrong. Hawkings theories on black holes turned out to be wrong, despite being "unlikely to be abandoned."
I hope my previous post has cleared up your misconceptions about theories. ;-)