"Theory" vs. "Scientific Theory" (Huge Difference)

[Yerda]

This should help:

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun

1. a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Thanks.

 

[Yerda]

You are mistaken. What makes a scientific theory is the confirmation of a theory/hypothesis via repeated experimentation and observation. All dictionaries, scientific websites, and scientific articles agree on this.

That would mean that theories that were wrong weren't science. Which seems incorrect to me. Newtonian mechanics is wrong but it was and still is science.

 

[leibowde84]

With all due respect to Wikipedia, I believe that what distinguishes Scientific Theory from Theory is not that it has been "confirmed" but, rather, that it falsifiable through intersubjectively verifiable testing. Some scientific theories prove false.

If a theory is proven false, it is no longer a scientific theory. Confirmed doesn't necessarily mean fact. It's just that the evidence confirms the theory as being true. But, new evidence could come in that contradicts it.

 

[leibowde84]

That would mean that theories that were wrong weren't science. Which seems incorrect to me. Newtonian mechanics is wrong but it was and still is science.

You are confusing a "scientific theory" with merely a "theory that was scientific in nature". A theory that is proven false is still a theory, and it is still in the realm of science. It is just no longer a "scientific theory".

 

[leibowde84]

That would mean that theories that were wrong weren't science. Which seems incorrect to me. Newtonian mechanics is wrong but it was and still is science.

For example, "String Theory" was mentioned earlier. It is disputable whether that theory is a scientific theory, as it is questionable whether it has been confirmed through experimentation and observation enough yet. But, obviously, it is a theory/hypothesis that is scientific in nature.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You are mistaken. What makes a scientific theory is the confirmation of a theory/hypothesis via repeated experimentation and observation. All dictionaries, scientific websites, and scientific articles agree on this.

All? WOW?

Let's test that theory ...

Theory basics

The University of California, Berkley defines a theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses."

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts.

An important part of scientific theory includes statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.

The evolution of a scientific theory

A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease.

Some believe that theories become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A law is a description of an observed phenomenon that hold true every time it is tested. It doesn't explain why something is true; it just states that it is true. A theory, on the other hand, explains observations that are gathered during the scientific process. So, while law and theory are part of the scientific process, they are two very different aspects, according to the National Science Teachers Association.

- source

 

[LuisDantas]

Hi,

What does the phrase "acquired through the scientific method" mean?

Mainly, that independent verification is possible - which implies that it is not just a matter of opinion.

 

[leibowde84]

All? WOW?

Let's test that theory ...

​

I agree with this. And, as the OP shows, a "theory" is different than a "scientific theory". Nothing in your citation contradicts this.

 

[leibowde84]

All? WOW?

Let's test that theory ...

​

Btw, I am in no way claiming that scientific theories are necessarily fact.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I agree with this. And, as the OP shows, a "theory" is different than a "scientific theory". Nothing in your citation contradicts this.

 

[Yerda]

You are confusing a "scientific theory" with merely a "theory that was scientific in nature". A theory that is proven false is still a theory, and it is still in the realm of science. It is just no longer a "scientific theory".

So it's science, and a theory, but it isn't a scientific theory?

Mainly, that independent verification is possible - which implies that it is not just a matter of opinion

Ok. That sounds reasonable.

 

[leibowde84]

So it's science, and a theory, but it isn't a scientific theory?

Right. Just because a theory is scientific in nature doesn't mean that it qualifies as a "scientific theory", which is a specific kind of substantiated theory.

 

[Yerda]

Right. Just because a theory is scientific in nature doesn't mean that it qualifies as a "scientific theory", which is a specific kind of substantiated theory.

If you don't mind, can you explain what you mean by specific kind of substantiated theory? I'm not following.

 

[leibowde84]

If you don't mind, can you explain what you mean by specific kind of substantiated theory? I'm not following.

This is a pretty good explanation:

The process of becoming a scientific theory (http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html)
Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

 

[Yerda]

This is a pretty good explanation:

The process of becoming a scientific theory (http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html)
Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

Thanks.

I agree with the point in your OP about the difference in the usage of the word theory and that's probably the most important point to be made on the issue.

I disagree that theories in the sciences are different from ScientificTheories in the abstract and that science is hierarchical in that ideas progress from hypotheses to theories (many sources continue on one more step to laws). That seems to be pop science confusion though I could definitely be wrong on all counts.

 

[leibowde84]

I disagree that theories in the sciences are different from ScientificTheories in the abstract and that science is hierarchical in that ideas progress from hypotheses to theories (many sources continue on one more step to laws). That seems to be pop science confusion though I could definitely be wrong on all counts.

I'm not sure what you mean here, exactly. Can you elaborate on this a bit?

 

[Yerda]

I'm not sure what you mean here, exactly. Can you elaborate on this a bit?

I'll try.

You will read often that an idea in science starts as a hypothesis. It is then tested and confirmed to become a theory or rejected as false. Something along those lines. I don't think science really works that way. A theory is generally a model (in my experience) and models consist of several hypotheses and can often accomodate new hypotheses.

Here's the wiki on Scientific Modelling.

And here's an example of a model - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

That help any?

 

[leibowde84]

I'll try.

You will read often that an idea in science starts as a hypothesis. It is then tested and confirmed to become a theory or rejected as false. Something along those lines. I don't think science really works that way. A theory is generally a model (in my experience) and models consist of several hypotheses and can often accomodate new hypotheses.

Here's the wiki on Scientific Modelling.

And here's an example of a model - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

That help any?

I see what you are saying, but I think that it doesn't contradict what is stated in the OP. Most often theories that evidence ends up contradicting aren't thrown out completely, but rather adjusted.

 

[Shad]

In which category would you place String Theory and Punctuated Equilibrium?

String theory is theoretical since it is only uses mathematical equations derived from what we have observed on to that which we have not. This makes it an area of research rather an experimental model for testing. The idea is assumed correct for research purposes only. Keep in mind that often ideas and terms are reduced to common language for the sake of the masses. However this can backfire when people assume an idea such as string theory is a scientific theory, experiment and on, rather than the context it is within due to the word theory. Which is a point that Leibowde was making. Often people use their own language reference points rather than the language in the context which is it applicable to.

Punctuated Equilibrium is based on observations and data in order to explain suddenly changes in fossil records. Its fits the modern theory of evolution fine.

 

[leibowde84]

String theory is theoretical since it is only uses mathematical equations derived from what we have observed on to that which we have not. This makes it an area of research rather an experimental model for testing. The idea is assumed correct for research purposes only. Keep in mind that often ideas and terms are reduced to common language for the sake of the masses. However this can backfire when people assume an idea such as string theory is a scientific theory, experiment and on, rather than the context it is within due to the word theory. Which is a point that Leibowde was making. Often people use their own language reference points rather than the language in the context which is it applicable to.

Well-put.