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

[Yerda]

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.

Agreed.

 

[Wirey]

Theory in science doesn't mean theory. Electricity is a theory. No one has ever watched an electron jump from one atom to the other, but we all know it's true because of all the scientific deduction that proved it. If all scientific theory is bunk, please go throw the main breaker in your house. I'd hate to endanger your eternal soul for some TV and microwaved popcorn.

 

[Yerda]

This looks relevant:

http://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/2

The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" 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.

 

[leibowde84]

This looks relevant:

http://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/2

It certainly does. This is a great explanation. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Skwim]

What I find interesting is how "theory" is used as a deprecating term to describe something that's disagreed with, in particular "the theory of evolution" instead of simply "evolution." Implying that rather than the fact that it is, the concept is just theoretical. Creationists are infamous for this, although to be fair, I'm sure many of them don't know any better.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

It astounds me that so many people have not learned that, in the realm of science, certain words have different meanings than everyday usage. The distinction between a "theory" and a "scientific theory" is an extremely important one to understand. So, I thought I'd start a thread to invite discussion on this topic.

"Theory" = a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

"Scientific Theory" = a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method aand repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

And yet the totally illogical theories of Einstein are considered 'science' when they are blatantly false to anyone capable of logic.
You make one good point, and that is that the term 'Science' is a professional term, and has come to mean that such a theory
is espoused by a person who is paid to agree with the theory. If they disagree with the theory then they are excommunicated
from their profession as 'scientists'. The original scientific method has lost much of its meaning and value and been replaced
by professionalism.

This is why the world has been going backwards for many decades.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

And yet the totally illogical theories of Einstein are considered 'science' when they are blatantly false to anyone capable of logic.
You make one good point, and that is that the term 'Science' is a professional term, and has come to mean that such a theory
is espoused by a person who is paid to agree with the theory. If they disagree with the theory then they are excommunicated
from their profession as 'scientists'. The original scientific method has lost much of its meaning and value and been replaced
by professionalism.

This is why the world has been going backwards for many decades.

???
Einstein's theories have been validated again and again. What is your evidence that Einstein's theories are "totally illogical?" What is the proof that they are "blatantly false to anyone capable of logic?"
By the way, the proof of Einstein's theories is not their "logic," but the observations of the universe that demonstrate that his "theories" are correct--that is, accurately describe the material universe.
How exactly has the "world been going backwards for many decades?"

 

[Skwim]

And yet the totally illogical theories of Einstein are considered 'science' when they are blatantly false to anyone capable of logic.

I gather that you're one of these people who is brighter than Einstein and see through his logical mistakes that neither he nor the rest of science have picked up on. Yeah sure.

You make one good point, and that is that the term 'Science' is a professional term, and has come to mean that such a theory
is espoused by a person who is paid to agree with the theory. If they disagree with the theory then they are excommunicated
from their profession as 'scientists'. The original scientific method has lost much of its meaning and value and been replaced
by professionalism.

This is why the world has been going backwards for many decades.

Let me guess, A scientist once ran away with your girl/boy friend.


.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

???
Einstein's theories have been validated again and again. What is your evidence that Einstein's theories are "totally illogical?" What is the proof that they are "blatantly false to anyone capable of logic?"
By the way, the proof of Einstein's theories is not their "logic," but the observations of the universe that demonstrate that his "theories" are correct--that is, accurately describe the material universe.
How exactly has the "world been going backwards for many decades?"

Clearly you are incapable of logic.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I gather that you're one of these people who is brighter than Einstein and see through his logical mistakes that neither he nor the rest of science have picked up on. Yeah sure.

Let me guess, A scientist once ran away with your girl/boy friend.


.

No.
You could not be more wrong if you tried.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Clearly you are incapable of logic.

Oh, yes. Clearly. It's so obvious that you are correct.

For those of us incapable of logic, why don't you try enlightening us?

 

[Thief]

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.

which results in proof....and the word theory is then removed.

 

[Thief]

Theory in science doesn't mean theory. Electricity is a theory. No one has ever watched an electron jump from one atom to the other, but we all know it's true because of all the scientific deduction that proved it. If all scientific theory is bunk, please go throw the main breaker in your house. I'd hate to endanger your eternal soul for some TV and microwaved popcorn.

and the theory of gravity is different than the LAW of gravity.
gravity is proven

foolish people can't let go the word.....theory

 

[leibowde84]

which results in proof....and the word theory is then removed.

Nope. You are dead wrong. And, repeating it won't make that change. A "scientific theory" is a hypothesis that has been confirmed through repeated experimentation and observation. That doesn't mean that it is 100% proof positive, but, instead, that the available evidence supports the hypothesis being true. When there is enough confirming evidence, the hypothesis becomes a scientific theory.

 

[leibowde84]

And yet the totally illogical theories of Einstein are considered 'science' when they are blatantly false to anyone capable of logic.
You make one good point, and that is that the term 'Science' is a professional term, and has come to mean that such a theory
is espoused by a person who is paid to agree with the theory. If they disagree with the theory then they are excommunicated
from their profession as 'scientists'. The original scientific method has lost much of its meaning and value and been replaced
by professionalism.

This is why the world has been going backwards for many decades.

You completely missed the point of the OP. Take a minute, actually read it, and get back to me. I am merely providing the definition of two terms. One is a term from everyday usage ("theory"), which, in the scientific world, is akin to "hypothesis". The other is a scientific term ("scientific theory"), which describes a hypothesis that has been confirmed through repeated experimentation and observation. The OP was not trying to argue for the reliability of science or scientists. It is merely pointing out that "theory" and "scientific theory" have different meanings. And, no, a "scientific theory" is not merely a "theory" that is "scientific" in nature.

 

[Thief]

Nope. You are dead wrong. And, repeating it won't make that change. A "scientific theory" is a hypothesis that has been confirmed through repeated experimentation and observation. That doesn't mean that it is 100% proof positive, but, instead, that the available evidence supports the hypothesis being true. When there is enough confirming evidence, the hypothesis becomes a scientific theory.

and repeating your denial has no effect.

 

[leibowde84]

and repeating your denial has no effect.

Have you even bothered to look up the term "scientific theory"?

 

[Thief]

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence have been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law.[25][28] A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven.[29]

(Wikipedia)

perhaps this is the pivot that everyone is tripping over.....
a theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to disprove it.

so if you have no evidence to disprove what I say......

 

[metis]

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence have been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law.[25][28] A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven.[29]

perhaps this is the pivot that everyone is tripping over.....
a theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to disprove it.

so if you have no evidence to disprove what I say......

Again, you simply do not understand how "theory" is used within the scientific community. The reality is that a scientific theory deals with one general subject (let's say "evolution", "gravity", etc.) but is multifaceted. IOW, it's a composite of hypotheses and possibly axioms. Yes, a theory may be proven to be incorrect or partially incorrect in terms of it's main point (depending on how it's worded), or that it may have be adjusted over time.

Therefore, items like "gravitational theory", "evolutionary theory", etc, may be adjusted as time goes on, but not at all likely to be proven wrong. However, there is no such scientific thing as a "theory of God" since there's no objectively-derived evidence to support it. If one believes, it is based on belief, not science.

 

[leibowde84]

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence have been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law.[25][28] A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven.[29]

perhaps this is the pivot that everyone is tripping over.....
a theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to disprove it.

so if you have no evidence to disprove what I say......

I do have evidence that disproves what you are saying. Here it is ... (From http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb317/scientifictheories.html)

So, what does the word "theory" mean in science?
According to the National Academies of Sciences, "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".

People who don't understand this distinction sometimes dismiss ideas saying "it's just a theory" (this is very commonly used to suggest that evolution is just speculation, for example). But, when scientists speak of the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution, they don't mean that these are random untested ideas that someone came up with after too many beers.

The AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science), the world's largest scientific society, has this explanation of what scientists mean when they use the word "theory":
" 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."

Because of this crucial difference in meaning, I will ask students to use the word "hypothesis" whenever they are referring to a speculation or guess about how something works.