What is a Theory?

Og · 02-07-2007, 09:38 PM

When people hear things like "the theory of evolution" or "the theory of plate tectonics," they tend to say something like "oh, it's just a theory"...

By doing this, they completely miss the point of science. Theory is the pinnacle of the scientific process. Theories are the gold that withstands the test of the fire of empiricism as the impurities are melted out. A theory is the beautiful sculpture at the center of a piece of marble once all the non-statue pieces are shed.

First off, in the process, you have data. Data is facts and they're cheap. These are observations. They can be wrong. They can be right. Facts are just observations. This would be a nice place to apply the word "just" in the scientific process.

Once you have many facts and many people have corroborated the facts and you have a large volume of facts, one can make a hypothesis that describes how the observed elements behave and interact with one another. How does this observed process work? Well, after many observations, you can begin to hazard guesses.

You design tests for your hypothesis and you don't hold any punches. You try your best to destroy the hypothesis by illustrating it as false in a clear experiment. If you can't do that, you say "I have failed to disprove my hypothesis."

When a hypothesis withstands the test of time and when observations continue to deliver support for the hypothesis, and when the hypothesis can be used to predict the behavior of a system, the hypothesis becomes a theory/law.

The theory is the pinnacle of the scientific process. And this idea that has correlated with observation for so long and that has been refined by massive volumes of data then is used for predictive purposes. Every time a scientist uses a theory for predictive purposes, they have two outcomes. First, they can learn something new about the system they're predicting by how it meets the predictions of a theory. At the same time, the result of the prediction and how reality matches with it either strengthens or weakens the theory.

A theory is "just" nothing. When people say evolution is "just" a theory, they're using the term in its colloquial meaning. Evolution is certainly not "just" anything. It is a massive notion built ENTIRELY on a broad foundation of facts.

You might as well just say "The Explanation of Evolution" when you are talking in terms of creation vs evolution. The term "theory" doesn't apply in science the way it may apply in every day life or on cop shows or when you're trying to find out where you lost your keys.

It's an important difference. But ultimately you have the reality that scientists will never fully internalize a theory and accept it as dogma. It may take a lot of clear evidence, but any scientist must be willing to discard a theory, no matter how old, if facts contradict it.

This idea is grasped upon by the religious fanatics and used as the largest misunderstanding that they use to fuel their movement. They paint the term theory as "just an idea" and illustrate how scientists always admit that they could be wrong (and I guess this means that they therefore are wrong).

The religious people offer blind conviction in untestable facts that are entirely dogma. It's 180 degrees from what science offers. The "I can do all things through christ who strengthens me" idea. And they have this idea because the dogma has been handed down from person to person and gained momentum.

It's unfortunate that there is this misunderstanding between theory in science and theory in the general public. There are no "sides" to an argument in science. There is only what the evidence illustrates and which hypothesis fail to be disproved under rigorous testing.

If you don't apply this non dogmatic approach to develop theories, then you just end up with an ugly lump of garbage. Applying the fire of the scientific method melts away what is untrue and leaves only what is pure behind.

Og · 02-08-2007, 08:12 AM

Creationism/ID is not a theory. It simply tries to poke holes in evolution.

The ironic thing is that it doesn't do this in an intelligent way. Scientists are ALWAYS trying to poke holes in the theory of evolution. The cool thing is that they do it after observing boat loads of facts. Most people just flat out don't get this about science. Scientists LOVE the holes. The holes are where the action is! If it doesn't fit the theory, we don't armchair explain it away or close our eyes. We look deep into it the holes and try to discover what is going on!

And you know what? When we understand the holes, we modify the theory to explain everything, including what we now know about what was in the holes.

The cool thing is that as scientists, we acknowledge the holes and gravitate towards them.

It's the absolute opposite in religion. The holes are avoided and ignored and people are told NOT to go near them or that it's just the mystery of god or that you're a sinner for questioning.

Proponents of ID/creationism clearly see the value that science offers our society (i.e. they want their ideas mixed in with the products of science) yet they do not want to take part in the non-dogmatic rigorous testing and examining that makes the results of science so valuable and robust.

I get it. It's just religious folk pushing their agenda. Fortunately enough, the non-dogmatic and self correcting scientific method has built-in safe guards to protect us from stuff like this (unlike organized religion with it's "mouth open + eyes closed" attitudes that produce large volumes of wacko evangelicals).

THEWAULRUS · 03-14-2007, 06:14 AM

Gravity is a theory

Definition of a theory:Theory is defined as a well supported testable explanation of phenomena that have occurred in the natural world.

lauraclay · 03-26-2007, 01:20 PM

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Originally published in Scientific American

Professional Widow · 03-27-2007, 11:28 PM

I still want to know how ppl WILLINGLY believe that a virgin had a child. Talk about gullible.

Also, AWESOME THREAD! Thx for posting & making some sense of the whole thing.

Faith · 03-28-2007, 04:29 AM

So you are saying God is incapable because you simply can't comprehend His power?

15 Answers to Evolutionist Nonsense

lauraclay · 03-28-2007, 06:16 AM

Are you saying Mary was MARRIED for how many years? and never had sex with her husband?

Og · 03-28-2007, 06:33 AM

Heh... So my girl is doing her psyche rotation as a medical student. She asks her patients a series of proverbs and sees how the patient responds. If they don't illustrate abstract thought in their responses then it is generally the case that the person is having some form of psychotic break.

Quibbling over the virginity of Mary is silly. Human beings aren't born unless sex causes an egg to be fertilized. Mary was not literally a virgin. The human body can't work that way. The story is meant to illustrate an abstract concept. That is the spiritual nature (i.e. not carnal) of Jesus' teachings. The birth story is identical to that of the buddha when he was born out of his mother's hip at the level of the heart (i.e. the same concept).

In both cases, the story illustrates a spiritual birth of an enlightened mind. The buddha story is not taken literally in the east. Many people in the west take the christ story literally. This is the main reason that people get killed in the name of christ and no one gets killed in the name of guatama the buddha.

Quibbling over the literal truth of the virgin birth misses the point of the story entirely.

jaej · 03-28-2007, 02:49 PM

Gravity is a law-not a theory.

And the word in the bible that was used to describe Mary's condition of 'virgin' in the original text could also mean a woman who concieved the first time she had sex.

Much the same as people interpreting Adam as a literal person in genesis, when the actual word used was a word describing mankind.

See how translations of the bible distort the truth? Religion just pursuing its agenda..

Og · 03-28-2007, 02:55 PM

"Law" and "Theory" are interchangeable in most fields. For example, the biological sciences do not use the term Law at all for anything.

As for Translations distorting truth, I don't think it really matters. Read a fanciful version of it and enjoy it as poetry. No matter what the translation is, people do not have virgin births in reality. It's symbolic of his TEACHINGS, not of his actual birth.