Please! Let's get our FACTS straight!

[JFN1]

In a recent thread discussing intelligent design (I won't link it as I have no desire to "call out" anyone in particular), a discussion arose about how evolution is a THEORY, and thus can't be taken as FACT - you know, because it is just a "theory."

Ugh.

If we are going to have an intelligent (pardon me, I couldn't resist!) discussion about this issue, we should at least come armed with the facts.

According to Wikipedia (and this is in line with what I have been taught), a scientific theory is:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable.

As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts.

Please, folks, let's argue with actual facts, especially when it comes to stuff like "intelligent design."

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Yes.

Gravity is both a fact and a theory. So is evolution.

[Whisp]

6. and we are devolving, that's my theory.

people are getting stupider.

[Riktor]

12. Which suggests Darwin is correct

Stupid people are more "fit" than smart people.

Smart people do not reproduce beyond their capacity to financially support offspring. Stupid people keep cranking out kids regardless of the consequences thus engendered. Hence, stupid people reproduce more often than smart people, thus the stupid are more successful in passing their genes onto the next generation than smart people. The stupid will inherit the earth (or what's left of it) while the smart will go the way of the dodo.

[Whisp]

13. wasn't he humping a Beagle for how long?

and only got satisfaction when he got off?
maybe Darwin ain't so smart after all

[SallyMander]

16. Have you seen Idiocracy?

If not, you should!

[Riktor]

33. Yes, I have...

... and it scared the shit out of me. :crazy:

[Brian Fearn]

38. I've seen it; funny movie...

But it looks like the evidence points in the other direction; people are getting smarter. At the very least, IQ scores are increasing. Google "Flynn effect."

The increase in IQ scores might just be a statistical artifact of some kind, but I have seen no convincing explanation of how that could be the case.

[SallyMander]

42. Is it a random sample of the population

that's actually taking the IQ test?

If not, the increase is definitely confounded by self-selection -- to put it un-gently, smart people are probably more likely to take the test to begin with.

But it's an honest question to which i don't know the answer. :)

[Brian Fearn]

46. Yes, it is pretty much random

The original IQ tests were designed to find out what kind of educational help "poor performers" would need, and as far as I know they are still used for that today. Tests are also still given to children of all levels, as far as I know.

In order to argue that the Flynn effect is the result of self-selection, one would have to argue that there is a larger proportion of smart people taking the test now than there was in the past. It doesn't look like that is the case.

[SallyMander]

47. Right - interesting

Thanks for the info!

[havocmom]

43. By making things safer all the time, we have allowed idiots to reach breeding age

People who would never have lasted the rigors and threats of a more natural environment are flourishing because 'civilization' has taken steps to make sure most don't hurt themselves to often.

Damn, it is us caring liberals, acting in human interest over many generations, who have made a world where reactionary fools can stay alive. ;)

Pogo was right.

[Richard Steele]

30. That's not -YOUR- theory, you little whippersnapper! NURSE- fetch me my "ass-beatin" cane!

[shadowknows69]

40. Devo represent!

[robinlynne]

2. There was a long PBS documentary on this subject. What the scientists

(and their lawyers) say about "scientific theory" is that there are NO facts in science. All science is made up of theories, and they can and do change. In other words, I agree with you, (becuase what you say is obviously correct) but you have to rethink your wording if you want to speak with those who believe that a man in the sky created the world in 6 days.

[magellan]

9. No facts?

The sun isn't hot? The earth doesn't rotate on its axis once a day? The moon is not made of cheese? These aren't facts?

A scientific theory is an observable truth that is constantly being proved. Most important, it is falsifiable. Which means if ever evidence comes to light that proves the theory wrong, the theory must be corrected or thrown out.

By contrast, religious theories are not falsifiable. You either believe or you don't. Religious theory is a matter of faith, not of scientific theory.

[robinlynne]

10. Now THAT is well stated.

[magellan]

14. Actually, I've just been corrected on a similar thread

You're right, "fact" is not the correct word to use. Scientists prefer the idea of "an accepted truth". It requires a very precise mind to negotiate the difference and understand why it's there...something many people (including myself) balk at.

And that probably explains, at least partially, why a majority of humans latch onto religious belief so easily. It requires so little of their intellect! ;)

[robinlynne]

20. It's not so hard to understand. The difference is that science is, to scientists, fluid,

ever evolving, and changing. Rather, our human comprehension of science is evolving and changing. Therefore you don't call anything scientific a fact, because a new way of seeing may come tomorrow and disprove the theory that is correct today.

[BurtWorm]

37. But science is interested in observable "facts."

Without them, there would be no theories. The theory is what ostensibly ties the facts together. Scientists are looking for facts the theory predicts. Facts that don't fit the theory challenge it and potentially lead to revision of it.

But even facts may be challenged and revised. "The sun rises in the east" for example used to be a good enough fact, but a better fact, based on the heliocentric theory of the solar system is "The earth's rotation makes the sun appear to rise in the east."

[Riktor]

15. I believe that was misinterpreted

Science can only explain things in terms of probability. As David Hume so succinctly pointed out, causality is a habit of the mind. We see two sequential occurrences and, by force of habit, assume one caused the other. However, in reality, all we see is two sequential occurrences that appear to have a cause-and-effect relationship. In reality, we cannot observe causality. We can only postulate that if you release an apple from your grip, probability dictates it shall fall to the earth. It is possible the apple may stay suspended in mid air, but, as Stephen Jay Gould put it, the chances are so slim that such a notion shouldn't even be given consideration.

The strength of a scientific fact is dictated by how many times a sequence of specific events occurs. The more times said sequence occurs, a cause-and-effect relationship becomes more and more probable.

So, it isn't so much that there aren't any facts in science, but that scientists are reluctant to assert that they can explain any given phenomena with 100% certainty. With that said, there are plenty of scientific theories which can explain phenomena with 99.999999999999% certainty.

[magellan]

17. Yes, you're right - I stand corrected

You provided a very good explanation of how probability informs scientific theory. Thanks! :)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. Oh this is a load of wishy washy bullshit.

If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?

Yes, it does.

That's a fact. The Sun is hot is a fact. The sky is blue is a fact. 2 + 2 = 4 is a fact.

Science contains facts.

Now if you want to argue philosophy and say there are no such things as facts or ponder your own navel, that's all well and good.

Just keep it out of science. To argue there are no such things as facts, particularly with regard to evolution, is just intellectually dishonest.

[Riktor]

61. Aparently there's no "reading" in science, either

I didn't say there was no such thing as "fact", I said there's no such thing as a 100% certain theory.

Do you typically put words in people's mouths, or are you having a bad day?

[Richard Steele]

66. Nope. You're batting .000 on your first three "facts" there...

Your first "fact" is an ASSUMPTION.
Your second is a "relative comparative".
Your third is a language-specific adjective based upon a loose
(albeit generally accepted) AVERAGE of individual perceptions.



And you don't even want the quantum-theorists to get STARTED
on the whole "2+2=" thing, trust me! It doesn't always equal 4.
Sometimes, 2 doesn't even equal 2, if it's quick about it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

69. Please don't talk about quantum theory...

when you don't understand anything about quantum theory. Please.

You only make yourself look foolish.

[Richard Steele]

70. Awww...so much CONCERN for other people's opinion of me. It's quite TOUCHING, really....

[Greyhound]

64. Hypothesis, theory, law. n/t

[seriousstan]

3. Just for clarity...don't confuse fact for theory...

after all, gravity is a theory. In the next 4.5 billion years, we are destined to learn quite a bit.

[Greyhound]

65. What could possibly make you think that we will survive 4.5 billion years? n/t

[NMMNG]

4. Thank you!

I'm tired of theory being dismissed as trivial by people wishing to elevate their pet notion.

[mcctatas]

5. The ID crowd likes to point that out alot as well, not only to

detract from the value of evolutionary "theory", but also to give credibility to thier own (if ID is also a "theory, then it is of equal value"). I have alot of theories myself (the squirrel in my yard only eats the red tomatoes because he hates me, if I eat it in the process of cooking, the calories don't count and my father in law is an angry repressed gay fundamentalist), but without evidence, they are just the insane ramblings of a warped mind...kinda like ID!

[robinlynne]

23. However, the "theory" that god created the earth in 6 days is not based on

any experimentation at all. Their whole concept is "the world is so amazing, there must be a higher power who created it; it must have been designed by a higher intelligence." That's pretty much it. all of it. That's all they got.

[DCKit]

7. I have a theory that lurkers were all over that ID thread. n/t

[BushOut06]

8. Gravity is a theory as well

I wonder if they have a problem with that?

[FloridaJudy]

11. Evolution - like gravity - is a fact

How they work is where the theories come in. I suspect this explanation leaves much to be desired.

[SallyMander]

18. Monkey Girl by Edward Humes

is a riveting account of the ID trial in Dover, PA. Lots of good and understandable discussion on what is science, why ID is NOT science, and how the school board in that town royally effed up. I highly recommend the book to anyone interested in this topic!

[rockybelt]

19. I hope nobody

decides to void the theory of relativity.

[The Traveler]

28. That kinda happened

about 15 years or more ago.

But it is still damn useful. Kinda like Newtonian mechanics. Not "true", but still true enough to support the vast majority of engineering tasks. Relativity ain't "true", but gives us good enough results over a wide range of phenomena. We've just found situations were it should work well and doesn't. Bell warned us that would happen, back in the 60s. There is a fundamental contradiction between the predictions of quantum mechanics and those of relativity. Check out "Einstein-Poldosky-Rosen Paradox". I think I might have mispelled Poldosky ...

[autorank]

21. Thank you.

Do we really have to entertain this nonsense about intelligent design. You don't accept the science you like. If you do, then use the fruits of the science you like ... medical quackery, wacky versions
of history, belief in magicians.

[Union Thug]

22. I'm so tired of this so called 'debate'....

Evolution is an observable fact - whether it be studying moth populations in England or flies in the lab, etc. When was the last time someone observed SuperDaddy whip up universe out of nothingness? Thought so.

[rAVES]

24. It selfish to beat up on the poor ID crowd so much.. they know not what they do.

We'd probably be the same if our parents Home schooled us, never let us have friends and trapped us in the house reading rubbish our entire Childhood.

I think the whole debate should shift to us having this simple understanding, and simply saying "Oh you're so right! heres a star *cheesy Grin*" whenever one of these poor souls try to "debate"

[robinlynne]

48. Wish it were so. but they are trying to take over schools with their nonsense, which makes

it a serious threat.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. but.. but... but... it's "just a theory!"

And therefore, its validity is equivalent to that of all other theories, like my theory that I'm actually Napoleon.

[mogster]

26. I agree, science works for me n/t

[The Traveler]

27. I refer you to Kuhn's text

"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". It explains the difference between observed facts (the grist of the mill) and the theories that attempt to explain them in a more formal manner than in the Wikipedia article you quote. Theories are not facts, regardless of what Wikipedia claims. Rather, theories are related axioms and definitions that allow us to produce testable hypotheses. The fewer the axioms and definitions, the more hypotheses producing accurate results, the better the theory.

I.D. does not qualify as a scientific theory since it does not produce hypotheses that are testable. It seems that any contraindicating evidence is explained away by the axiom "God did it his way". It may be "true" but that cannot be determined by the method of science. To claim it is a scientific theory merely demonstrates an ingorance of the scientific method. Conversely, to claim that science == truth demonstrates a different error.

For theories can never be proven. Experiment can increase our confidence in their ability to produce new hypotheses that predict experimental outcomes, but all it takes is one contraindicating result to disprove a theory. The theory of Newtonian mechanics was overturned thereby. Still damn useful, but we know it to be "untrue". Relativity is now in a similar boat. Quantum Electrodynamics is getting ratty at the edges and recent observations have thrown the Standard Cosmological model boys into a minor tizzy fit.

Now, I find this more than a little exciting ... because this sort of thing is EXACTLY what happens prior to a major advance in scientific knowledge. Old models have been pushed to their limits, new models will be constructed and though we may never know the "truth" our understanding will continue to advance.

[Brian Fearn]

41. Nice to see someone aware of the finer nuances

I have actually seen some of the more philosophically-aware Christians try to use Kuhn in support of the notion that evolution is an entrenched paradigm that has lots of problems, but whose partisans will not discount it because it would involve a "change of worldview."

:-P

Another thing to note here is that any good scientific theory will *forbid* certain things from happening. That was part of the motivation behind Karl Popper's criterion of falsification: he had looked at the Marxist theory of history and at Freudian psychoanalysis, both of which claimed to be scientific, and seen that their practitioners could explain any possible observation in terms of their theory. But Popper came to believe that the reason they could do this was that their theories actually made no "risky" predictions at all. Any observation, even if it were contrary to what the theorists had predicted would be observed, was explained away ad hoc. Because of this, the theories were effectively impossible to test at all. On the other hand, something like the inverse square law can be tested because it makes specific predictions about what will and *will not* happen.

What you have with creationists is much the same thing. Anything can be explained in terms of God working a miracle. Holes in the theory are not really felt as inadequacies, because the hypothesis that God made the world is taken not as a starting point for predictions, but simply an axiom that is always, necessarily, supported by any observation.

[Odin2005]

55. I'm a big fan of Popper's epistemology.

It's the main thing that caused me to turn away from Marxism (and it's Postmodernist spin offs like Critical Theory), and utopian social engineering.

Seeing if somethings is falsifiable (or, at the least, like some forms of superstring theory, theoretically falsifiable with better technology) or not is the best determinant if something is scientific or not.

[Brian Fearn]

57. Marxism isn't scientific, but...

...I think that it can provide an interesting and useful perspective on politics, so long as you don't take it as "gospel."

[Odin2005]

59. A lot of Marx's economic analysis is good, it's his historicist sociology that is bunk.

Historicism being the notion that there are "laws of societal development" that result in human societies evolving in a deterministic fashion.

[orleans]

29. EXCUSE ME! the world is flat! there is NO SUCH THING as evolution

time began with christianity--christianity is the oldest religion.

see you on the view!

your friend,

sherri

(hearts & kisses)

[havocmom]

45. The fact (theory?) that such a twit as Sherri has a gig on TV is evidence

that the powers that be WANT people to be dumber than a fence post.

[orleans]

50. no shit. she sure is something special, isn't she? n/t

[bowens43]

31. Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is a theory.

[radfringe]

32. a question I ask of "intelligent designers"

assuming there is an intelligent designer - couldn't he/she/it designed a mechanism like evolution for the purpose of having a planet which adapts to changing environmental situations?

while I don't hold much with the intelligent design, I also don't believe that intelligent design and evolution are mutally exclusive.

[Brian Fearn]

44. Because evolution removes the *need* for a "designer"

Evolution is a process that relies ultimately on nothing more than mindless interactions of certain kinds of molecules. If you remove the explanatory need for a designer, then the "God hypothesis" becomes an unjustified, free-floating belief, whose presence is unnecessary and unexplained. I think that most people don't want to feel like they believe in God just because it makes them feel good. They want to feel like their belief in God explains some observable things about the world, that the evidence is in favor of them believing, that believing in God is a rational response to the way the world is.

That's the worry that some people have, at least.

[Odin2005]

58. Philosopher Dan Dennett states the same thing in...

...his excellent book Darwin's Dangerous Idea. People that try to reconcile the creation myth of the Abrahamic religions with Darwinian Evolution miss the whole point of the philosophical impact of Darwinism. Darwinian Evolution resulted in the need of involving a divine designer being cut by Occam's Razor.

[Brian Fearn]

60. I have that book; I should get around to reading it

On the other hand, some people might still claim a need for God to get the whole thing started, or claim that God is necessary for morality. But neither of those claims have quite the robustly explanatory *look* of arguments from design.

[alarimer]

62. I ask them "Who designed the designer?"

They have no answer.

[mmonk]

35. The word theory is used because science is an open discipline.

By open, I mean that it allows for correction for later discovery and applied method of study. The misuse of the term theory will always be used by religions or religious people who feel threatened by science and scientific discovery (I'm not attacking religion, rather I'm saying some involved in religion cannot accept anything that makes them question their tenants while other religious people aren't bothered by scientific discovery).

[DS1]

36. If only the idiot wingers were so skeptical about US "Intelligence"

WMDs were only a theory, IIRC

[Beausoleil]

39. Atomic theory is just a theory

but nuclear weapons, based on atomic theory, are facts and really do explode.

[DangerDave921]

49. Quibble

I would only disagree to the extent that you seem to equate theory with meaning something is demonstrably true. There are many theories out there in the scientific community that are the best we can come up with, but are still actually just an educated guess.

[Beelzebud]

51. You just described a hypothesis, not a theory...

It's this kind of shit that the OP is talking about.

[DangerDave921]

53. OK

I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, but is there a real difference between a "hypothesis" and a "theory" when science is trying to explain something?

I hear this all the time watching science shows, e.g., we don't know what exactly causes (insert phenomena here) but the current theory is (insert theory here).

Many theories cannot be tested because it is physically impossible. For example, we can't test what causes black holes because we cannot create one.

[Brian Fearn]

54. Your view of a "test" is too narrow

"Many theories cannot be tested because it is physically impossible. For example, we can't test what causes black holes because we cannot create one."

We cannot create them, but we can look to see if the hypothesized causes are present at the formation of a black hole. Not to mention that we have observed stars at all stages of life, including supernova (which can eventually result in a black hole).

[Ikonoklast]

68. Actually, we are getting very close to creating black holes

They would be microscopic, and dissipate almost immediately.

The RHIC at Brookhaven Ntional Laboratory may have created one already smashing gold atoms together at relativistic speeds, but more study is needed. The experimental result had some characteristics of a black hole, but on a very, very small scale.

[Brian Fearn]

52. A theory is more than an "educated guess"

A scientific theory attempts to predict novel observations (i.e. it tries to cover territory not reached by previous theories), and thereby opens itself up to falsification. A theory that does not do this effectively has no scientific content.

[Elspeth]

56. Thank you for this thread. This is a point that I have had to argue so many times

and guess what? The christofacist types are too dumb or too invested in their beliefs to understand the difference.

Thanks again

[Greyhound]

63. It's just another example of the epidemic ignorance that is ubiquitous

throughout Amerika. Not 20% of the inhabitants of this nation are able to even grasp the concept of the scientific definition of a theory, let alone put together a cogent argument to support their "belief".

So, what are you going to arguing about? They are morans in the truest sense of the (pseudo)word. Throughly incapable of the simplest extrapolation and mystified by the operation of their God (TV), you expect to actually discuss the merits, or lack thereof, of their "argument"?

Come on, look around you, talk to them. We are lost.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

67. In short, scientific theory:

that which is falsifiable.

The theory of evolution: there's no argument THAT it happens, but HOW or WHY it happens.

[HuffleClaw]

71. ok, lets start with the FACT that 'intelligent design' is merely CREATIONISM repackaged

and to claim otherwise is lying.