Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What "theory" means in science

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    True, they propose a hypothesis, and test and falsify the hypothesis with scientific methods, and the result may be called a theory or a hypothesis that supports a theory. That's how science works in the real world. The hypothesis or theory fails or succeeds based on the evidence.
    Except that sometimes it's called a theory before it's been tested, as with endosymbiotic theory. It would help if you would pay attention to the actual cases I've provided from actual science, rather than wandering off into generalities.

    Trying to establish your agenda and negative view towards science. Your avoiding the question.
    Do we have to go through this again? I didn't avoid the question: you asked a yes-no question and I answered "yes". Also, you're going to waste a lot of time if you keep trying to establish my agenda and negative view towards science. I love science, and I've been a scientist for several decades, publishing widely and being highly cited in two fields. I'm not attacking science. I'm complaining about a way that people talk about science.

    Big Idea? Theories most often start with small ideas and hypothesis, which are then tested by scientific methods. Not meaningful. Hypothesis are proposed usually based on some evidence. The hypothesis is tested and falsified by objective scientific methods, and often combined math. By the way, not 'proven' in science. The theories may by applied to models, and theories that apply to the models are further tested and falsified to determine if the models are sound.
    You didn't answer the question. You said that the Standard Model of particle physics wasn't a theory. I asked what part of the definition it failed to meet. Try again: why isn't the Standard Model a theory? Pick any definition you want to use.
    Not a bare assertion at all. Scientist know what theory means and use it specifically as I described it above.
    Yes, it's a bare assertion. I gave half a dozen cases of scientists using the word "theory" in ways that do not conform very well to the standard definitions. You, on the other hand, gave zero evidence. Statements without supporting evidence are bare assertions.

    Comment


    • #17
      Note: I was hoping to get some feedback about others' experience with the use of "theory" in science. I was not hoping to get into another exchange with shunyadragon.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by sfs1 View Post
        Except that sometimes it's called a theory before it's been tested, as with endosymbiotic theory. It would help if you would pay attention to the actual cases I've provided from actual science, rather than wandering off into generalities.
        endosymbiotic theory is a theory that fits my description. It is based on the evidence and the proposal as a hypothesis. It is a testable hypothesis based on the genetic and physical relationship between organelles, like chloroplasts and mitochondria, and independent organisms. It can be falsified if no such relationship can be found or demonstrated. Theories like this can never be proven, because science does not 'prove' theories, but they can be found false by the evidence.


        Do we have to go through this again? I didn't avoid the question: you asked a yes-no question and I answered "yes". Also, you're going to waste a lot of time if you keep trying to establish my agenda and negative view towards science. I love science, and I've been a scientist for several decades, publishing widely and being highly cited in two fields. I'm not attacking science. I'm complaining about a way that people talk about science.
        That is a problem, 'talk about science?,' concerning the ignorance of the people not science. You also questioned whether scientist use theory as defined in science. The answer was an obvious yes, the vague definitions you cited outside science are meaningless, and rejected.

        You didn't answer the question. You said that the Standard Model of particle physics wasn't a theory. I asked what part of the definition it failed to meet. Try again: why isn't the Standard Model a theory? Pick any definition you want to use.
        I gave my definition, and rejected your vague generality from Oxford, which cannot be accurately applied to science. I also described here how hypothesis are proposed and tested to support theories and models. Models, like the Standard Model, involve different theories in physics such as the Theory of Relativity, String Theory, Dark Matter and Energy. As new knowledge becomes available, the models for our universe (origins and nature of the universe), are tested through hypothesis involving different theories. A 'model' is rejected when the research, and new knowledge of the different theories involved fail and the model is found to be false in some way. Some models change and evolve through new information to fit the theories involved in testing the models

        Yes, it's a bare assertion. I gave half a dozen cases of scientists using the word "theory" in ways that do not conform very well to the standard definitions. You, on the other hand, gave zero evidence. Statements without supporting evidence are bare assertions.
        I gave more specific details to what definitions apply clearly to science, and justifiably rejected your vague definitions like from Oxford, that cannot be applied to science. NO, you have NOT given good examples of how theory is used in science that do not apply to the standard us of theory in science. I have responded to where your examples fail, and where they do apply in a standard way like the endosymbiotic theory. Actually some of the vague meaningless definitions and examples you gave are more 'bald assertions' without good specific examples cited from scientific sources where scientists use the definition of theory differently from what I described.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-28-2015, 06:20 AM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          endosymbiotic theory is a theory that fits my description. It is based on the evidence and the proposal as a hypothesis. It is a testable hypothesis based on the genetic and physical relationship between organelles, like chloroplasts and mitochondria, and independent organisms. It can be falsified if no such relationship can be found or demonstrated. Theories like this can never be proven, because science does not 'prove' theories, but they can be found false by the evidence.
          You've missed the point again. Endosymbiotic theory was described as a theory well before it was well supported by evidence. I'm using it to counter the claim that "theory" means an explanation that's well supported by evidence.

          That is a problem, 'talk about science?,' concerning the ignorance of the people not science. You also questioned whether scientist use theory as defined in science. The answer was an obvious yes, the vague definitions you cited outside science are meaningless, and rejected.
          The vague definitions I've quoted are the ones being offered in this thread as describing how "theory" is used in science.

          I gave my definition, and rejected your vague generality from Oxford, which cannot be accurately applied to science. I also described here how hypothesis are proposed and tested to support theories and models. Models, like the Standard Model, involve different theories in physics such as the Theory of Relativity, String Theory, Dark Matter and Energy. As new knowledge becomes available, the models for our universe (origins and nature of the universe), are tested through hypothesis involving different theories. A 'model' is rejected when the research, and new knowledge of the different theories involved fail and the model is found to be false in some way. Some models change and evolve through new information to fit the theories involved in testing the models
          So when are you going to tell me why the Standard Model isn't a theory, based on any definition of theory you choose? You're writing a lot of words, but avoiding the question.

          Comment


          • #20
            Having thought about it a little more, I see that there's a fairly clear distinction between "theory" used as a mass noun and used as a count noun. As a mass noun, "theory" means a set of mathematical tools or approaches, while the count noun means an explanation. At least that's the case in physics and in fields that draw techniques from physics. The mass nouns sense overlaps with mathematic use of "theory" (group theory, number theory, perturbation theory). The mathematical tools in question may be closely tied to a particular physical domain (heavy quark effective theory) or more generally applicable (diffusion theory). Concrete, explanatory theories include relativity, BCS theory, endosymbiotic theory, the neutral theory, and plate tectonics. Quantum field theory is mass-noun theory that is employed in particular theories like quantum electrodynamics, electroweak theory, QCD.

            So a theory is indeed an explanatory model. I remain to be convinced that "theory" is consistently used for models that are both overarching and well-supported. Taking a quick look on PubMed for the use of "theory" in abstracts, I find (along with lots of use of "theory" as a mass noun) statements like "Our results are consistent with the theory that the brushes act as kinetic barriers rather than efficient prevention of adsorption at equilibrium", "Indeed, this array of deficits is sufficiently prominent to have prompted a theory that executive dysfunction is at the heart of these disorders", and "Purpose: To propose a theory based on clinical observation, namely, whether axonal distress induced by optic nerve tumors could be a triggering factor for optic disc drusen (ODD) formation." I find it difficult to distinguish these uses from "hypothesis".

            Comment


            • #21
              Source: Charlton BG.

              An old joke about the response to revolutionary new scientific theories states that there are three phases on the road to acceptance: 1. The theory is not true; 2. The theory is true, but it is unimportant; 3. The theory is true, and it is important - but we knew it all along. The point of this joke is that (according to scientific theorists) new theories are never properly appreciated. The 'false' phase happens because a defining feature of a revolutionary theory is that it contradicts the assumptions of already-existing mainstream theory. The second 'trivial' phase follows from a preliminary analysis which suggests that the new idea is not in fact contradicted by the major existing evidence, but the new theory seems unimportant because its implications do not seem to lead anywhere interesting when explored in the light of current theory

              © Copyright Original Source



              Source.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by sfs1 View Post
                You've missed the point again. Endosymbiotic theory was described as a theory well before it was well supported by evidence. I'm using it to counter the claim that "theory" means an explanation that's well supported by evidence.


                The vague definitions I've quoted are the ones being offered in this thread as describing how "theory" is used in science.
                That is the way science works. Theories are proposed as hypothesis before the evidence exists. When the theory was proposed the genetic evidence, and other evidence was not yet found. Over time the scientific methods were used to test the theory. Pretty much all theories are proposed as hypothesis to be tested and falsified by progressive research without the evidence to support the theory.


                So when are you going to tell me why the Standard Model isn't a theory, based on any definition of theory you choose? You're writing a lot of words, but avoiding the question.
                Already done that, models of the nature and origins of our universe, are proposed based on a number of theories and knowledge of science as I described before. These models are dependent on the falsification of different theories as cited, no problem. The various theories such as I stated are tested and new knowledge is considered over time to determine whether the models are still considered valid. The models can fail and be considered false based on new knowledge in the theories of physics. Many cyclic models have failed, and the 'Standard Model' is on weaker footing based the changes in knowledge of the basic theories of physics as derived from research like that occurs at the modern collider.

                Issue remains that you have not provided citations of examples where theory is used differently then defined. Poorly worded definitions like in the Oxford Dictionary do not past muster as far as how science actually defines and uses 'theory.'
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-28-2015, 05:15 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  Source: Charlton BG.

                  An old joke about the response to revolutionary new scientific theories states that there are three phases on the road to acceptance: 1. The theory is not true; 2. The theory is true, but it is unimportant; 3. The theory is true, and it is important - but we knew it all along. The point of this joke is that (according to scientific theorists) new theories are never properly appreciated. The 'false' phase happens because a defining feature of a revolutionary theory is that it contradicts the assumptions of already-existing mainstream theory. The second 'trivial' phase follows from a preliminary analysis which suggests that the new idea is not in fact contradicted by the major existing evidence, but the new theory seems unimportant because its implications do not seem to lead anywhere interesting when explored in the light of current theory

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Source.
                  This does not address the reality of how science considers theories in science. Basically theories begin as hypothesis, based on some present knowledge, that may be tested by objective scientific methods, and math. (1) They may be falsified and fail. (2) They may succeed, be found valid, but of limited value. (3) They may be found valid, successful and useful as scientific tools that lead to knowledge and used in the development and proposal of new hypothesis and other theories. (4) They may be found partially valid but subject to modification and lead to new hypothesis, and the evolution of new more successful theories
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    This does not address the reality of how science considers theories in science. Basically theories begin as hypothesis, based on some present knowledge, that may be tested by objective scientific methods, and math. (1) They may be falsified and fail. (2) They may succeed, be found valid, but of limited value. (3) They may be found valid, successful and useful as scientific tools that lead to knowledge and used in the development and proposal of new hypothesis and other theories. (4) They may be found partially valid but subject to modification and lead to new hypothesis, and the evolution of new more successful theories
                    Right, a paper about how science considers theories doesn't address how science considers theories.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      That is the way science works. Theories are proposed as hypothesis before the evidence exists. When the theory was proposed the genetic evidence, and other evidence was not yet found. Over time the scientific methods were used to test the theory. Pretty much all theories are proposed as hypothesis to be tested and falsified by progressive research without the evidence to support the theory.
                      Still missing the point. The claim has been made that a theory in science is something that already has substantial evidence for it. I offered a case of something that was called a theory well before it had substantial evidence for it. If you think the word "theory" can apply to ideas without much support yet, then you're agreeing with me. If you don't agree, then you're ignoring my point. Either way, your response has nothing to do with the subject under discussion.

                      Already done that, models of the nature and origins of our universe, are proposed based on a number of theories and knowledge of science as I described before. These models are dependent on the falsification of different theories as cited, no problem. The various theories such as I stated are tested and new knowledge is considered over time to determine whether the models are still considered valid. The models can fail and be considered false based on new knowledge in the theories of physics. Many cyclic models have failed, and the 'Standard Model' is on weaker footing based the changes in knowledge of the basic theories of physics as derived from research like that occurs at the modern collider.
                      You've already responded in the sense that you've produced word salad like that above. What you haven't done is tell me why the Standard Model isn't a theory, according to you. (Just to orient you, you might notice that physicists all think the Standard Model is a theory, e.g. here, here or here).

                      Issue remains that you have not provided citations of examples where theory is used differently then defined. Poorly worded definitions like in the Oxford Dictionary do not past muster as far as how science actually defines and uses 'theory.'
                      One more time: the definitions I'm objecting to are the ones given earlier in this thread, including ones from dictionaries and textbooks. If you don't want to be involved in a discussion of those definitions, go away. If you disagree with those definitions, feel free to join me in criticizing them. If you want to defend them, do so. What you're doing now makes no sense at all.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                        Source: Charlton BG.

                        An old joke about the response to revolutionary new scientific theories states that there are three phases on the road to acceptance: 1. The theory is not true; 2. The theory is true, but it is unimportant; 3. The theory is true, and it is important - but we knew it all along. The point of this joke is that (according to scientific theorists) new theories are never properly appreciated. The 'false' phase happens because a defining feature of a revolutionary theory is that it contradicts the assumptions of already-existing mainstream theory. The second 'trivial' phase follows from a preliminary analysis which suggests that the new idea is not in fact contradicted by the major existing evidence, but the new theory seems unimportant because its implications do not seem to lead anywhere interesting when explored in the light of current theory

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        Source.
                        I've seen the transition occur in real time from phase 1 to phase 3 during a meeting. The question was whether recombination in humans occurs mainly in hotspots. During a single session of a conference, someone who was an outspoken critic of the idea shifted into "we already knew that" mode. It's interesting how easily we fool ourselves about our own thought processes.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I suspect that scientists in conversation are just as lax with terminology as anyone else, using the word 'theory' in a very broad, layman sense as well as in the particular more correct sense we are talking about. I think we should try not to confuse the two. Revolutionary changes in scientific theories do exist but tend to be rare as paradigm shifts. Nevertheless, these revolutionary changes tend to get the most 'press' and loom large in the layman mind. Most change in theories tends to be at the edges and margins.

                          To be specific to evolutionary theory (because, let's face it, conversations about this is where this tends to crop up most) the theory of evolution rests on a host of observations, predictions and experiments across multiple scientific disciplines. It is not even remotely a 'guess' or a 'shot in the dark' or an edifice easily toppled. I can confidently assert that there is never going to be an 'aha!' moment when one single finding 'proves' evolution false. If evolution is false, then it will need to be shown so by a competing theory that reinterprets all the evidence that so far supports evolution more completely and makes radically different new testable predictions and experiments.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Source: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory


                            In everyday speech, the word "theory" is used as a "best guess". In modern science, a scientific theory is a tested and expanded hypothesis that explains many experiments and fits ideas together in a framework. If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.

                            An example of a scientific theory that underwent many changes is the germ theory of disease. In ancient times, people believed that diseases were caused by the gods, or by curses, or by improper behavior. Germs were unknown, because germs are too small to see. With the invention of the microscope, germs were discovered, and the germ theory of disease was proposed. Thanks to the germ theory of disease, many diseases can now be cured. However, the germ theory of disease had to be modified, because some diseases are not caused by germs. The flu and scurvy are examples of diseases that are not caused by germs, but viruses or poor nutrition. Scientists modified the germ theory of disease, so that today we would state that theory as "Some diseases are caused by germs."

                            To be a scientific theory, a theory must be tested a large number of times, by many different scientists in many different places, and must pass the test every time. It must be stated exactly, often using mathematics. And it must fit in with all of the other scientific theories. Science has many branches. Physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and astronomy are some of the major branches of science. A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science. For example, the atomic theory of matter, that all matter is made up of atoms, was discovered using physics, but the chemicals used in chemistry, the living tissue used in biology, the rocks studied in geology, and the planets studied in astronomy are all made up of atoms. The atomic theory of matter holds in every area of science.

                            Sometimes scientists come up with a theory that is wrong. The discovery of an exception to a scientific theory is a major event, and a scientist can become famous by discovering an exception to a rule. Einstein became famous for his theory of relativity, which found an exception to Isaac Newton's laws of motion. Newton's theory, which had been accepted for hundreds of years, had to be changed, and has been changed.

                            © Copyright Original Source

                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by sfs1 View Post
                              Still missing the point. The claim has been made that a theory in science is something that already has substantial evidence for it.
                              The claim is false.

                              I offered a case of something that was called a theory well before it had substantial evidence for it. If you think the word "theory" can apply to ideas without much support yet, then you're agreeing with me. If you don't agree, then you're ignoring my point. Either way, your response has nothing to do with the subject under discussion.
                              I addressed this in detail. Most theories in the beginning most often have limited evidence as proposed by an hypothesis, but over time research and evidence is developed to support a theory. In fact this most often the case. The Theory of Relativity began based on limited evidence and a mathematical proof, that's all. It in fact was initially rejected by some scientists.

                              You have failed to demonstrate a problem of what a theory is understood and used consistently in science. The point is made by Pancreasman that you are conflating casual and nonspecific layman's use of theory with the scientific serious view of theory as used in science.


                              You've already responded in the sense that you've produced word salad like that above. What you haven't done is tell me why the Standard Model isn't a theory, according to you. (Just to orient you, you might notice that physicists all think the Standard Model is a theory, e.g. here, here or here).
                              Repeatedly addressed the issue and you are ignoring it. What you cited describes a number of theories that ultimately make up the 'Standard Model.' Your picking frog hairs where they are none. Regardless as to how different articles describe the Standard Model. The process of proposing hypothesis for a 'theory' based on limited knowledge followed by research and scientific methods do result in testing and falsification in the development of theories, as described many times. This is how modern science works.


                              One more time: the definitions I'm objecting to are the ones given earlier in this thread, including ones from dictionaries and textbooks. If you don't want to be involved in a discussion of those definitions, go away. If you disagree with those definitions, feel free to join me in criticizing them. If you want to defend them, do so. What you're doing now makes no sense at all.
                              So what?!?!!? Not all definitions in textbooks and dictionaries are adequate. I have provided one that is adequate.
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-28-2015, 09:42 PM.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                The claim is false.
                                Good we agree. So the statement, "To be a scientific theory, a theory must be tested a large number of times, by many different scientists in many different places, and must pass the test every time," is one that you disagree with. Even though you just quoted that statement, I assume with approval.

                                You have failed to demonstrate a problem of what a theory is understood and used consistently in science. The point is made by Pancreasman that you are conflating casual and nonspecific layman's use of theory with the scientific serious view of theory as used in science.
                                I'm looking for some evidence that the supposed scientific serious view of theory actually exists.

                                Repeatedly addressed the issue and you are ignoring it. What you cited describes a number of theories that ultimately make up the 'Standard Model.' Your picking frog hairs where they are none. Regardless as to how different articles describe the Standard Model. The process of proposing hypothesis for a 'theory' based on limited knowledge followed by research and scientific methods do result in testing and falsification in the development of theories, as described many times. This is how modern science works.
                                If I'm picking frog hairs, they're on your frog. You said that the Standard Model wasn't a theory. Presumably you meant something by that. Why can't you tell me what you meant? What does the Standard Model lack to be a scientific theory? You could have answered in one sentence. Instead you give me long descriptions of what a theory is, without telling me the Standard Model isn't one.

                                So what?!?!!? Not all definitions in textbooks and dictionaries are adequate. I have provided one that is adequate.
                                [/quote]
                                Let me get this straight: I objected to inadequate definitions. You jumped all over me for doing so because . . . not all definitions are good? Huh?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X