Reply to Re: SkeleTony
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Metatarsal:
Thanks for your comments in regards to the "Close this thread" request. I agree with you 110% on that.
As for your take on "theory":
"Let's assume I hold an apple in my hand, then I may have the theory that it will fall when I release it."
That is NOT a THEORY. I keep trying to explain this and people keep somehow missing it. If you OBSERVED that appkles fall from your hand when you release them THAT is not a theory either. The 'theory' would be Isaac Newton's explanation of gravitational force being exerted between objects of varying mass. A theory is NOT an 'unproven idea', an assumption that is not a fact(but would be if only it had more evidence), a belief, a wild guess etc.
A theory in science is EXACTLY analogous to a manual on computer engineering. The manual NEVER becomes a computer. It is not something that would gbe a computer if only it had more evidence/substance/whatever. The manual merely explains HOW computers work.
Likewise a "theory" explains how something factual works.
Sorry if I sound a bit miffed discussing this but of all the facets of science I have to repeatedly explain to people online this mis-definition of "theory" is the one I am forced to deal with the most.
"That's a theory, not a fact, it comes from my mind, not from the apple actually falling."
That is NOT a theory. An observation? Sure. Possibly even an educated guess, assuming you did not actively observe the apple to fall. But it is NOT a theory.
" Now when I release it it will fall, so it is no longer a theory but a fact."
AGAIN, theories do not EVER 'become facts'. This is an all too common misunderstanding of science by laypersons. A theory is an entirely different ani9mal than a fact. Theories EXPLAIN facts. Without the pre-existent facts, there is no need for a theory. If there were no computers then a manual on computer engineering would be a book of gibberish talking about silicon chips, terrabytes, processors etc.
" Until it hits the ground that is, then I can have the theory that it fell and the fact that it fell. Both are really similar, but still distinct. Now it is worth noting that there is no way to know for sure that the apple didn't somehow supernaturally warp itself to the ground. (Though I think most people would probably accept that theory.)"
Again this is 100% wrong. You seem to be under the impression that hypothesis and theory mean the same thing(and if this is so then you are also somewhat wrong about the definition of "hypothesis"). What you are referring to above is the NON-SCIENTIFIC common usage of "theory" which is a lot like the common usage of "agnostic" as compared to the actual definition put forth by Huxley 150 years ago(hint: it does NOT mean "Undecided" or "somewhere between "theist" and "atheist").
"Evolution is very similar to the falling of the apple. We can study gravity, and we can ask the person who released the apple to tell us what happened. We even can study the brownish spots that appear after a while when you drop an apple. In the same way we can study all kinds of things related to evolution, for example you could study fossils and similarities in proteins and genetic material between species, you could even study evolutionary processes that occur within the human timespan if you'd like. All of this is supporting evidence for the theory of evolution."
You are mostly correct here but I would point out that there is no "theory of evolution". There are SEVERAL theories(re: Natural Selection, Punctuated Equilibrium etc.) that explain the FACT of evolution. Evolution itself is a fact. Natural selection is the primary THEORY explaining how it(evolution/bio-diversity) works.
"This is not to say that the fact of evolution does not exist. It is to say that there is also the theory of evolution, they aren't mutually exclusive. Let me write a couple of theories:"
Again, mostly correct. They are two different things altogether. The fact of evolution does not vanish due to new evidence or lacking evidence and the theory of Natural selection does not EVER become a "fact" in the same way that an instruction manual on how to ride a bike never becomes a bicycle.
"Let me write a couple of theories:
- Gravity pulls things down, not up.
- Animals have evolved from single celled organisms.
- Round wheels are more efficient than hexagonal ones."
None of those are theories though. The "gravity" and "animals" ones come closest but as you have stated it it is merely a groundless assertion with no explanatory power at all. A "theory" goes into great detail explaining exactly HOW these things occur and work. Theories CAN be overturned adn are constantly revised with the influx of new data but this does not change the facts they explain anymore than the discovery that the earth is elliptical caused our planet to become a cube or a giant marshmallow.
"When I followed a course in physical chemistry a couple of years ago I was actually surprised to hear the teacher explain that the laws of thermodynamics have never been proven, they are postulated. And since nobody has ever given good evidence that they're wrong we accept this. At least I laugh when somebody proposes to make a perpetuum mobile...
I agree with most of your post. The idea that calling something a theory means that it is less true is not correct. The theory that dropping an apple will make it fall is quite likely indeed.
EDIT: Me is nitpicking, I know. All I wanted to say is that technically speaking you can call 'evolution' a theory if you state it like a theory. So just saying 'evolution' does not a theory make as it doesn't propose anything, but the statement 'animals have evolved from single celled organisms' is a theory. EDIT2: And likely a fact too."
Yeah, I am a nitpicky dink when it comes to this stuff. "Laws" are not so much "proven"(or DIS-proven for that matter) as they are just (concurrent)observations(explained by theories).
My only real issue with your above(about "theories") is that a simple statement that "Animals evolved from single celled organisms" does not a theory make. The theory of evolution by Natural Selection encompasses thousands of pages of explanation of how bio-diversity occurs, from singled celled organisms to everything we see today. In any case my issue was with Krisknox's gross mis-definition of "theory". I am not even sure you and I disagree all that much as the more I re-read your post the more I am thinking we are getting tangled in semantics.
Thanks for your comments in regards to the "Close this thread" request. I agree with you 110% on that.
As for your take on "theory":
"Let's assume I hold an apple in my hand, then I may have the theory that it will fall when I release it."
That is NOT a THEORY. I keep trying to explain this and people keep somehow missing it. If you OBSERVED that appkles fall from your hand when you release them THAT is not a theory either. The 'theory' would be Isaac Newton's explanation of gravitational force being exerted between objects of varying mass. A theory is NOT an 'unproven idea', an assumption that is not a fact(but would be if only it had more evidence), a belief, a wild guess etc.
A theory in science is EXACTLY analogous to a manual on computer engineering. The manual NEVER becomes a computer. It is not something that would gbe a computer if only it had more evidence/substance/whatever. The manual merely explains HOW computers work.
Likewise a "theory" explains how something factual works.
Sorry if I sound a bit miffed discussing this but of all the facets of science I have to repeatedly explain to people online this mis-definition of "theory" is the one I am forced to deal with the most.
"That's a theory, not a fact, it comes from my mind, not from the apple actually falling."
That is NOT a theory. An observation? Sure. Possibly even an educated guess, assuming you did not actively observe the apple to fall. But it is NOT a theory.
" Now when I release it it will fall, so it is no longer a theory but a fact."
AGAIN, theories do not EVER 'become facts'. This is an all too common misunderstanding of science by laypersons. A theory is an entirely different ani9mal than a fact. Theories EXPLAIN facts. Without the pre-existent facts, there is no need for a theory. If there were no computers then a manual on computer engineering would be a book of gibberish talking about silicon chips, terrabytes, processors etc.
" Until it hits the ground that is, then I can have the theory that it fell and the fact that it fell. Both are really similar, but still distinct. Now it is worth noting that there is no way to know for sure that the apple didn't somehow supernaturally warp itself to the ground. (Though I think most people would probably accept that theory.)"
Again this is 100% wrong. You seem to be under the impression that hypothesis and theory mean the same thing(and if this is so then you are also somewhat wrong about the definition of "hypothesis"). What you are referring to above is the NON-SCIENTIFIC common usage of "theory" which is a lot like the common usage of "agnostic" as compared to the actual definition put forth by Huxley 150 years ago(hint: it does NOT mean "Undecided" or "somewhere between "theist" and "atheist").
"Evolution is very similar to the falling of the apple. We can study gravity, and we can ask the person who released the apple to tell us what happened. We even can study the brownish spots that appear after a while when you drop an apple. In the same way we can study all kinds of things related to evolution, for example you could study fossils and similarities in proteins and genetic material between species, you could even study evolutionary processes that occur within the human timespan if you'd like. All of this is supporting evidence for the theory of evolution."
You are mostly correct here but I would point out that there is no "theory of evolution". There are SEVERAL theories(re: Natural Selection, Punctuated Equilibrium etc.) that explain the FACT of evolution. Evolution itself is a fact. Natural selection is the primary THEORY explaining how it(evolution/bio-diversity) works.
"This is not to say that the fact of evolution does not exist. It is to say that there is also the theory of evolution, they aren't mutually exclusive. Let me write a couple of theories:"
Again, mostly correct. They are two different things altogether. The fact of evolution does not vanish due to new evidence or lacking evidence and the theory of Natural selection does not EVER become a "fact" in the same way that an instruction manual on how to ride a bike never becomes a bicycle.
"Let me write a couple of theories:
- Gravity pulls things down, not up.
- Animals have evolved from single celled organisms.
- Round wheels are more efficient than hexagonal ones."
None of those are theories though. The "gravity" and "animals" ones come closest but as you have stated it it is merely a groundless assertion with no explanatory power at all. A "theory" goes into great detail explaining exactly HOW these things occur and work. Theories CAN be overturned adn are constantly revised with the influx of new data but this does not change the facts they explain anymore than the discovery that the earth is elliptical caused our planet to become a cube or a giant marshmallow.
"When I followed a course in physical chemistry a couple of years ago I was actually surprised to hear the teacher explain that the laws of thermodynamics have never been proven, they are postulated. And since nobody has ever given good evidence that they're wrong we accept this. At least I laugh when somebody proposes to make a perpetuum mobile...
I agree with most of your post. The idea that calling something a theory means that it is less true is not correct. The theory that dropping an apple will make it fall is quite likely indeed.
EDIT: Me is nitpicking, I know. All I wanted to say is that technically speaking you can call 'evolution' a theory if you state it like a theory. So just saying 'evolution' does not a theory make as it doesn't propose anything, but the statement 'animals have evolved from single celled organisms' is a theory. EDIT2: And likely a fact too."
Yeah, I am a nitpicky dink when it comes to this stuff. "Laws" are not so much "proven"(or DIS-proven for that matter) as they are just (concurrent)observations(explained by theories).
My only real issue with your above(about "theories") is that a simple statement that "Animals evolved from single celled organisms" does not a theory make. The theory of evolution by Natural Selection encompasses thousands of pages of explanation of how bio-diversity occurs, from singled celled organisms to everything we see today. In any case my issue was with Krisknox's gross mis-definition of "theory". I am not even sure you and I disagree all that much as the more I re-read your post the more I am thinking we are getting tangled in semantics.
