The problem with the word theory....

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There's been some new members on this subforum (well, not new to the site but new to the subforum) and those users have made it plain that the understanding of what the word theory means in the laymen's, everyday sense vs what the word theory means in the scientific sense, especially with regards to the theory of evolution.

Now I won't name names, but all of these users seem to think that a theory if just an idea. That's it's just something scientists pulled out of thin air one day as a way to say there is no God (according to some of them who equate evolution with atheism, but that's a whole different barrel of monkeys).

Looking it up, the Simple English Wikipedia page has the best explanation for what a scientific theory is in contrast to when the word is used in a non-scientific sense:

"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. It 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 (microorganisms) 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 bacteria, 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"."

So right away, we see what the definition of a scientific theory is: "a tested and expanded hypothesis that explains many experiments, with ideas that fit together in a framework".

It's really that simple, to be honest.

Just felt this needed to be said.

 

[eleos1954]

There's been some new members on this subforum (well, not new to the site but new to the subforum) and those users have made it plain that the understanding of what the word theory means in the laymen's, everyday sense vs what the word theory means in the scientific sense, especially with regards to the theory of evolution.

Now I won't name names, but all of these users seem to think that a theory if just an idea. That's it's just something scientists pulled out of thin air one day as a way to say there is no God (according to some of them who equate evolution with atheism, but that's a whole different barrel of monkeys).

Looking it up, the Simple English Wikipedia page has the best explanation for what a scientific theory is in contrast to when the word is used in a non-scientific sense:

"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. It 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 (microorganisms) 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 bacteria, 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"."

So right away, we see what the definition of a scientific theory is: "a tested and expanded hypothesis that explains many experiments, with ideas that fit together in a framework".

It's really that simple, to be honest.

Just felt this needed to be said.

framework
: the basic structure of something : a set of ideas or facts that provide support for something. : a supporting structure : a structural frame.

Some things can only be theorized because not all things can be tested.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

framework
: the basic structure of something : a set of ideas or facts that provide support for something. : a supporting structure : a structural frame.

Some things can only be theorized because not all things can be tested.

I like how you're proving my point in that you're not using the word in the correct scientific sense, only the laymen's sense.

 

[eleos1954]

I like how you're proving my point in that you're not using the word in the correct scientific sense, only the laymen's sense.

well .... if everything could be tested then there wouldn't be such a thing as theory ... it doesn't take a harvard degree to know that

nothing wrong with theories ... one has to start somewhere ... and that somewhere starts with an idea.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

well .... if everything could be tested then there wouldn't be such a thing as theory ... it doesn't take a harvard degree to know that

nothing wrong with theories ... one has to start somewhere ... and that somewhere starts with an idea.

Yes.. and your point being?

 

[eleos1954]

Yes.. and your point being?

My point being not everything can be tested ... so there will always be theories which start with ideas .... there's not a wrong or right to it ... it's how we proceed in an effort to try and explain things .... some things can't be fully explained ... and those things are theory.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My point being not everything can be tested ... so there will always be theories which start with ideas .... there's not a wrong or right to it ... it's how we proceed in an effort to try and explain things .... some things can't be fully explained ... and those things are theory.

No, if it's only an idea, it's a hypothesis.
If it can be tested and lines up with facts, then it's a theory.

You are proving my point with you using the laymen's definition of theory, not the scientific definition of theory.

 

[tas8831]

well .... if everything could be tested then there wouldn't be such a thing as theory ...

Um, no - scientific theories are EXPLANATIONS for suites of facts and unfalsified hypotheses.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

My point being not everything can be tested ... so there will always be theories which start with ideas .... there's not a wrong or right to it ... it's how we proceed in an effort to try and explain things .... some things can't be fully explained ... and those things are theory.

Even when something can be tested, it is still a theory under the scientific definition of the word "theory". It is just a theory with a lot of experimental support. A good example is the theory of gravity. This scientific theory was well-tested long ago, confirmed by observations of the orbits of planets and many other experiments. But it was still not a fact, because along came Einstein and Relativity, which resulted in a correction to the theory. The old theory of gravity was almost right, but not quite. That is because of the limited conditions under which it was experimentally verified long ago. Those verifications all involved speeds so slow compared to the speed of light that the effects of Relativity were not large enough to be measured. Relativity has changed the model of physical dynamics, making the old theory of gravity, speed, time, mass, etc. invalid. The old theory from the days of Newton was still close enough for practical purposes at non-relativistic speeds, but it was not quite right. Some day we may find some further experimental evidence that invalidates Einsteinian Relativity. That is the nature of scientific theories. They remain theories, no matter how much experimental evidence there is to support them. As has been mentioned here already, the popular usage of the word "theory" is more like a "educated guess." It's OK to use the word in that sense too, provided that everyone understands from context what sense is being used. That's the nature of language.

 

[driewerf]

well .... if everything could be tested then there wouldn't be such a thing as theory ... it doesn't take a harvard degree to know that

nothing wrong with theories ... one has to start somewhere ... and that somewhere starts with an idea.

Eleos1954,
I would like you to read this post:
Call for Submissions

 

[ruthiesea]

A scientific theory must be falsifiable through testing. This is based on the predictions of future findings that the theory makes. If a hypothesis cannot be so tested then it is not a scientific theory. Some theories start as SWAG (scientific wild a$$ guess). However until it has been tested and supported by the results of testing it is not a theory. If it is tested and shown to be invalid in whole or in part then it will be either changed based on the new data or rejected.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A scientific theory must be falsifiable through testing. This is based on the predictions of future findings that the theory makes. If a hypothesis cannot be so tested then it is not a scientific theory. Some theories start as SWAG (scientific wild a$$ guess). However until it has been tested and supported by the results of testing it is not a theory. If it is tested and shown to be invalid in whole or in part then it will be either changed based on the new data or rejected.

That is the case in general for scientific hypotheses. Scientific theories are hypotheses that have been tested successfully enough to be widely accepted.

But it's not clear-cut as to what counts as a test. There are hypotheses that cannot be directly tested, but depend on or are predictions of scientific theories. Such hypotheses can be falsified indirectly by falsifying the theory on which they depend or which predicts them. There is some debate as to whether these are 'scientific' hypotheses or not.

In practice, it's a debate that makes little difference - the criteria for whether a hypothesis is pursued are generally more pragmatic than whether it strictly counts as scientific, and it's possible that further work might result in some testable predictions that would make it 'scientific'.

 

[Ophiolite]

No, if it's only an idea, it's a hypothesis.
If it can be tested and lines up with facts, then it's a theory.

I suggest that, at the "only an idea" stage, we have a speculation. If the speculation is supported by provisional observations and tests, then it merits the status of a hypothesis. A theory would be a body of work that includes a host of observations, an explanation that accounts for those observations and a range of tests that support it and exclude alternatives.
As @FrumiousBandersnatch implicitly notes, the disitinction between these has little impact - most of the time - on the day to day investigations of a scientist. (My apologies FB if I read more into your post than you intended and twisted its meaning to parallel my own thoughts.)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I suggest that, at the "only an idea" stage, we have a speculation. If the speculation is supported by provisional observations and tests, then it merits the status of a hypothesis. A theory would be a body of work that includes a host of observations, an explanation that accounts for those observations and a range of tests that support it and exclude alternatives.
As @FrumiousBandersnatch implicitly notes, the disitinction between these has little impact - most of the time - on the day to day investigations of a scientist. (My apologies FB if I read more into your post than you intended and twisted its meaning to parallel my own thoughts.)

No, I think you've summed it up well enough.