Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scientific Theory For Dummies
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 31 of 57 (556077)
04-17-2010 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Coyote
04-12-2010 9:53 PM


Re: Evidence
quote:
Science deals with evidence, and uses theories to explain that evidence.
Yes, but your statement is too broad. Science deals with scientific evidence, and uses scientific theories to explain that evidence. It does not deal with historical, or literary, or other types of evidence. It only puts forth a certain type of theory to explain this evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Coyote, posted 04-12-2010 9:53 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 04-17-2010 7:51 AM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 32 of 57 (556078)
04-17-2010 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Coyote
04-07-2010 10:25 PM


Re: Theory
quote:
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Yes, "acceptance" and "confidence" are more normally used, and are more clear. But you are splitting hairs in your distinction. In this context, "faith" and "belief" are essentially synonymous with "confidence" and "acceptance."
Here are the first few meanings of each from dictionary.com:
dictionary.com writes:
faith   [feyth] Show IPA
—noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
-----
belief   [bih-leef] Show IPA
—noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
The words "faith" and "belief" are not restricted to a religious context. I have heard these words used by leading scientists in reference to scientific theories (though generally in casual conversation, not in careful technical writing). You are a scientist, I believe, and must have heard the same?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Coyote, posted 04-07-2010 10:25 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by cavediver, posted 04-17-2010 8:00 AM kbertsche has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 33 of 57 (556088)
04-17-2010 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by kbertsche
04-17-2010 3:12 AM


Re: Evidence
Both science and history try to figure out and explain the real world. Theology is trying to figure things out about the spiritual world. Problems only arise when people use theology to figure out and explain the real world.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by kbertsche, posted 04-17-2010 3:12 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by kbertsche, posted 04-17-2010 11:28 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 34 of 57 (556091)
04-17-2010 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by kbertsche
04-17-2010 3:32 AM


Re: Theory
You are a scientist, I believe, and must have heard the same?
No, never. Not even in the context of where we have two or more competing theories, and someone is expressing an opinion on which way they "believe" the matter will be resolved in the future. Phrases such as "I think that..." or "I have a hunch that..." are common in that context, both of which would be immediately challenged with a "why do you think that?" Replies such as "well, I have faith that is the way it will turn out", or "it's just what I believe" would be laughed at, and opinions of said scientist would instantly drop.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by kbertsche, posted 04-17-2010 3:32 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by kbertsche, posted 04-17-2010 11:21 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 37 by kbertsche, posted 04-17-2010 3:18 PM cavediver has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 35 of 57 (556110)
04-17-2010 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by cavediver
04-17-2010 8:00 AM


Re: Theory
quote:
Replies such as "well, I have faith that is the way it will turn out", or "it's just what I believe" would be laughed at, and opinions of said scientist would instantly drop.
I've never heard it worded this way, either. I was referring to the way Coyote worded it in Message 7.
I have often heard scientists say that they "believe" or "don't believe" a new theory. This is fairly common. It is standard English usage:
dictionary.com writes:
believe   [bih-leev] Show IPA verb,-lieved, -lieving.
—verb (used without object)
1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
—verb (used with object)
2.
to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3.
to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
Let's look at actual usage. Here are a few quick examples from just one book, by a friend, mentor, and Nobel laureate in physics:
Luis Alvarez writes:
"I operated on the belief that if engineers know that physicists are going to check their blueprints they won't be nearly so careful."--p.122
"Most nuclear physicists spent the war years secure in the belief that the mesotron was the particle Yukawa proposed and that it would be available for study when hostilities ceased."--p.183
"'I don't believe in your big chamber,' he told me, 'but I do believe in you, so I'll help you get the money.'"--p189 (Ernest Lawrence speaking of Luie's proposed new bubble chamber)
(from Luis W. Alvarez, Alvarez: Adventures of a Physicist, New York: Basic Books, 1987)
The second example above is clearly "belief" in a scientific theory.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by cavediver, posted 04-17-2010 8:00 AM cavediver has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 36 of 57 (556111)
04-17-2010 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Percy
04-17-2010 7:51 AM


Re: Evidence
quote:
Both science and history try to figure out and explain the real world. Theology is trying to figure things out about the spiritual world. Problems only arise when people use theology to figure out and explain the real world.
If you change "real" to "physical" both places above, I'll agree with you. ('Reality" is the province of metaphysics, not science or history, and I believe the spiritual world is every bit as "real" as the natural or physical world.)
Stephen J Gould's "non-overlapping magesteria" (NOMA) avoids problems by not allowing religion to speak of the physical world. But this can't apply to most religions, of course, which are grounded in history and make historical claims about the physical world.
Edited by kbertsche, : added sig

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 04-17-2010 7:51 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 37 of 57 (556136)
04-17-2010 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by cavediver
04-17-2010 8:00 AM


Re: Theory
quote:
quote:
You are a scientist, I believe, and must have heard the same?
No, never. Not even in the context of where we have two or more competing theories, and someone is expressing an opinion on which way they "believe" the matter will be resolved in the future. Phrases such as "I think that..." or "I have a hunch that..." are common in that context, both of which would be immediately challenged with a "why do you think that?" Replies such as "well, I have faith that is the way it will turn out", or "it's just what I believe" would be laughed at, and opinions of said scientist would instantly drop.
FYI, below are some quotes from another friend and mentor that get closer to your wording. I doubt that George's comments have caused opinions of him to drop, since he was awarded a Nobel prize in physics 13 years after this book was published:
George Smoot writes:
Unlike Kepler, Olbers believed that the cosmos was infinite, and he proposed a way to reconcile this belief with the dark night sky: p. 28
Building on his discovery by exploiting a technique developed earlier by the American Vesto Melvin Slipher, Hubble then struck at the centuries-old belief that the universe is staticthe notion to which Einstein clung so tenaciously.p. 46
It seemed like an epiphany, and it renewed Marc’s faith in the DMR.p129 (DMR=differential microwave radiometer)
Go back further still, beyond the moment of creationwhat then? What was there before the big bang? What was there before time began? Facing this, the ulitmate question, challenges our faith in the power of science to find explanations of nature.p.291
Einstein, remember, refused to believe the implications of his own equationsthat the universe is expanding and therefore must have had a beginningand invented the cosmological constant to avoid it. Only when Einstein saw Hubble’s observations of an expanding universe could he bring himself to believe his equations.p. 291
Our faith in the big bang is revitalized: To the dark night sky, the composition of the elements, the evidence of an expanding universe, and the afterglow of creation is added a means by which the structures of today’s universe could have formed.p. 295
(from George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time, New York: William Morrow, 1993.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by cavediver, posted 04-17-2010 8:00 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Coyote, posted 04-17-2010 6:33 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 38 of 57 (556158)
04-17-2010 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by kbertsche
04-17-2010 3:18 PM


Just curious
In your attempts to equate science and religion through common usage of the terms belief and faith, are you trying to elevate religion or denigrate science?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by kbertsche, posted 04-17-2010 3:18 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by kbertsche, posted 04-18-2010 7:12 PM Coyote has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 39 of 57 (556284)
04-18-2010 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Coyote
04-17-2010 6:33 PM


Re: Just curious
quote:
In your attempts to equate science and religion through common usage of the terms belief and faith, are you trying to elevate religion or denigrate science?
First, I'm not attempting to equate science and religion.
Second, I'm trying to accurately describe and elevate both. I see no need to denigrate either one, or to set up false dichotomies or conflicts between the two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Coyote, posted 04-17-2010 6:33 PM Coyote has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 40 of 57 (556302)
04-18-2010 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
04-04-2010 12:43 AM


quote:
I'm sure there are a lot of threads on the nature of science, scientific theory, scientific inquiry, etc. But after years of discussing these things, there are still long time members that show little understanding of how scientific theory works.
The frustration doesn't end in this forum. Out there, scientists like Shermer and Dawkins who have taken upon themselves to educate the public also run into the same frustration that we do here. The general attitude seems to be that people are too ignorant to understand how science works or that they are too attached to their religious beliefs.
People tend to get caught up with scientific jargon. Everytime someone asks something about science, he gets hit by long montrous posts. I'm a reading addict (I read several books a week) and even I get a headache looking through those posts.
I started this thread with some hope that we could explain what a scientific theory is without bringing out the jargon. The purpose of this thread isn't to discuss how we should explain science to dummies. The point is for us to discuss what a scientific theory is in a language simple enough that can't be obfuscated by dummies. I've chosen specifically the topic of scientific theory because after years of discussing these issues I've noticed that most people out there don't have a first clue what scientific theory is. Most seem to think it's comparable to religious doctrine.
If this PT goes through, I'll start by explaining what scientific models are and their unrelatedness to doctrine.
For an accurate layman's description of science, I highly recommend the excellent article "What is Science?" by Helen Quinn, published in Physics today in August 2009:
http://ptonline.aip.org/.../PHTOAD-ft/vol_62/iss_7/8_1.shtml
Helen has been involved with science education on the national level for a number of years, and is a very careful, clear thinker and writer.
Here's some of what Helen says about "scientific theory":
Helen Quinn writes:
Theories and models develop over time. Based on data, they undergo a long-term process of testing and refinement before becoming accepted scientific explanations or tools in a given domain. Contrast that with the usual description of the scientific method, which reduces continuous and iterative theory building to the idea that one makes and tests hypotheses. The use of a broad theoretical framework within which each hypothesis must fit, and that gets refined by each test, is generally lacking in the textbook account.
Scientific theories, even when generally accepted after much testing and refinement, are still never complete. Each can be safely applied in some limited domain, some range of situations or conditions for which it has been well tested. Each might also apply in some extended regime where it has yet to be tested, and may have little or nothing to offer in still more distant domains. That is the sense in which no theory can be proven to be true; truth is too complete a notion. We need to emphasize that the incompleteness of theory in no way compromises the stability over time of well-established understanding in sciencean important notion that is seldom made explicit.
Rather than trying to separate science from religion by "bashing" religion (a common occurrance here on EvC Forum), Helen points out the fundamental difference between them in a non-offensive way:
Helen Quinn writes:
In everyday usage the question Why? can be either about the mechanism by which something occurred or about the reasons for or purposes behind an action. Thus the distinction between reason and mechanism, or between effect and purpose, is often blurred. Religion and philosophy are interested in reasons and purposes, but science cares only about mechanisms. That apparent reduction of the goal is a powerful step that separates modern science from its ancestor, natural philosophy. Modern science focuses our attention on just those questions that can have definitive answers based on observations. Where science does find a path to compare theory with observations, the theories so developed provide a powerful way to understand the world and even to make some predictions about the future. Science offers us new options that may be appliedfor example, in technology and medicineto change the way we live and extend our capabilities. However, scientists tend to forget that issues of reason and purpose are central to many people’s questioning, so the answers they get from science seem inadequate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 04-04-2010 12:43 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2010 11:08 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 41 of 57 (556303)
04-18-2010 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by kbertsche
04-18-2010 10:57 PM


Hi kertsche, nice article.
In everyday usage the question Why? can be either about the mechanism by which something occurred or about the reasons for or purposes behind an action. Thus the distinction between reason and mechanism, or between effect and purpose, is often blurred. Religion and philosophy are interested in reasons and purposes, but science cares only about mechanisms.
The difference between "how" and "why" ... (where have I seen that before).
The use of a broad theoretical framework within which each hypothesis must fit, and that gets refined by each test, is generally lacking in the textbook account.
We could also say that science is an approximation of reality, and that each refinement brings us closer.
But science doesn't just look at what is true, it also shows concepts that cannot be true because of the contrary evidence. Sometimes what cannot be true is as/more important than what can be true.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by kbertsche, posted 04-18-2010 10:57 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Straggler, posted 05-21-2010 8:13 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 42 of 57 (561605)
05-21-2010 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by RAZD
04-18-2010 11:08 PM


Verisimilitude
RAZD writes:
We could also say that science is an approximation of reality, and that each refinement brings us closer.
So you are essentially a proponent of verisimilitude?
RAZD writes:
But science doesn't just look at what is true, it also shows concepts that cannot be true because of the contrary evidence. Sometimes what cannot be true is as/more important than what can be true.
Indeed. But if we are considering two explanatory theories neither of which has been falsified (maybe one has been designed to be unfalsifiable) is there any way to distinguish between the two in terms of verisimilitude?
Or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2010 11:08 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 43 of 57 (562732)
06-01-2010 3:45 AM


Feynman cuts to the chase:

"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4704 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 44 of 57 (574603)
08-16-2010 8:20 PM


quote:
(4) Absence of Contradictory Evidence:
There cannot be any contradictory evidence or the theory is falsified, there cannot be any evidence that the theory does not explain, or the theory is incomplete.
I really don't understand this one.
Because what confuses me is that it sounds like a person is supposed to do anything they can to find out if something is wrong, then if something is wrong then it calls the entire body of work into question. And that kind of thing is very bothersome to me.
Because if that was the way science truly work, then how can there be any progress, since, anybody with enough skill can find something wrong with some part and turn it against the body of work?
For this kind of thing I am keeping in mind the general practice of Creationists who do this kind of thing.

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 08-16-2010 8:25 PM Tram law has not replied
 Message 46 by Coyote, posted 08-16-2010 8:36 PM Tram law has not replied
 Message 47 by subbie, posted 08-16-2010 10:00 PM Tram law has not replied
 Message 48 by ringo, posted 08-16-2010 10:37 PM Tram law has not replied
 Message 49 by Taz, posted 08-16-2010 11:18 PM Tram law has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 45 of 57 (574604)
08-16-2010 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Tram law
08-16-2010 8:20 PM


Because what confuses me is that it sounds like a person is supposed to do anything they can to find out if something is wrong, then if something is wrong then it calls the entire body of work into question.
In science that is pretty much what you try to do. Science advances by finding out what is wrong with current theories, but it usually only refutes one part of the body of work.
The mistake Creationists make is in thinking that proving one theory wrong adds weight to some other theory. Don't work like that.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Tram law, posted 08-16-2010 8:20 PM Tram law has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024