Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is a Theory?
platypus
Member (Idle past 5753 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 1 of 249 (464027)
04-22-2008 10:37 PM


I've been having this problem lately with scientific theores. It's been very evident the way that people thrown around the term from this recent thread The Importance of the First Amendment.
BlueJay writes:
The word "theory" is held in very high esteem in science: there is no higher office to which a scientific concept can be promoted.
Rahvin writes:
That evolution occurs is an observed fact. The Theory of Evolution is the model used to describe the mechanism by which evolution happens - that is, genetic mutations and genetic drift guided by natural selection.
Its the same as gravity. That gravity exists is an observed fact. The Theory of Gravity is the model we use to explain the mechanism by which gravity functions.
I agree, but there can be plenty of theories, or explanation of observed facts, which are not scientifically solid. Like the Metabolic Theory of Ecology which can explain a large diversity of fact, but is highly disputed and considered wrong by a large number of scientists. Or String Theory which has no supporting evidence, but is a nice idea striving towards unification theory. And Einstein developed the Theory of General Relativity to explain some wierd phenomena about light, not to explain a diversity of scientific facts. In fact, true verification for the theory came after its introduction. This is in direct contrast to this sort of statement:
BlueJay writes:
Science generally uses part of the first definition, thus: "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena which has been repeatedly tested and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." Basically, theories are verified by their abilities to pass repeated testing and by their abilities to successfully predict solutions to problems or answers to questions. Scientists believe them because they work very well.
I don't think this is Bluejay's fault, I think this is generally the defintion scientists like to give for theories, I just don't think it's as clear cut as we'd like it to be.
Further thought
Heliocentric Theory, cell theory and the theory of plate tectonics are really just facts about the world, not big explanations for diverse facts.
Giant Impact Theory explains how the moon formed, but was only recently accepted as the dominant theory and still suffers criticism
circuit theory, signal theory, and antenna theory which are all descriptions of how to do things, rather than explanations of data, but they're engineering theories (is that different from scientific?).
And then there's all those math theories that are something else entirely, which I'd probably consider non-scientific but still use the word theory.
My point is the word theory is not as sacred or as clear in science as we make it out to be.
Just for clarification, my point is not that evolution is not valid, but that we should stop harping on about how it is this grand theory in science because theory is a confusing topic in science.
Here's two more links for scientific theories in wikipedia:
Theory - Wikipedia
Theory - Wikipedia

You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Blue Jay, posted 04-23-2008 2:47 AM platypus has not replied
 Message 11 by Agobot, posted 12-23-2008 12:42 PM platypus has not replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5753 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 7 of 249 (464188)
04-23-2008 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Percy
04-23-2008 8:53 AM


Hi Percy,
Thank you for the clear response. I tend to agree with most of what you are saying. My main point, though, I think still stands. Consider this opening quote:
That evolution occurs is an observed fact. The Theory of Evolution is the model used to describe the mechanism by which evolution happens - that is, genetic mutations and genetic drift guided by natural selection.
Its the same as gravity. That gravity exists is an observed fact. The Theory of Gravity is the model we use to explain the mechanism by which gravity functions.
The theory of gravity was developed in Newton's time, it if anything means something different than how we use theory today. Yet gravity is used as the most common analogy with evolution, especially on this forum. I am mainly surprised a creationist hasn't picked up on this before, and guess just wanted to bring it to people's attention as a word of caution, especially because of this:
In other words, it isn't possible to put theories into neat boxes of "accepted," "rejected" and "pending". Each must be qualified by all the numerous details that characterize its degree of acceptance and the manner in which it is regarded within the scientific community.
I completely agree, I just tend to cringe when "Theory of Evolution" is used in debates without qualifiers.
I guess I don't really have anything in particular to argue with you about, and your response was really well said, so I guess this can be considered a closed case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 04-23-2008 8:53 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by erikp, posted 12-23-2008 6:01 AM platypus has not replied
 Message 9 by bluescat48, posted 12-23-2008 9:44 AM platypus has not replied
 Message 12 by edge, posted 12-24-2008 12:01 AM platypus 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