|
Author
|
Topic: Scientific Theory For Dummies
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2153 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 2153 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 |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2153 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 2153 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 2153 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 |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2153 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 2153 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.shtmlHelen 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 |
|
™ Version 4.2