[beenBinybelia]

Something that's very misunderstood these days is the relative importance of theories and facts, when it comes to science.

Recently, and especially on sites such as YouTube, I've seen people attacking scientific consensuses, saying that such and such is "just a theory".

I thought it'd be helpful to clear things up a little.

It's common for people to think of scientific theories as something that's not yet proven, and once it is proven, it will become a fact. This is used to argue against things like global warming and evolution etc.

However, this is simply a misunderstanding as to what scientists mean when they talk about a theory.

Facts, in science, are boring. Facts are everywhere. Facts are seen with the eyes, measured with instruments, heard with the ears, smelt with the nose. Facts are pretty insignificant in scientific terms. A fact, to a scientist, explains nothing. A fact in science, is the lowest of the facets of reality because it offers no explanation. It is just something that simply is.

Where explanations happen in science, is in theories. A theory, in scientific terms, isn't guesswork. It isn't just someone's suggestion or idea. A theory, in science, is the mother-load - a theory is an explanation for a large collection of facts and tested hypotheses.

Take evolution. It's not simply an idea. It's an explanation of the facts that have been gathered about life on planet Earth.

But rather than let me bore you to tears on the subject, the much more pleasing tones of Dr Genie Scott can explain better:

[Roferurse]

I know what you mean. I read an interesting part about science in one of my textbook readings for class, about scientism. The chapter was all about science and pseudoscience. I found it interesting, might throw it in for some education lol, here's what it said:

Focusing on the claim that "All facts are scientific facts". A little reflection shows that this claim cannot possibly be true. The statement "All facts are scientific facts" is not itself a scientific fact. It cannot be validated by any scientific observation or procedure. Consequently, the statement is self-refuting - that is, false even in its own terms. The statement cannot be true because it undermines itself.
Statements such as "All facts are scientific facts" or "Science is the only reliable guide to truth" are not, in fact, scientific claims but expressions of an uncritical form of science-worship called scientism. Scientism is the view that science is the only reliable way of knowing.
Scientism must be carefully distinguished from science. Whereas science is cautious and empirical, scientism is arrogant and dogmatic. For example, defenders of scientism often claim that science has shown that all the following beliefs are false or unwarranted:
* God exists
* there is life after death
* the universe has a purpose
* religious experience is sometimes a valid way of knowing
* some things are objectively right or wrong.
Those claims may be true or false, warranted or unwarranted. Our point is simply that they are philosophical or religious claims, not scientific ones. No amount of scientific evidence will ever prove that the universe has no purpose. You will never hear a scientist exclaim, "Aha! The litmus paper turned blue. I told you there are no objective moral values!". Science limits itself to what can be observed, measured, and tested. It doesn't pretend to answer fundamental questions of meaning or value. - Bassham, G., Irwin, W., Nardone, H., & Wallace, J. M. (2005). Science and pseudoscience. In Critical thinking: A student's introduction (2nd ed., pp. 454-489). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

I believe theories are a good way of explaining things. Things aren't really "proven" in science, only evidence can be used to "support" the claim. And even then, you have to be sure that the way the information was gathered and interpreted was done critically and free of bias.

[risyGreeple]

Science limits itself to what can be observed, measured, and tested. It doesn't pretend to answer fundamental questions of meaning or value.

Yeah, those questions are addressed by philosophy. Philosophical ideas aren't true or false. They are good or bad.

Things aren't really "proven" in science, only evidence can be used to "support" the claim. Scientific theories themselves aren't subject to proof. A successful theory explains the full set of relevant facts and "proven" hypotheses in the simplest way. Facts don't need proof. They just are. Technically a scientific hypothesis can not be proven. Hypotheses are tested by the scientific community in an attempt to disprove them. If a hypothesis survives long enough without being disproved then it is accepted by the scientific community as correct.

Btw, "God created the world" can not be a scientific theory because it is not an explanation. An explanation is a model of how something works. Not the name of who made it.

[artkolkovk]

Yeah, those questions are addressed by philosophy. Philosophical ideas aren't true or false. They are good or bad.

Scientific theories themselves aren't subject to proof. A successful theory explains the full set of relevant facts and "proven" hypotheses in the simplest way. Facts don't need proof. They just are. Technically a scientific hypothesis can not be proven. Hypotheses are tested by the scientific community in an attempt to disprove them. If a hypothesis survives long enough without being disproved then it is accepted by the scientific community as correct.

Btw, "God created the world" can not be a scientific theory because it is not an explanation. An explanation is a model of how something works. Not the name of who made it.

Yeah that is right...hypotheses don't prove anything, they are just meant to be testable. A good scientist finds first how to disprove the theory, then seeks confirming evidence.

Explanations often go beyond what is observable. And I would also agree that naming is not explaining, and that is a common fallacy that people often fall into.

[kjanyeaz1]

looking back throughout history, look at how many "facts" or things that have been believed to be "true" that have been dis-proven, not to mention all the underhanded behavior conducted by some to make sure that their ideals/beliefs..(what they consider "fact") are held true and swallowed by the general populace.

how many times have school books been rewritten with what the current "facts" are

[lopaayd]

looking back throughout history, look at how many "facts" or things that have been believed to be "true" that have been dis-proven, not to mention all the underhanded behavior conducted by some to make sure that their ideals/beliefs..(what they consider "fact") are held true and swallowed by the general populace.

how many times have school books been rewritten with what the current "facts" are

I had this discussion last night with a friend, how funny.

"facts" are never disproven. Facts are just observations - they cannot be disproven. A fact would be that humans have opposable thumbs. That is a fact in science.

The reason text books are constantly being re-written is because scientific enquiry never stops. The knowledge of the natural world constantly increases as new discoveries are made.

Let's take, for example, the discovery of the atom. They were once considered the smallest things in the universe. Much observation lead to the understanding of how atoms behave etc which lead to Atomic Theory. Then subatomic particles were discovered. Now, this didn't "disprove" the existence of atoms, nor their behaviour, but it opened up an entire new field, and a whole new area of scientific enquiry, Quantum Mechanics.

That doesn't mean atomic theory was "disproven". Atomic theory still holds strong to this day, and itself is still and expanding field.

The rewriting of science books is essential to keep up with the constant flow of discoveries scientists make. It has nothing to do with them changing their minds. It has everything to do with the nature of the universe.

[PHOTOSHOPoem]

I had this discussion last night with a friend, how funny.

"facts" are never disproven. Facts are just observations - they cannot be disproven. A fact would be that humans have opposable thumbs. That is a fact in science.

The reason text books are constantly being re-written is because scientific enquiry never stops. The knowledge of the natural world constantly increases as new discoveries are made.

Let's take, for example, the discovery of the atom. They were once considered the smallest things in the universe. Much observation lead to the understanding of how atoms behave etc which lead to Atomic Theory. Then subatomic particles were discovered. Now, this didn't "disprove" the existence of atoms, nor their behaviour, but it opened up an entire new field, and a whole new area of scientific enquiry, Quantum Mechanics.

That doesn't mean atomic theory was "disproven". Atomic theory still holds strong to this day, and itself is still and expanding field.

The rewriting of science books is essential to keep up with the constant flow of discoveries scientists make. It has nothing to do with them changing their minds. It has everything to do with the nature of the universe.

im not disagreeing with you at all,..but what im saying is at one point in time one things was believed to be fact...research is done etc., and it turns out not to be the case...history books are the best example to use.
but im also saying look at who wants what to be believed....throughout history its those in "power" who have determined what is believed to be "Fact", look at hitler,..he had almost an entire country hypnotized/brain wahed at one point.
religion also plays a part..look at creationists , how old is the earth?.

you can have all the facts and damning evidence in the world,..but if someone is drinking the kool aid or doesn't want to believe that which is fact or accepted as fact...good luck persuading them

[Dapnoinaacale]

im not disagreeing with you at all,..but what im saying is at one point in time one things was believed to be fact...research is done etc., and it turns out not to be the case...history books are the best example to use.
but im also saying look at who wants what to be believed....throughout history its those in "power" who have determined what is believed to be "Fact", look at hitler,..he had almost an entire country hypnotized/brain wahed at one point.
religion also plays a part..look at creationists , how old is the earth?.

you can have all the facts and damning evidence in the world,..but if someone is drinking the kool aid or doesn't want to believe that which is fact or accepted as fact...good luck persuading them

as I said, facts cannot be disproven. The explanation for a fact can change, as it's most likely dependent on other areas of scientific enquiry and can be affected by new discoveries from other fields as well as discoveries from within it's own field.

the scientific method is perhaps one of the soundest constructs that humans have devised. Where the problems occur are when vested interests are involved in taking the new knowledge to the general public. Govts, corporations and especially religious institutions have a long history of perverting scientific findings for their own gains. This is only possible thanks to the absolutely appalling understanding of science in the general public and the vested interests that seek to subvert science education.

[FinanseMikky]

Wouldn't a fact be like a tautology? A tautology is something that is true no matter what explanation.

[HexcewlyRette]

Wouldn't a fact be like a tautology? A tautology is something that is true no matter what explanation.

not quite. Tautology I think is to do with formulas and such. A fact is simply a confirmed observation.

[flower-buy]

not quite. Tautology I think is to do with formulas and such. A fact is simply a confirmed observation.

2 blind men may confirm that a room is dark,..but that does not make it fact

[GogaMegaPis]

2 blind men may confirm that a room is dark,..but that does not make it fact

a blind man cannot "observe" light or dark. So it's not a fact.

[urbalatte]

ah but you said confirm..not observe

[G778G9P0]

ah but you said confirm..not observe

I said "confirmed observation"

[Annewsded]

I said "confirmed observation"

if you say that you observed big foot, and i confirm it without seeing it myself it is still a confirmation

[LeslieMoran]

2 blind men may confirm that a room is dark,..but that does not make it fact

They can't confirm unless they observe. They can't observe so they can't factualise it.

[Nautilus]

if you say that you observed big foot, and i confirm it without seeing myself it is still a confirmation

no, because your "confirmation" wouldn't be a confirmation at all, would it? Without you observing it, you could not possibly confirm it to be true or false.

[Thomas12400]

why not?..how many things have you not seen that you confirm to be true or factual?

[FailiaFelay]

if you say that you observed big foot, and i confirm it without seeing it myself it is still a confirmation

You're confirming without having observed whatever was to be observed. It's not a confirmed observation then, just a mere confirmation based on whatever.

[mobbemeatiedy]

why not?..how many things have you not seen that you confirm to be true or factual?

They get a group of people and check their observations/interpretations amongst themselves.