You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Theory is not fact

I was looking at a poster about defining what a theory was

and after some thought I decided that the poster was subjective and not really a defined law so to speak.

Yes everything it said could be true but logic dictates that these kinds of fancy dancy framed portfolio’s of a worded definition is really only someone’s explanation of how a theory should be defined.

I will boldly say this particular definition of what a theory is ... is wrong!


Anything is possible!

If – we accept a theory that every conclusion, every finding, every fact for that matter is in effect a theory because of supported evidence (this so far agrees with that definition about what theory means) then it is possible, given that anything is possible that even this particular theory could be incorrect, incomplete or off track when it comes to defining a theory.

To propose that only this definition is correct would be to insult the scientific journey and say... only this one particular definition is possible. A person accepting this poster as undisputable "fact" would be saying that anything is not possible and that only this one possible explanation is. (or whatever the favoured one is at the time).

To extend this argument against this poster further, let us look at atoms. I mean actually look at them and define them to the letter. Can we? We can not. Many theories are constantly under analysis, the speed of light is one for example.

It is easy to distort our thinking by stating something very obvious to our intellect like the earth travels around the sun doesn't and then compare this apparent deduction to more complex issues such as evolution.

In reality, it is very uncertain what an atom actually is or what electricity actually is or how complex systems work or an even more complex question of how they got started from the beginning of time or for that matter, if there was a beginning to time?

There are many complex questions which require theories. To make an assertion that a particular theory is indeed “a fact” is more for debate than absolute assertions.

A fact when it comes to science is actually impossible according to any worthy scientific study or there would be little need for theory, only facts. The kind of thinking that this poster dictates demonstrates not only an insult to a thinking persons intelligence but an insult to science which it supports?

- of course this very explanation of what a theory is or if indeed anything is possible might be a debatable theory itself Laughing

5 blog comments below

Facts things that are... theories are explanations of those facts, models by which we understand nature of the facts. With the theory, we can unite the facts into a comprehensive body... with the theory we can also predict future facts.

Theory is not an insult to science, it is the pinnacle of what science can hope to achieve.
Ankhanu on Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:48 am
I think there is a confusion between science and theory, both terms are complementary.

Science is based on three pillars

A. - Systematic, employing the scientific method for research

2. - Verifiable, because it verifies if it is false or true knowledge of what it proposes as

3. - Perfectible, his statements in no way be considered as absolute truths.

on the other theories can be supported in trying to explain phenomena already seen, such as the photoelectric effect that won him the Nobel Prize to Einstein, for example the predictions that the relativity theory about the universe and then were probed by observations.

ie theories are created to explain something that is there, or are born of pure intellectual exercise of the creator
mazito on Tue Apr 24, 2012 3:58 am
I am not saying theory is an insult to science but that the poster is YUK!

I am having a difficult time understanding your explanation of a fact. I am saying facts do not exist for pure science. I am not sure what you are saying @ Ankhanu. You start out by assuming there are facts. I think the opposite, given that anything is possible.

The first part regarding pillars I understand mazito and what I wrote in my blog I think agrees that science and theory is complimentary unless you indicate how you don’t think it did? Therefore, I am not sure what you meant by “there is confusion.” What confusion? Who’s confusion? Also at the end of your dialogue you stated the creator. What creator? The scientist, writer or God? Please indicate.

Science is now debating the viability that some theories including those of Einstein might be wrong. I do not think any scientist can be considered truly unshakeable, even those with a noble prize but that being said it does mean that new discoveries do not belittle their achievements. The award stays in public record, just the theory is modified.
Bluedoll on Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:44 pm
ok by reading again it is quite confusing, perhaps because English is not my first language, i have troubles to write in my own languages and whe write in english i made mistakes more often.

the confusion that i writing is that mostly people think about theory is an actual fact ( i mean most not science educated people)

the creator is the writer of the theory not GOD.

my post was to support your opinion about the original post you refers, sorry for my bad english.

this is why i not write so much in Science Forums, is to hard to me say what i actual thinking
mazito on Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:15 pm
@Mazito. That applies to all of us. Whether we have English as a first language or not. I thought you presented your point of view perfectly. Well said!
deanhills on Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:56 pm

© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.