Bronze-level articleScientific theory

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Theories and laws)
(Falsified theories are no longer scientific theories)
Line 18: Line 18:
  
 
===Falsified theories are no longer scientific theories===
 
===Falsified theories are no longer scientific theories===
Clearly, if a theory has been falsified it no longer fulfills the definitions at the start of the article.  It may well still be a "theory" is the sense of the common usage, but in scientific terms it has become a superseded theory. For example, geocentrism was a theory, as was the concept of four elements; Earth, Fire, Wind and Water and Larmarckian evolution which turned out to be less than accurate. These have been disproved conclusively enough (although some will beg to differ).
 
  
Because of the ability for good theories to make predictions, even if they are shown to be false (or more specifically, inaccurate in certain conditions) they can still be used to make predictions if that is easier; Newtonian mechanics may well be total nonsense in the light of 20th Century physics pioneered by Einstein but no-one uses Special Relativity to work out the momentum of a car moving at 70 mph. And while [[Quantum mechanics]] may, in principle, be completely replaced by something else, nothing is going to change the fact that the Schrodinger Equation predicts the spectroscopic features of the hydrogen atom ''perfectly''.
+
Clearly, if a theory has been falsified it no longer fulfills the definitions at the start of the article.  It may well still be a "theory" is the sense of the common usage, but in scientific terms it has become a superseded theory. For example, geocentrism was a theory, as was the concept of four elements (Earth, Fire, Wind and Water) and Larmarckian evolution which turned out to be less than accurate. These have been disproved conclusively enough (although some will beg to differ).
  
How modern theories are "falsified" is explained below.
+
Because of the ability for good theories to make predictions, even if they are shown to be false (or more specifically, inaccurate in certain conditions) they can still be used to make predictions if that is easier; Newtonian mechanics may well be total nonsense in the light of 20th Century physics pioneered by Einstein but no-one uses Special Relativity to work out the momentum of a car moving at 70 mph. And while [[Quantum mechanics]] may, in principle, be completely replaced by something else, nothing is going to change the fact that the Schrodinger Equation predicts the spectroscopic features of the hydrogen atom ''perfectly''. Even some of the more "silly" theories of old may have some use because of how they work, the classic example being that of a [[flat Earth]]. While everyone knows that the Earth isn't flat, someone building a shed in their garden doesn't need it to follow the curvature of the Earth, and so will assume it is flat.
  
 
===Theories are subject to change, therefore they are nonsense===
 
===Theories are subject to change, therefore they are nonsense===

Revision as of 01:04, 6 July 2010

Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.
—Isaac Asimov[1]

A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for a real world observation, these include explanations and predictions that can be tested. Usually, theories are large bodies of work that has resulted from many contributors and are often built up over time. They unify the scientific community's view and approach to a particular scientific field. For example; biology has the theory of evolution and cell theory, geology has plate tectonic theory and cosmology has the Big Bang. The development of theories is a key element of the scientific method as they are used to make predictions about the world, and if the predictions fail, the theory is revised. Theories are the main goal in science and no explanation can achieve a higher "rank" (contrary to the belief that "theories" become "laws" over time).

Although in common parlance anything that attempts to describe a cause can be dubbed a "theory", a scientific theory has a much more specific meaning. A theory in this context is a well-substantiated explanation for a series of facts and observations that can be used to predict future observations.

Contents

Common misconceptions about theories

"Just" a theory

Creationist and Intelligent design proponents often like to describe the theory of evolution as just a theory. This relies on equivocating the common usage of the term theory (meaning "idea" or "guess") with the scientific meaning. Theories are the single highest level of scientific achievement and nothing is just a theory - that would be like saying Bill Gates is just a multibillionaire. Additionally, one might say that the notion of evolution is "just a theory" in the same way that Cell Theory and the Theory of Gravitation (fundamental principles of biology and physics, respectively) are "just theories."

This argument played out with hilarious ramifications in the recent decision of the Florida State Board of Education to teach evolution as a "scientific theory." Apparently, the creationists on the Florida SBOE thought that this was a "compromise" — by making evolution a "scientific theory" at law, they thought, it would weaken the position of evolution. After all, then it would be "just a theory," right?[2] Wrong! This "compromise" actually puts evolution on the exactly right footing — at the highest tier of science — and ensures that students will be taught about what the term "scientific theory" really means, hopefully eventually drawing the sting of the colloquial meaning confusion.[3]

Theories and laws

Another common misconception is that a theory is the step you go through while on your way to a law of science. Scientific laws and theories are two very different things and, despite what it may seem, one never becomes the other. Scientific laws are factual observations usually derived from mathematical modeling; they merely distill empirical results into concise verbal or mathematical statements that express a fundamental principle of science - for example, gravity attracts, force equals mass times acceleration and so on. Theories are the causal explanations behind what creates these laws and observations of nature. Theories also combine laws into a theoretical framework that is greater than the sum of its parts. In the field of genetics, many different laws describe how genes interact in different combinations to influence heredity - work done principally by Gregor Mendel. Genetic theory combines such laws into a theoretical framework, which is used as an explanation and to make predictions. Evolutionary theory then combines genetic theory, the theory of natural selection and other theories with the various laws with which they are associated into a complex framework that forms the basis of much research in the field of biology.

Even superb theories, or laws, can be superseded by more successful theories. For instance, Newton's "Law" of gravitation is superb at predicting the path of a spacecraft among the outer planets of the Solar system, but it breaks down when large masses are involved, such at that of the sun. The precession of the aphelion of Mercury can only be explained by Einstein's general relativity, which is a refinement of Newton's Law taking into account the slight bending of spacetime near the sun.

Falsified theories are no longer scientific theories

Clearly, if a theory has been falsified it no longer fulfills the definitions at the start of the article. It may well still be a "theory" is the sense of the common usage, but in scientific terms it has become a superseded theory. For example, geocentrism was a theory, as was the concept of four elements (Earth, Fire, Wind and Water) and Larmarckian evolution which turned out to be less than accurate. These have been disproved conclusively enough (although some will beg to differ).

Because of the ability for good theories to make predictions, even if they are shown to be false (or more specifically, inaccurate in certain conditions) they can still be used to make predictions if that is easier; Newtonian mechanics may well be total nonsense in the light of 20th Century physics pioneered by Einstein but no-one uses Special Relativity to work out the momentum of a car moving at 70 mph. And while Quantum mechanics may, in principle, be completely replaced by something else, nothing is going to change the fact that the Schrodinger Equation predicts the spectroscopic features of the hydrogen atom perfectly. Even some of the more "silly" theories of old may have some use because of how they work, the classic example being that of a flat Earth. While everyone knows that the Earth isn't flat, someone building a shed in their garden doesn't need it to follow the curvature of the Earth, and so will assume it is flat.

Theories are subject to change, therefore they are nonsense

Science's understanding of the universe is indeed subject to change. Theories will usually evolve from a less accurate to a more accurate version of reality. However, it is a major misconception that when theories change the change is massive and total. Even when major or fundamental principles are altered, the change is minor. Many people believe that Einstein came along and made all of Newton's theories redundant (some will also say that quantum theory usurped relativity and that string theory usurped quantum theory...). This is not the case, even the largest changes to our understanding are relatively small. Theories are changed by small steps and new ones will usually consist of the old one with a bit added. Quite often the original theory still works fine for most situations, as Newtonian mechanics does at slower speeds where relativistic effects are negligible.

A "Theory of Everything" that combines quantum mechanics and gravity will still resemble quantum mechanics. The Schrodinger Equation, Hartree-Fock theory, spin dynamics and particle-wave duality, fundamental components of quantum mechanics will all still be there, as useful and accurate as ever.

A theory is an upgraded hypothesis

One common misconception is that scientific theories are derived from hypotheses that have met with confirming experimental evidence - that there is a hierarchy of science starting with the hypothesis that reaches theory and eventually reaches law. This is in fact wrong, theories are completely separate from hypotheses. A hypothesis does not become a theory, and if experimental evidence contradicts a theory it is not downgraded to a hypothesis.

Creationism is not a theory

...the most credible philosophical argument against ID being treated as science is to point out the absence of any positive specification of its fundamental concepts, intelligence and design ... . The basic claim is that, in the absence of such a specification, ID cannot be a substantive theory, scientific or not. In the case of intelligence, there is no positive specification at all. In the case of design, there is no coherent specification.
—Sahotra Sarkar[4]

Creationism - and most particularly, "Intelligent Design" - is not a theory. The reasoning behind this is simple; theories offer explanations for facts that are consistent and useful, making predictions that allow us to understand the world (such as drawing a distinction between what happens and what does not, or could not, happen). ID and the supposition of a Biblically literal idea of creationism does not even attempt to offer an explanation for any aspect of the world.

Creationism - and especially, Intelligent Design - does not even come up to the standard of answering Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How, which was observed as a fault in theorizing by Cicero: "Can you also, Lucullus, affirm that there is any power united with wisdom and prudence which has made, or, to use your own expression, manufactured man? What sort of a manufacture is that? Where is it exercised? when? why? how?"[5] Creationism does not attempt to offer a description of what sort of things happen when a creation - or design - event takes place, this having been pointed out at least as long ago as 1852 by Herbert Spencer[6] and by Charles Darwin in Origin of Species.[7] While Young Earth Creationism does make some attempts to specify who the Creator is and when creation took place, versions that attempt to sound more scientific, such as Intelligent Design make a point of not addressing even these major issues (specifically they do this as a way of secularizing the belief to survive scrutiny by US courts). Nor is there any clear treatment of, or interest in, where, how or why creation/design happens. As a consequence, even though it attempts to be "scientific", ID is even more distant from the elements of descriptive prose, much less being a theory. Far less can we expect creationism to meet any additional standards of being a scientific theory, such as an interest in what might count as evidence for or against it.

I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable."
Phillip Johnson[8]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. Remarks made to the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), 1980
  2. The Discovery Institute is pissed off about this.
  3. Panda's Thumb, along with all of science, is pretty happy though.
  4. Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese, 2009, doi 10.1007/s11229-009-9540-x
  5. Cicero, Academica II (Lucullus) XXVII, 87 translation by C.D. Yonge, London: George Bell and Sons, 1875. "...quae fabricata sit hominem? Qualis ista fabrica est? ubi adhibita? quando? cur? quo modo?" Latin text. See also Cicero, "On the Nature of the Gods', I, 8, 19
  6. The Development Hypothesis in Wikisource Herbert Spencer in Wikiquote
  7. final chapter, 6th edition page 423 Wikisource for The Origin of Species
  8. quoted in "In the matter of Berkeley v. Berkeley" by Michelangelo D’Agostino
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support