Here is a comment we hear all the time on Cafemom (and elsewhere), which is a sure signal the differences are not clear to the general public. I have received numerous requests for a post that explains the difference. Please feel free to link back here as needed, in order to help others understand the different terms scientists use to describe the significance of the ideas we discuss.
Isn't only a theory..... not a LAW!!!
This statement never makes any sense when discussing scientific information. Read through the definitions below to find out why! If you want to really make an argument that a particular theory is not correct, see below for a better phrase you can use to start this discussion!
Theory (general use) - a hunch or speculation
Theory (scientific) - a comprehensive explanation of an occurance, which is supported by the aquisition of facts over time.
National Academy of Science says..... Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.
American Association for the Advancement of Science says.... In detective novels, a "theory" is little more than an educated guess, often based on a few circumstantial facts. In science, the word "theory" means much more. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
Continuing further, a scientific theory is generally accepted as having the following characteristics:
1. It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.
2. It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.
3. It is tentative, correctable, and dynamic in allowing for changes as new facts are discovered, rather than asserting certainty.
4. It is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations—commonly referred to as passing the Occam's razor test.
Noteable theories include: Big Bang, Evolution, Cell Theory, Atomic Theory, Kinetic Theory of Gases, etc.
Laws are also scientific tools used to make predictions, but these make predictions useful in specific circumstances. Theories are more general overviews that can incorporate laws into their ideas. A theory is not better than a law, or vice-versa. They actually work well together, but are used for different purposes.
Hypotheses - are suggestions, or reasonable proposals to explain an observation. The hypothesis is tested using the scientific method. Very few hypotheses become laws or theories (and only after much testing).
Validation - the experimental observation of predictions made by a hypothesis or theory. This is similar to "proof" which is used in mathematics.
Of course, not even a theory is perfect. There can be exceptions to theories, and theories can, on occasion be re-worked or discarded altogther, in favor of a new theory that fits better. For examples of when this has happened, check out this list. Which leads us to the phrase I recommend using, instead of "It's only a theory, not a law!".....
"Sometimes theories are later retracted in favor of a new theory that fits better". This sentence would, of course, open up the discussion to specifics of what could be wrong with the current accepted theory, and what new information could possibly change the status from theory to ex-theory. Really, that is the purpose of science..... to find the truth, not to fit the truth to an agenda. I hope my posts are a good example of this. I sometimes have errors in my posts, which I correct when I learn the truth. I give the information requested, without skewing it toward an agenda; I hope this effort is obvious in my posts, because I truelly try to provide you with SCIENCE, not an AGENDA.
Tonya
AKA sunmoonstars
Comments:
It always amazes me when people say, "Yeah, but that's just a theory."
Um, okay. Gravity is a theory- do you not believe in that either? When did the word theory become synonymous with unreliable?
Yes, but a theory (based on evidence that supports it) is still "just a theory" The thing I love about science is that we THINK we know something and later realize that we were wrong the whole time.
As a science freak- I loved the post. I would like to point out that a theory is only based on the information that we have now which is what makes it susceptible to being discarded when a new piece of information crops up.
This does mean that we shouldn't be taking scientific theories at face value simply because they have had some mildly conclusive evidence. This means that as good scientists we should not leave a theory (like the Big Bang) take the place of scientific exploration, etc. until there is a definitive answer.
As annoying as it is to hear somebody spew the words 'It is only a Theory', they are not entirely wrong in doing so.
Already a member? Click here to log in


AWESOME!!
Thanks!
- MamaK88
Message Friend Invite