Scientific theories

[StSanta]

This isn't meant to be the start of yet another long evolution vs creationism thread. Rather, see this as a starting point regarding a limited subject: what constitutes a scientific theory. Due to recent discussions, I found it pertinent to show that there misconceptions have existed in both camps.

The following is taken from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof

For a more indepth discussion evolution being both a theory and a fact (due to the word being used to describe two different things; a fact (that change in allele frequency happens over time) and a theory (why that happens, and what consequences it has) see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

I've snipped parts away so as to not make the discussion revolve around evolution, but rather scientific facts, theories vs what we usually regard as facts and theories.

-----------
First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness.


Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

-------------

So, are there people here that question that change in allele frequency (I guess simplisticly one could call it change in gene 'markers') occurs? If so, I can point you to studies done to (amongst other things) bacteria and banana flies.

Another question: how many of you equate scientific theories to theories about, say, the assassination of JFK? If you see this to be inaccurate, we're a good way towards a reasonable discussion.

I also think it's worth noting that 100% knowledge is not required before calling something a fact - that a fact is not set in stone. Some argue that this is the downfall of science and points to the cases where science have been proven wrong. they seemingly forget, however, that science was proven wrong by science. That's the beauty of it - it is self correcting.

I guess my main question is this: can we agree on the distinctions made in the text above? If not, where do 'we' disagree? (with we being the mainly secular scientific community combined with the mainly theistic one).

Please, let's not let this turn into a discussion about evolution vs creationism. I've purposedly removed most references to evolution and only allowed one or two where it serves to highlight a principle or idea.

Looking forward to here your response

[Hortlund]

I'll go first.

Science can never advance beyond the "we don't know, but we have a theory that has not been disproven yet and it is consistent with all observation and experiments"-level.

Science will never know whether science has access to all available parameters. Therefore science cant ever say anything with 100% certainty...simply because science can never know whether all parameters are known.

[GRUNHERZ]

So due to your supposed view of the limitations of the scientific process you chose to replace it with a thousands year old fairy tale written by a bunch of desert dwelling nomad goatherds?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So due to your supposed view of the limitations of the scientific process you chose to replace it with a thousands year old fairy tale written by a bunch of desert dwelling nomad goatherds?

I thought we were trying to avoid the E vs C debate in this thread? I'm simply pointing out the shortcomings of science. Or rather, one of its shortcomings.

Did you know, Grunherz, that science has never been able to answer one "why" question? All that science is able to do is observe and predict probable outcomes of future observations.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Hortlund
I'll go first.

Science can never advance beyond the "we don't know, but we have a theory that has not been disproven yet and it is consistent with all observation and experiments"-level.

Science will never know whether science has access to all available parameters. Therefore science cant ever say anything with 100% certainty...simply because science can never know whether all parameters are known.

Are you 100% certain about that?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by -dead-
Are you 100% certain about that?

Well, since my argument is a logic/philosophical one, yes.

[Naso]

Originally posted by Hortlund
I'll go first.

Science can never advance beyond the "we don't know, but we have a theory that has not been disproven yet and it is consistent with all observation and experiments"-level.

Science will never know whether science has access to all available parameters. Therefore science cant ever say anything with 100% certainty...simply because science can never know whether all parameters are known.

A nice description...

What's the point??

Since nobody of us "science guys" have never said that science is "THE TRUTH", instead a lot of us have pointed the fact that "a scientific theory it's the best explanation we have as far as we know, for the phenomenon we observe, at the moment, and since be disproved by a new contradicting fact, and hence the need for a new, more complete theory", I dont see why your post is different from Santa's one, with the exception of the lenght (and the preparation for the next rethoric battle ).

It's the "religion guys" that have pointed the science as "a truth that you infidels want to force on our throat", because you need to put it on the same field and assiomes of your religion that you feel (mistakenly) attacked.

And, BTW, the one you pointed is'nt absolutely the shortcoming of the science, instead it's the great force it have.

The capability to adapt and improve, something that other metods to have an answer fail to do.

[Dowding (Work)]

Very well put, Naso.

I would add that the reason for science not answering 'why' questions (as you perceive them to be, since there are plenty of why questions out there that are answered - but they all eventually boil down to the great philosophical 'why') is because it is a mode of thinking not designed to answer that question.

That is wisely left to philosophy and theology.

[Hortlund]

Yes, but the problem is, as we have seen in the E vs C threads, that some people seem incapable of understanding that basic limitation of science.

It becomes especially frustrating when some people cling to "scientific evidence" without even knowing that they are clinging to an illusion.

One huge problem is when those with their faith in science chose to disregard the basic scientific method in their defence of the current theorem. One example of this is the reaction one often gets in the E vs C discussion where people will do pretty much anything to fit any new observation into the current theroem.


Sidenote: Personally I feel that it is a shortcoming, the fact that science is not able to provide facts, or "tell the truth".

[takeda]

Yes, and it is a shortcoming of a fork that you cannot eat soup with it...

So you just eat your soup with a spoon, and go to church to find the Absolute Truth.

[Dowding (Work)]

Yes, but the problem is, as we have seen in the E vs C threads, that some people seem incapable of understanding that basic limitation of science.

It becomes especially frustrating when some people cling to "scientific evidence" without even knowing that they are clinging to an illusion.

Fair enough, but let me say:

Yes, but the problem is, as we have seen in the E vs C threads, that some people seem incapable of understanding that basic limitation of religion.

It becomes especially frustrating when some people cling to "faith-based evidence" without even knowing that they are clinging to an illusion.

Voila! Le point de counter est finit!

Scientific evidence is at least tangible - phenomena requires independent verification and repeatibility before acceptance. Compare and contrast with faith based evidence, which not only tries to answer the bigger question, but does so often on the say so of a few anachronistic individuals, writing in an age when rain baffled everyone and the night-day cycle was too wondrous to comprehend.

Stick to believing 2000 year old goat-herders for an explanation on the mechanics of the universe or the teachings of a book edited according to 1500 year old political considerations - I'll stick to Newton, Darwin, Einstein and Hawking.

[Hortlund]

Actually I must admit that I havent seen any "creationist" try to prove anything.

Have you seen any "faith based evidence" Dowding? Can you give any good examples of that?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
I'll stick to Newton, Darwin, Einstein and Hawking.

Einstein -
"My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God."
[Albert Einstein, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

I want to know the thoughts of God. Everything else is just details

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Newton -
 Sir Isaac Newton had skilled craftsman build him a scale model of our solar system which was then displayed on a large table in Newton's home. Not only did the excellent workmanship simulate the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but it was a working model in which everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned.

One day while Newton in his study, a friend came by who happened to be also a great scientist. Examining the model with enthusiastic admiration, he exclaimed: "My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?" Without looking up from his book, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody."

Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: "Evidently you misunderstood my question. I asked who made this."

Newton, no doubt enjoying the chance to teach his friend a lesson, replied in a serious tone, "Nobody. What you see here just happened to assume the form it now has."

"You must think I'm a fool!" retorted the visitor. "Of course somebody made it, and he's a genius. I want to know who he is."

Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend's shoulder, saying:

This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you, as an atheist, profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?


Hawkin-
"However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists.  Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist.  If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason � for then we would know the mind of God."



Seems like your heroes have more in common with the "2000 year old goat-herders " than you might realize...

[miko2d]

Hortlund: Sidenote: Personally I feel that it is a shortcoming, the fact that science is not able to provide facts, or "tell the truth".

 Provide facts? What does that mean? Science explains facts and predicts facts and discovers laws governing the naturap phenomena but does not "provide" them.

 Which definition of the word "fact" are you using? Do you confuse "fact" with "truth" by any chance?

In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."


Have you seen any "faith based evidence" Dowding? Can you give any good examples of that?

 The book of Genesis? It's used to precisely determine the age of Earth anong other things.

 miko

[StSanta]

Hortlund, you're not taking it a step further and suggesting that scientific theories are on par with opinions or JFK murder theories?

I'm reading you a bit like "since scientific theories cannot be known to be 100% correct, they can be discarded when they conflict with your moral codex or other issues of great importance".

The limitation on science - or one of them, rather, is a philosophical one. It's about absolutes, and in this case absolute knowledge. Absolutes are few and far between and usually require faith to work, which in turn makes the absolutism faith-dependent - and then not a true absolute .

What I'm trying to do here is build some common ground. If we define and accept what science and scientific theories are, what they offer and what their limitations are, we can actually have *scientific discussions* without the need to resort to "just a theory", "not absolute" and so forth.

The thing with science is that you cannot pick and choose. You cannot use the methodology of science to explain or defend one view, and then throw it away because it conflicts with personal beliefs on another. What you can do is use science against (or rather FOR science).

Once in agreement here, we can move on. Then we have separated misconceptions about science and won't have them fouling up good discussions.

I'll make a post about the methodology of science a bit later, and then we can discuss a) whether I've presented it correctly and b) advantages, disadvantages, potential and limits. And after THIS we have a *mutual* understanding of the subject, a shared one, and this will allow us to attack problems directly without misunderstandings about science itself.

Keep them posts coming . Would also like to hear from the more spiritual posters .

Edit: Gould has something interesting to say too. I have a snippet that adds to the differentiation and explanation of fact and theory (scientific). Again, evolution is just used as an aexample, just as gravity, and focus should be on the explanation, not evolution.

---------
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
---------