Just a Theory
If you dismiss a scientific theory as ' just a theory ' you do not understand science.
The word ' theory ' has an everyday (colloquial) meaning of: " An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action ". In this case, a theory is just an idea.
In science, a theory is: " A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained ". A scientific theory is a formal statement which explains empirical observations, makes predictions for future empirical observations, has been sufficiently tested and has a method for falsification (an empirical way to test its ongoing validity).
These two meanings of the word ' theory' are profoundly different.
Empirical Evidence
At the heart of the scientific method is empirical evidence. This is the careful gathering of data - measurement, if you wish, of some aspect of reality. The gathering of evidence itself is painstaking and in most cases very carefully reviewed by scientific peers.
Hypothesis
Every scientific theory begins as one or more mere hypotheses.
An hypothesis is basically an educated guess based upon empirically observed patterns. The colloquial use of the term 'theory' correlates well with a scientific hypothesis. Both are quite lacking.
Experimentation
In science hypotheses must be tested to have any value. Testing means subjecting hypotheses to empirical challenges to see if they hold up. Hypotheses which survive the scrutiny may become part of the main product of science - a scientific theory.
Explanation
A scientific theory is an accepted explanation of observed phenomena based upon one or more tested hypotheses and the body of knowledge known as science. The word ' explanation ' is operative. A theory must not simply explain the current evidence but rather all the evidence within a particular area of study. For example, Newton's theory of universal gravitation (ToUG) is concerned with mass and distance. It certainly explains the local effects of gravity here on Earth but also generally applies to cosmological masses such as the Sun and the planets. Newton's local experiments on Earth produced an explanation which applies to all realistically observable masses and distances (even though it does fall short of explaining relative frame of reference velocities near the speed of light and behavior at the quantum level). Not bad for a 17th century genius.
Predictability
The key measure of a scientific theory is its ability to predict. Although superseded by Einstein's theory of relativity (ToR), Newton's ToUG, still accurately predicts the very odd motion of the planets and serves as the mathematical basis for modern space exploration. Imagine Newton's reaction if he knew his work accurately predicted the trajectory required to land a probe on Mars.
Of course Einstein is the modern king of predictability. One of many consequences of the ToR is that a large mass will have an effect on the path of light itself. That is, light will 'bend' around the mass - its normal straight line will become a curve (see illustration). This prediction of the ToR was verified four years after publication of the theory when a solar eclipse enabled Eddington to observe light from a star being 'bent' by the sun. Einstein's ToR continues to provide predictive power in modern areas such as black holes, the Big Bang, gravitational lensing and indeed the very mysterious so-called dark energy and dark matter.
The ability to predict behavior well before it can be observed is one of the most powerful and demanding aspects of scientific theory. The phrase ' just a theory ' seems a little silly at this point, does it not?
Falsifiability
To be a bona fide theory of empirical science a theory must also have a method for falsification. That is, there must be an empirical test that can be continually applied which could show the theory to be flawed. A theory that cannot be falsified will not be considered a theory of empirical science. Not only is the ToR falsifiable but it continues to stand up to falsification 100 years later - and we know that every scientist on the planet would love to be the one who proved Einstein wrong.
Falsification is directly related to objectivity. By demanding a method of falsification, science explicitly declares that every scientific theory could be wrong. It always leaves the door open (even if a crack) for future empirical evidence to turn it on its collective ear. This is why science does not declare truth and does not deem its findings to be absolute proof. Objectivity is fundamental to science and science is simply the pursuit of knowledge based upon empirical observation.
Summary
I can offer a theory. It is my theory that even after reading this article, some individuals will continue to dismiss scientific theories as 'just' theories. My theory is mere speculation - an educated guess. It is not based upon rigorous metrics scrutinized by my peers nor have I designed an experiment to test it. My theory does not really explain observations nor does it have predictive qualities other than its explicit statement of behavior. It is not even falsifiable. There is no empirical test to show that my theory might prove to be faulty.
My theory is a theory only in the colloquial sense. A scientific theory, in contrast, is a highly tested, scrutinized, formal, sophisticated, objective body of work which provides the best explanation, thus far, of a particular class of phenomena. It must continue to deliver - to predict - and will be subjected to ongoing tests of falsification by anxious scientists looking for the next exciting breakthrough.
A scientific theory is as close to objective, empirically-based knowledge that we can achieve given our human limitations. The designation ' scientific theory' is equivalent to ' our best, honest explanation thus far based upon the evidence '.
Tags
Who is online
223 visitors
The colloquial meaning for 'theory' is essentially 'hunch'. A scientific theory is very much the opposite of a hunch. In any discussion of science this is a critical thing to be aware of.
That's not really what most educated people complain about when scientific theories are being tossed around as proven fact.
What I complain about is I reject any specific statement of theory as absolute fact.
And a lot of that gets tossed around here no matter how much you try to explain it to some people.
Yes a general theory is formulated from the known scientific fact as a basis to explain the unknown reason for something that is factually observed but scientifically unexplained or provable at this time.....
Specifically the theory of evolution. plain fact is until they actually find the missing link, will always be a theory.
The rules of science themselves declare such to be true.
Unfortunately too many cite theory as fact in their arguments. (and refuse to accept any other discussion after that)
And believe this, if any fact surfaces to prove a long held theory to be true, it will be announced to everyone in terms even a kindergartner would understand.
But until that time, a theory is NOT a scientific fact.
Pure science is about provable facts and known behaviors as directly observed.
Extrapolations of fact, conjectures and hypothesis's are the tools of scientific inquiry, not facts themselves.
But until that time, a theory is NOT a scientific fact.
But when a theory is so strongly supported by empirical evidence, and none to refute it (like evolution or the Big Bang), to the point it has a high degree of certainty or probability, it is generally considered factual. Of course, any scientific theory can be blown out of the water with even the smallest piece of evidence which refutes it. As TiG stated, "The designation 'scientific theory' is equivalent to 'our best, honest explanation thus far based upon the evidence'."
@Nowhere-Man : " That's not really what most educated people complain about when scientific theories are being tossed around as proven fact. "
Empirical science does not claim proof for scientific theories. A theory is always open for challenge so no matter how confident we are that the theory is sound, there is always the considered possibility that new evidence will arrive that is not properly explained by the theory.
If science were to declare a theory proven fact it would ipso facto violate its principle of objectivity. To wit, those who speak of scientific theories as proven are being far too loose with their language or they do not understand science.
It is good to see a photo of Mandy Patinkin from the Classic Movie, The Princess Bride.
"My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
Sorry, this is my theory, and I guess it's off topic.
Buzz of the Orient, Classic Movie Devotee.
This article warms the heart of a ex science teacher. It really explains what the difference is with the word theory.
Couple of comments:
"The designation ' scientific theory' is equivalent to ' our best, honest explanation thus far based upon the evidence '."
This is true! And here is kind of the proof of that.
Specifically the theory of evolution. plain fact is until they actually find the missing link, will always be a theory.
When I was an anthropology major in the late 70's that was the commonly believed theory along with competing beliefs of the origin of man (Africa vs China). Since then paleoanthropologist (even the name of the science changed), know through DNA, that there was no missing link. It seems that humans, like other species make what is called evolutionary jumps. The cause of these jumps is still being investigated. Here is an interesting article about it:
Buzz, I love The Princess Bride!
Excellent!
It's why theories can never be stated as fact. The ideal of scientific inquiry will always trump theory.
The current ideal is evolution takes evolutionary "spurts" it stays stable for a while then undergoes a short period of rapid change, then another long period of relative stability.
And this came about as much from the study and development of DNA examination as the lack of physical evidence of the "missing link"
Nature, (and science) abhors a vacuum.
Also the logical conclusion is, in the absence of a "Missing Link" that the answer has to lie somewhere else.
Hence the postulation that evolution happens in spurts....
Excellent point!
I haven't kept up on the specifics, but I do know that much....
A well written and educational article TiG. Once again, your scientific acumen shines through.