A lot of discussions that I read on the web devolves into discussions on evolution. All right, that's because most discussions center on education and scientific advances and critiques of the same. Invariably, someone would say, "But the theory of evolution is a just a theory, not fact."
Allow me to use this little blog here as the anchor post for many of you who are scientifically aware to refute such statements, but maybe you don't all have the words all lined up. Feel free to add your comments so that it could be even more complete.
First off, most non-scientists think that the hierarchy of scientific knowledge goes as such, in decreasing scientific: highest is scientific fact, then a scientific law, then a scientific theory and below that, at the lowest level is scientific hypothesis. The reality is almost the opposite. There are some disputes as to where a scientific hypothesis lies, but the hierarchy goes pretty much as such: theory, law, hypothesis, fact. Yes, scientific fact (or fact, in general) has a very low value.
The main reason for the mistaken values to these intellectual concepts is just the difference between colloquial usage of these words and the technical usage of these words.
Let's look at each one at a time.
Just The Facts, Ma'am Facts seem to be of the most value because they appear to be indisputable. In fact, facts are quite disputable. A fact is just an observation. And that observation may be mistaken or have a different view depending on how it's observed. An observable has to be observed by some sensing device. Prior to the invention of many scientific tools, the sensing device humans used were the five senses: sight, hearing, smelling, tasting and touch. The funny thing is that using these senses allows one to only sense part of the "fact". It doesn't give the whole picture. It never does. Thus, facts are of least value because they can be massaged by ignoring measurements using different (read: better) sensory systems or by misusing the wrong sensory system.
For example, suppose an object is emitting a bluish light. But you take a picture of it using black-and-white film (yeah, I know, but go along with me). The fact that the light is blue is removed when the sensor (the camera and film) does not capture that information. As far as the viewer of the photograph is concerned, there is no blue light, just some light. So you see how facts can get distorted. Suppose you took a picture with a color camera. How hot was the object? The color camera captures visible light and does not do a good job of capturing infrared or lower frequency electromagnetic waves, which is what radiant heat would be. If we put our hands near the object, we might feel the warmth of its glow, so we can acknowledge that heat is radiating from it. But a color photo wouldn't capture that fact. Nor would a camera capture any noise (or silence) made by the subject.
I think these examples show that facts are hardly immutable. They change, depending on what sensory device is used to evaluate facts. Indeed, a lot of scientific debate revolves in how to interpret an observed phenomenon. A frequent question asked is, "what are we not seeing, and how could we observe this phenomenon in another way?"
The Law's The Law Scientific laws have a noble place among the non-scientists because of the name, "law" is bestowed on it. Another term for "law" is "principle." In either case, a scientific law is a generalize conclusion based on many, many repeated experiments, as well as applicable of logic to deduce the law. Here is a list of scientific laws from wikipedia.
Here's one example: Newton's Law of Gravitation. Newton determined that gravitational force is proportional to the product of the masses of the two attracting objects divided by the square of the distance of the (center of mass of the) two masses. The proportionality constant is G, the gravitational constant. How was this law derived? Newton didn't just pull this formula out of his head (whether there was plagiarism and other shenanigans is another question altogether). Note that this law, while useful enough to get men to the moon and back safely, does not explain gravitation. It just tells us how much force is acting on an object based on the masses and distances involved. It also shows that the force is not dependent on other measurable attributes, like color, temperature, shape, or age.
Another interesting ramification of this law is the conclusion that the acceleration due to gravity is independent of the mass of the object falling. Speaking with some non-scientific literate people, I actually found some who are astounded by this "fact". Some people actually do believe that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. Galileo disproved this myth by dropping two differently weighted cannon balls from a tall building (the Tower of Pisa?) and noting that they both landed at the same time. This experiment disproved the claim of Aristotle that heavier objects fall faster than light objects, a claim that lasted 1800 years. Aristotle is a great example of how science works. Aristotle got a lot of things wrong. He supported the geocentric view of the universe, that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects, and many other eventually disproved ideas on motion, chemistry and biology. Of course, he got some things right, so he wasn't a complete crank. Part of the reason for his failures is because his views of the facts were inadequate. He couldn't see what an atom was. He couldn't measure how far the moon was from the earth. The concept of measuring, back in Aristotle's time, is completely different than our current understanding of measuring.
In the end, laws just give scientists and engineers a quick-and-dirty method to compute values or to make conclusions. But laws lack any fundamental underpinning. There is no understanding of why the law is true. Newton's law of gravity, for example, doesn't explain why two objects gravitate towards each other. Given two objects, one would initially think they would have no effect on each other, especially if they're non-sentient objects. How does a rock know the existence of a tree? But they're gravitationally attracting each other. Why don't they gravitationally repel each other? Electrically charged objects sometimes attract each other, and sometimes repel each other, depending on whether they have the same or opposite charges. But we have never observed negative gravity that repel another object, gravitationally. (Non-observance doesn't mean they don't exist, by the way.)
Hypothetically, It's True. In Reality, It's... A hypothesis is the first stage in attaining a theory. A hypothesis is an attempt to explain the facts as observed. It differs from a law in that it actually tries to explain why these facts are presented as they do. Hypotheses are offered as the first step in the scientific method of understanding natural phenomena. After observation and testing, scientists offer a reason for the phenomenon. That first effort is a hypothesis, a four-syllable word for "guess". The hypothesis gets refined by testing it. There are several ways to test a hypothesis, depending on the phenomenon that is being explained.
After many testing iterations, the hypothesis will mutate to a clearer and larger explanation that explains not just the phenomenon at hand, but other similar phenomena or observables. At that time, the hypothesis may finally graduate to becoming a theory.
It's Just A Theory A theory is a body of knowledge gained through the process of many experiments, analyses and observations, and passed all sorts of tests attempting to refute the hypothesis. At the end, it becomes the best explanation for the phenomenon at hand. That is how a theory becomes a theory. It not only explains the facts already observed, but additional facts that weren't initially observed, but when observed, meet the predictions from the theory. It gives an explanation, not just a formula. And it gives a formula, if available, that provides predictive value.
The theory of the solar system explains how the planets are arranged and orbit the sun in elliptical orbits and also explains exactly how fast they move (relative to the sun), the weights and dimensions of each planet, the chemical makeup of the planets, where the planets will be ten minutes from now, twenty days from now or two hundred years from now, as well as where they were five million years ago.
Theories don't just answer questions. They also bring about new questions. Questions always come along with the ride. For every answer, there are many new questions. They never end. A solid theory will either answer those questions, or can be expanded to a more encompassing theory that answers those and other questions. And then, new questions arise. That is the never ending cycle of scientific thought.
Allow me to use this little blog here as the anchor post for many of you who are scientifically aware to refute such statements, but maybe you don't all have the words all lined up. Feel free to add your comments so that it could be even more complete.
First off, most non-scientists think that the hierarchy of scientific knowledge goes as such, in decreasing scientific: highest is scientific fact, then a scientific law, then a scientific theory and below that, at the lowest level is scientific hypothesis. The reality is almost the opposite. There are some disputes as to where a scientific hypothesis lies, but the hierarchy goes pretty much as such: theory, law, hypothesis, fact. Yes, scientific fact (or fact, in general) has a very low value.
The main reason for the mistaken values to these intellectual concepts is just the difference between colloquial usage of these words and the technical usage of these words.
Let's look at each one at a time.
Just The Facts, Ma'am Facts seem to be of the most value because they appear to be indisputable. In fact, facts are quite disputable. A fact is just an observation. And that observation may be mistaken or have a different view depending on how it's observed. An observable has to be observed by some sensing device. Prior to the invention of many scientific tools, the sensing device humans used were the five senses: sight, hearing, smelling, tasting and touch. The funny thing is that using these senses allows one to only sense part of the "fact". It doesn't give the whole picture. It never does. Thus, facts are of least value because they can be massaged by ignoring measurements using different (read: better) sensory systems or by misusing the wrong sensory system.
For example, suppose an object is emitting a bluish light. But you take a picture of it using black-and-white film (yeah, I know, but go along with me). The fact that the light is blue is removed when the sensor (the camera and film) does not capture that information. As far as the viewer of the photograph is concerned, there is no blue light, just some light. So you see how facts can get distorted. Suppose you took a picture with a color camera. How hot was the object? The color camera captures visible light and does not do a good job of capturing infrared or lower frequency electromagnetic waves, which is what radiant heat would be. If we put our hands near the object, we might feel the warmth of its glow, so we can acknowledge that heat is radiating from it. But a color photo wouldn't capture that fact. Nor would a camera capture any noise (or silence) made by the subject.
I think these examples show that facts are hardly immutable. They change, depending on what sensory device is used to evaluate facts. Indeed, a lot of scientific debate revolves in how to interpret an observed phenomenon. A frequent question asked is, "what are we not seeing, and how could we observe this phenomenon in another way?"
The Law's The Law Scientific laws have a noble place among the non-scientists because of the name, "law" is bestowed on it. Another term for "law" is "principle." In either case, a scientific law is a generalize conclusion based on many, many repeated experiments, as well as applicable of logic to deduce the law. Here is a list of scientific laws from wikipedia.
Here's one example: Newton's Law of Gravitation. Newton determined that gravitational force is proportional to the product of the masses of the two attracting objects divided by the square of the distance of the (center of mass of the) two masses. The proportionality constant is G, the gravitational constant. How was this law derived? Newton didn't just pull this formula out of his head (whether there was plagiarism and other shenanigans is another question altogether). Note that this law, while useful enough to get men to the moon and back safely, does not explain gravitation. It just tells us how much force is acting on an object based on the masses and distances involved. It also shows that the force is not dependent on other measurable attributes, like color, temperature, shape, or age.
Another interesting ramification of this law is the conclusion that the acceleration due to gravity is independent of the mass of the object falling. Speaking with some non-scientific literate people, I actually found some who are astounded by this "fact". Some people actually do believe that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. Galileo disproved this myth by dropping two differently weighted cannon balls from a tall building (the Tower of Pisa?) and noting that they both landed at the same time. This experiment disproved the claim of Aristotle that heavier objects fall faster than light objects, a claim that lasted 1800 years. Aristotle is a great example of how science works. Aristotle got a lot of things wrong. He supported the geocentric view of the universe, that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects, and many other eventually disproved ideas on motion, chemistry and biology. Of course, he got some things right, so he wasn't a complete crank. Part of the reason for his failures is because his views of the facts were inadequate. He couldn't see what an atom was. He couldn't measure how far the moon was from the earth. The concept of measuring, back in Aristotle's time, is completely different than our current understanding of measuring.
In the end, laws just give scientists and engineers a quick-and-dirty method to compute values or to make conclusions. But laws lack any fundamental underpinning. There is no understanding of why the law is true. Newton's law of gravity, for example, doesn't explain why two objects gravitate towards each other. Given two objects, one would initially think they would have no effect on each other, especially if they're non-sentient objects. How does a rock know the existence of a tree? But they're gravitationally attracting each other. Why don't they gravitationally repel each other? Electrically charged objects sometimes attract each other, and sometimes repel each other, depending on whether they have the same or opposite charges. But we have never observed negative gravity that repel another object, gravitationally. (Non-observance doesn't mean they don't exist, by the way.)
Hypothetically, It's True. In Reality, It's... A hypothesis is the first stage in attaining a theory. A hypothesis is an attempt to explain the facts as observed. It differs from a law in that it actually tries to explain why these facts are presented as they do. Hypotheses are offered as the first step in the scientific method of understanding natural phenomena. After observation and testing, scientists offer a reason for the phenomenon. That first effort is a hypothesis, a four-syllable word for "guess". The hypothesis gets refined by testing it. There are several ways to test a hypothesis, depending on the phenomenon that is being explained.
After many testing iterations, the hypothesis will mutate to a clearer and larger explanation that explains not just the phenomenon at hand, but other similar phenomena or observables. At that time, the hypothesis may finally graduate to becoming a theory.
It's Just A Theory A theory is a body of knowledge gained through the process of many experiments, analyses and observations, and passed all sorts of tests attempting to refute the hypothesis. At the end, it becomes the best explanation for the phenomenon at hand. That is how a theory becomes a theory. It not only explains the facts already observed, but additional facts that weren't initially observed, but when observed, meet the predictions from the theory. It gives an explanation, not just a formula. And it gives a formula, if available, that provides predictive value.
The theory of the solar system explains how the planets are arranged and orbit the sun in elliptical orbits and also explains exactly how fast they move (relative to the sun), the weights and dimensions of each planet, the chemical makeup of the planets, where the planets will be ten minutes from now, twenty days from now or two hundred years from now, as well as where they were five million years ago.
Theories don't just answer questions. They also bring about new questions. Questions always come along with the ride. For every answer, there are many new questions. They never end. A solid theory will either answer those questions, or can be expanded to a more encompassing theory that answers those and other questions. And then, new questions arise. That is the never ending cycle of scientific thought.