Facts, Hypotheses, and Theories

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Facts, Hypotheses, and Theories

Post #1

Post by Miles »

.


From several posts here on DC&R it appears some people are unaware that science defines these terms somewhat differently from their everyday usages. Particularly the term "theory." Here are a couple of explanations from Chicago's Field Museum, the American Museum of Natural History, and the Encyclopedia Britannica.

"How scientists at Chicago's Field Museum (and around the world) use the terms:" "fact," "hypothesis," and "theory."

"A fact is an indisputable observation of a natural or social phenomenon. We can see it directly and show it to others. [Or as Stephen Jay Gould once observed, "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." ]

​A hypothesis is an idea that we can test with further observations. We set out to gather evidence to see if our hypothesis is supported.​

​A theory is a carefully constructed possible explanation for what we observe, drawing together many facts and hypotheses. Theories become stronger as they explain more facts. If a theory explains facts conclusively, it becomes accepted as the most likely explanation for the observed facts. "
source]

"In common parlance, theory is often used to refer to something that is rather speculative. Because of this, it sometimes takes on a negative tone (for example, when creationists refer to evolution as “just a theory”). This definition strongly contrasts with the definition of theory as it is used in science: a theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses."
source]

From the American Museum of Natural History:

Theory
"In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence.

But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. Similarly, the theory of evolution explains why so many plants and animals—some very similar and some very different—exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record."
source

And from the Encyclopedia Britannica

"Scientific hypothesis, an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an “If…then” statement summarizing the idea and in the ability to be supported or refuted through observation and experimentation. The notion of the scientific hypothesis as both falsifiable and testable was advanced in the mid-20th century by Austrian-born British philosopher Karl Popper.

The formulation and testing of a hypothesis is part of the scientific method, the approach scientists use when attempting to understand and test ideas about natural phenomena.

Scientific theory,
systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws
regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

In attempting to explain objects and events, the scientist employs (1) careful observation or experiments, (2) reports of regularities, and (3) systematic explanatory schemes (theories). The statements of regularities, if accurate, may be taken as empirical laws expressing continuing relationships among the objects or characteristics observed. Thus, when empirical laws are able to satisfy curiosity by uncovering an orderliness in the behaviour of objects or events, the scientist may advance a systematic scheme, or scientific theory, to provide an accepted explanation of why these laws obtain."

{And a big THANK YOU to brunumb for stopping me from looking like a first-time poster when I put this in the debate section.} :approve:

.

Post Reply