0
People tend to say that scientific theories are "just" a theory because of a confusion between the common usage of "theory" and the scientific definition.
(In everyday speech people often use the word "theory" in the sense of a "hunch" or "vague idea". This is not what the word means in a scientific context).
A scientific theory is deduced from observations and is the simplest way of describing natural phenomena. It is testable, observable, predictable, and falsifiable. Scientific theories are not the same thing as hypotheses, which are explanations that haven't been demonstrated or verified. A scientific theory has evidence to back it up.
The common usage of 'theory' suggests an explanation that someone hasn't proven, or isn't able to prove. It doesn't imply evidence that has been tested; it doesn't imply predictability. When someone hears, for example, "Big Bang theory" or "the theory of evolution", they may hear the word 'theory' and associate those scientific theories with someone's opinion or suggestion. In reality, these theories are the best scientific explanations for a myriad of phenomena across multiple scientific definitions. In science, "just a theory" is a very good place to be.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Are scientific theories based on scientific evidence?
By not being so much based on fact as explaining said facts. That is what scientific theories do, explain the facts and laws contained within them as far as possible. For example; evolution, the change in allele frequency over time in a population of organisms, is fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains much, not everything, about the fact of evolution.
In science what distinguishes a hypothesis from a theory?
A Hypothesis is a statement or objective one has set out to test or query. eg An unsupported object will fall when dropped. This can be proved or disproved through experimentation. After testing the above hypothesis multiple times (with a scientific method) one can deduce the statement that all unsupported objects fall when dropped. Through more study one can form a scientific theory to explain the happenings in the experimentation. Using the about example the theory of Gravity and its effect on objects can be formed. A scientific theory can be disproven after formation. TLDR: first comes unproven hypothesis, then after experimentation a scientific theory is formed.
How is evolution a theory?
It is a theory because it is a comprehensive, well-supported model explaining a well-defined set of independently verifiable observations in an independently verifiable and falsifiable manner.
Why do people argue that evolution is just a theory but accept the theory of gravity without question?
The premise of the question is flawed. The questioner is attempting to create an equivalence between one theory and the other, but that equivalence is based on semantics.First of all, there is no single "theory of gravity". There are, in fact, multiple, contradictory theories of gravity. Including: the Aristotelian theory of Gravity, Newton's theory of gravitation, Le Sage's theory of gravitation, Nordstrom's theory of gravitation, Whitehead's theory of gravitation, Einstein's "general relativity theory" (which includes an explanation of gravity), the Brans-Dicke theory of gravity, the "induced gravity" theory of Andrei Sakharov, the Rosen bi-metric theory of gravity, Milgrom's "modified Newtonian dynamics", the self-creation cosmology theory of gravity, nonsymmetric gravitational theory, Tensor-vector-scalar gravity, and the theory of quantum gravity. None of these theories is universally accepted (though several have been universally, or almost-universally, rejected).None of the alternative "theories of gravity" say that "gravity exists". They don't have to. We all know that gravity exists. The existence of gravity is a fact, not a theory. The "theory of gravity" (whichever one you pick) is one of several unproven, contradictory explanations of why gravity exists and/or how it works. The existence of gravity is accepted without question, but none of the alternative theories of gravity are universally accepted.Now, the "theory of evolution", semantically, is not comparable to the "theory of gravity", in that the "theory of evolution" does say (among other things) that "evolution occurred". (And, like the various theories of gravity, there are several competing theories of evolution that make contradictory claims as to how and why evolution occurred, but they all share the common trait of claiming that evolution, whatever its cause, didoccur.) The question makes it seem that the "theory of gravity", likewise, states that "gravity exists", but as the previous paragraph shows, that is not the case.To make the comparison valid, you have to consider what fact the "theory of evolution" is attempting to explain. That fact is the existence of life on Earth, in all its variety. That fact is one that we all accept, without question, just like the existence of gravity. The "theory of evolution", therefore, is one of several contradictory, unproven explanations of whyand how that life, and its variety, came into existence. And just like the alternative "theories of gravity", neither the "theory of evolution", nor any alternative theory regarding the origin of life, is universally accepted.So, in conclusion, there is no difference in acceptance between the "theory of evolution" and the "theory of gravity". Neither theory is universally accepted, though the facts that each attempt to explain are universally accepted.AnswerVery informative, great answer. My answer is much simpler: people believe what they want to believe.AnswerYeah that's a good answer, the long one, but the reason the theory of gravity is not questioned as much as the theory of evolution is because the theory of gravity does not affect religion as much as the theory of evolution. Like the last person said, people want to believe that Adam and Eve existed, not that we evolved from apes.AnswerAnswers 2 and 3 are incorrect. They are red herring attempts to belittle religion. But religion has nothing to do with this. The question is not even valid. As stated in Answer 1, neither the theory of evolution nor the theory of gravity (whichever one you believe) is universally accepted. The facts that both theories attempt to explain are, of course, universally accepted, but the theories themselves are not.I would like to re-emphasize that there is no single "theory of gravity". There are several theories of gravity, and none of them are universally accepted. In fact, if you picked 10 people at random from the general population, I would wager that 9 of them couldn't even state even one of the alternative theories of gravity. And 8 of them couldn't even name one of the alternative theories. (The person who asked this question is obviously one of those 8. So are the people who provided Answers 2 and 3.) How can anyone think that any "theory of gravity" is universally accepted when 80% of the population doesn't even know the names of any of those theories?I will grant that people (on both sides) get a lot more adamant about defending their own theories of the origin of life (and attacking other, contradictory theories) than about defending their own theories about gravity. (At least partly because most people don't HAVE a theory about gravity - it's good enough for them that gravity exists - they don't need to know why or how.) And I admit that religion (or lack thereof) and personal prejudice play a large part in this, probably larger than logic and scientific reasoning (again, on both sides). But religion (and even a lack of religion, which is, in a way, a religion itself) is a very personal thing, and people are going to take it personally when they perceive an attack on their religions. Are Christians holding too tightly to a non-scientific theory, based on a literal reading of Genesis, than they should, given the current state of research on life? Probably. Are atheists holding too tightly to a "scientific" theory that has multiple gaps, relies on circular reasoning, and has several steps that could not have taken place without either intelligent design or the realization of probabilities on the order of 10-1,000,000,000? Just as likely. Both have illogical, unscientific, fear-based reasons for holding onto those beliefs. Christians because they are scared of eternal death. Atheists because they are scared of having to face a Creator that they have denied all their lives.But the point is, neither the "theory of evolution" nor any of the alternative"theories of gravity" is universally accepted. So the question is not valid.AnswerPeople mainly accept the theory of gravity because it makes sense to them, but not all people believe in the theory of gravity because it doesn't make sense to them.the theory of evolution, this theory is mainly argued for the sake of religion, this whole argument begins with Adam (first man on earth). people who believe that the first animals on earth were monkeys humans did not exist, but people who don't believe in the theory believe that Adam was a human, now what they are really trying to say is, are you trying to call Adam a monkey...... now I've actually heard this alot around the whole world where i have been.I hope you try to get my point, i have just turned thirteen so sorry if my English isn't very high and complicated but hope you understand.AnswerPeople who argue about the theory of evolution have inappropriately merged science and religion. There are no competing scientific theories of human evolution.For an interesting review read the decision in Kitzmiller v Dover that reveals the lack of any scientific data to support creationism and returns it to the realm of religious belief, where it belongs.
What is the difference between a scientific fact theory and a law?
Scientific fact is sometimes wrong from the Bible's perspective Laws are sometimes wrong, as martin luther king once said "One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." - MLK
Are scientific theories based on scientific evidence?
By not being so much based on fact as explaining said facts. That is what scientific theories do, explain the facts and laws contained within them as far as possible. For example; evolution, the change in allele frequency over time in a population of organisms, is fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains much, not everything, about the fact of evolution.
Why are scientific theories said to be 'not just a theory'?
A scientific theory cannot be proven correct because there is no way to look into the future and find out if the theory is ever revised. Theories tend to change greatly as new discoveries are made.
In science what distinguishes a hypothesis from a theory?
A Hypothesis is a statement or objective one has set out to test or query. eg An unsupported object will fall when dropped. This can be proved or disproved through experimentation. After testing the above hypothesis multiple times (with a scientific method) one can deduce the statement that all unsupported objects fall when dropped. Through more study one can form a scientific theory to explain the happenings in the experimentation. Using the about example the theory of Gravity and its effect on objects can be formed. A scientific theory can be disproven after formation. TLDR: first comes unproven hypothesis, then after experimentation a scientific theory is formed.
Is evolutions falsificationable?
Falsifiable. Yes. As a famous population biologist once said, " show me fossil bunnies in the Pre-Cambrian and you will have falsified evolution. " All scientific facts are falsifiable as well as all scientific theories. It once was a " fact " that the world was flat and it once was a theory that the universe was in steady state. Both falsified. Of course, no one has falsified evolution the fact, or the theory of evolution by natural selection.
What is the scientific name of clostridium botulinum?
You just said it.
Why is heliocentric theory important?
It was the first theory that said that the universe does not revolve around the Earth; instead we revolve around the sun. It discredited many people's theories and modern belief at the time. It is also the proven theory that we believe in today.
What is the meaning of scientific failure?
When an experiment contradicts the outcome predicted by a theory, the theory is said to be a failure. The experiment itself, if poorly designed or conducted, may not achieve a result to distinguish between expected outcomes, in which case the experiment would be a failure. Even negative results in science have meaning. Failure generally leads to greater insight than does success, as flaws is theory reveal the need for improved theories.
What does the word theory?
If you look in a dictionary you will see a lot of big words and concepts when you look up the word theory. In lay terms a theory is an "educated guess" about a idea or issue or science concept. Example: The Darwin Theory. He "guessed" that we "evolved" from the amoeba all the way up to the humanity we have now. He said it was only a theory and it was an unproven one despite the people who came to believe it was a fact. Theories are ideas that have to be disproven or proven using scientific methods or educated methods.
What does the word theory mean?
If you look in a dictionary you will see a lot of big words and concepts when you look up the word theory. In lay terms a theory is an "educated guess" about a idea or issue or science concept. Example: The Darwin Theory. He "guessed" that we "evolved" from the amoeba all the way up to the humanity we have now. He said it was only a theory and it was an unproven one despite the people who came to believe it was a fact. Theories are ideas that have to be disproven or proven using scientific methods or educated methods.
Is the evolutionary theory bankrupt?
Absolutely not. The Theory of Evolution is the accepted scientific theory of how living things evolved on this planet. If you're looking for a "bankrupt" theory a serious contender would be the unscientific theory of Creationism. It has absolutely no scientific currency to support it. However, as Ayn Rand said so eloquently: Those who deny reason cannot be conquered by it.
How does mill defend his theory when charged that hedonism is a theory for swine?
He said it is not me and my theories, it is you and yours. You who accuse my theories for swine, represent the human nature in a degrading light. Since the accusation supposes human beings to be capable of no pleasures execpt those of which swine are capable. -We laiter came to find this supposition to be fale.
What is scientific definition of triple beam balance?
What you just said,duh
