Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
The Rational Wiki page has been cut.
Changed line(s) 5,6 (click to see context) from:
But that's not good enough for some people. A theory is not definitively ''proven'' -- if it were, it would be called a ''law''. That gives them room to work with, and is why gravity is "only a theory!" Except "law" ''also'' has a specific scientific definition: it's a mathematical correlation that is repeatedly observed in many situations. The term usually applies to the physical sciences -- ''e.g.'' Newton's laws, Ohm's law, the law of conservation of energy. In other words, a law is not a theory "made official" -- it's a pattern of observations, of the kind that can be explained by a theory. You need ''both''. As Wiki/RationalWiki puts it, a law of gravity will tell you that two objects will be attracted to each other and the exact magnitude of the force, but a ''theory'' of gravity will explain ''why'' they do that.
to:
But that's not good enough for some people. A theory is not definitively ''proven'' -- if it were, it would be called a ''law''. That gives them room to work with, and is why gravity is "only a theory!" Except "law" ''also'' has a specific scientific definition: it's a mathematical correlation that is repeatedly observed in many situations. The term usually applies to the physical sciences -- ''e.g.'' Newton's laws, Ohm's law, the law of conservation of energy. In other words, a law is not a theory "made official" -- it's a pattern of observations, of the kind that can be explained by a theory. You need ''both''. As Wiki/RationalWiki Rational Wiki puts it, a law of gravity will tell you that two objects will be attracted to each other and the exact magnitude of the force, but a ''theory'' of gravity will explain ''why'' they do that.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 1,2 (click to see context) from:
This trope owes its existence in large part to equivocation -- the popular definition of a "theory" is [[YouKeepUsingThatWord not the same as]] the ''scientific'' definition of a theory.
to:
This trope owes its existence in large part to equivocation -- the popular definition of a "theory" is [[YouKeepUsingThatWord not the same as]] as the ''scientific'' definition of a theory.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,16 (click to see context) from:
Remember, a scientific theory isn't the same as the colloquial definition of a theory (as a synonym for conjecture).
What most people think of when they use the word theory is what scientists call a ''hypothesis'' (a possible explanation which hasn't yet been tested, but is based on a knowledge of related phenomena) or an ''ad-hoc theory'' (an explanation based on general experience, available evidence, and guesswork without research into related documents), with a strong preference for the latter.
A ''theory'' is an explanation for why something happens in nature. Theories have been tested and reproduced and can be backed up with evidence; e.g. germ theory, General Relativity theory, and atomic theory. Additionally, the "explanation" part is important: the theory of evolution, for instance, is a set of explanation regarding how evolution works, evolution itself is a "phenomenon", i.e. something that has happened that has been directly observed.
And then there's a ''law'' which is a mathematical correlation observed repeatedly in many situations, usually reserved for the physical sciences; e.g. Newton's laws, Ohm's law, and the law of conservation of energy. Scientific laws are patterns in nature that theories seek to explain. Laws are not stronger than theories (i.e., theories that have been "proven" true). From Rationalwiki: A law of gravity will tell you that two objects will be attracted to each other and the magnitude of the force, contrastingly a theory of gravity will offer an explanation for the existence of the force.
Therefore, accusing something of being false merely because it's "just a theory" is fallacious reasoning, as the "theory" label doesn't make it any less valid or true. Additionally, theory, technically, plural, a singular explanation should be a "theorem": a scientist referring to "gravitational theory" is referring to the collective body of research on the subject of gravitation, not a specific law or explanation.
Also, theories are considered incomplete (but workable) by default as they are based only on observable data, and the ability to observe data is limited by instrumentation. Thus, theories change according to new data observed as the instruments of observation improve. While these changes are often pointed to as proof of the earlier theory being completely "wrong" ([[ScienceIsWrong and thus, so is science]]), in reality the new data actually builds upon the old theory, forming a more complete but still incomplete theory. Simply put, ''being incomplete does not immediately prove any theory wrong.'' Gravity is a good example of this, with Newton's model still being correct to a very high degree at the speeds and masses observable by an unaided person, with quantum and relativity theory only adding more precision to size and speed scales only recently observable.
That said, however, the theory of gravity according to Newton indicates that gravity is actually a type of force which increases proportionally to the size of the object in question, while quantum and relativity theory implying that what we comprehend as the force of gravity is actually these masses causing the fabric of space to "bend" - to put it simply - around it. However, this is just a different way of looking at gravity. So obviously a new set of explanations for a particular phenomenon doesn't just add on to a previous one, but revises our understanding of it.
To combat some of this confusion of terminology, UsefulNotes/RichardDawkins invent the word "{{UsefulNotes/theorum}}" to distinguish between the core knowledge of science (evolution, heliocentrism, and the Earth being round) from both other scientific theories and the layman's conception of "theory." "Theorum" as a word has failed to catch on among scientists.
What most people think of when they use the word theory is what scientists call a ''hypothesis'' (a possible explanation which hasn't yet been tested, but is based on a knowledge of related phenomena) or an ''ad-hoc theory'' (an explanation based on general experience, available evidence, and guesswork without research into related documents), with a strong preference for the latter.
A ''theory'' is an explanation for why something happens in nature. Theories have been tested and reproduced and can be backed up with evidence; e.g. germ theory, General Relativity theory, and atomic theory. Additionally, the "explanation" part is important: the theory of evolution, for instance, is a set of explanation regarding how evolution works, evolution itself is a "phenomenon", i.e. something that has happened that has been directly observed.
And then there's a ''law'' which is a mathematical correlation observed repeatedly in many situations, usually reserved for the physical sciences; e.g. Newton's laws, Ohm's law, and the law of conservation of energy. Scientific laws are patterns in nature that theories seek to explain. Laws are not stronger than theories (i.e., theories that have been "proven" true). From Rationalwiki: A law of gravity will tell you that two objects will be attracted to each other and the magnitude of the force, contrastingly a theory of gravity will offer an explanation for the existence of the force.
Therefore, accusing something of being false merely because it's "just a theory" is fallacious reasoning, as the "theory" label doesn't make it any less valid or true. Additionally, theory, technically, plural, a singular explanation should be a "theorem": a scientist referring to "gravitational theory" is referring to the collective body of research on the subject of gravitation, not a specific law or explanation.
Also, theories are considered incomplete (but workable) by default as they are based only on observable data, and the ability to observe data is limited by instrumentation. Thus, theories change according to new data observed as the instruments of observation improve. While these changes are often pointed to as proof of the earlier theory being completely "wrong" ([[ScienceIsWrong and thus, so is science]]), in reality the new data actually builds upon the old theory, forming a more complete but still incomplete theory. Simply put, ''being incomplete does not immediately prove any theory wrong.'' Gravity is a good example of this, with Newton's model still being correct to a very high degree at the speeds and masses observable by an unaided person, with quantum and relativity theory only adding more precision to size and speed scales only recently observable.
That said, however, the theory of gravity according to Newton indicates that gravity is actually a type of force which increases proportionally to the size of the object in question, while quantum and relativity theory implying that what we comprehend as the force of gravity is actually these masses causing the fabric of space to "bend" - to put it simply - around it. However, this is just a different way of looking at gravity. So obviously a new set of explanations for a particular phenomenon doesn't just add on to a previous one, but revises our understanding of it.
To combat some of this confusion of terminology, UsefulNotes/RichardDawkins invent the word "{{UsefulNotes/theorum}}" to distinguish between the core knowledge of science (evolution, heliocentrism, and the Earth being round) from both other scientific theories and the layman's conception of "theory." "Theorum" as a word has failed to catch on among scientists.
to:
In colloquial speech, a "theory" is a broad term for
What most people think of when they use the word theory is what scientists call a ''hypothesis'' (a possible
A
But that's not good enough for some people. A theory is not definitively ''proven'' -- if it were, it would be called a ''law''. That gives them room to work with, and is why gravity is "only a theory!" Except "law" ''also'' has a specific scientific definition: it's a mathematical correlation that is repeatedly observed in many situations. The term usually applies to the physical sciences -- ''e.g.
Since a theory describes an
Therefore, accusing something of being false merely
Also, theories are considered incomplete (but workable) by default as they are based only on observable data, and the ability to observe data is limited by instrumentation. Thus, theories change according to new data observed as the instruments of observation improve. While these changes are often pointed to as proof of the earlier theory being completely "wrong" ([[ScienceIsWrong and thus, so is science]]), in reality the new data actually builds upon the old theory, forming a more complete but still incomplete theory. Simply put, ''being incomplete does not immediately prove any theory wrong.'' Gravity is a good example of this, with Newton's model still being correct to a very high degree at the speeds and masses observable by an unaided person, with quantum and relativity theory only adding more precision to size and speed scales only recently observable.
That said, however,
This is how science works -- when we get a new observation, we test our existing theories to see if they predict what we just saw. And if they didn't, that's when we change it.
* They tend to lack predictive power. Often, this happens because the "theory" is unfalsifiable -- it seems to be perfect, but only because it's defined in such a way as to make ''anything'' possible. It's like saying that nobody flies off the Earth's surface because AWizardDidIt. The "wizard" can do ''anything'', so it doesn't explain why the wizard did specifically ''this'' to us. The wizard could, in theory, turn gravity off at any moment, but we have no way to predict if and when he will. It's useless as a theory.
* They're ''very'' rarely held to the same standard as the theory they claim to supplant. Proponents tend to look for a single observation that the current theory can't predict and go, "Aha! Your theory is wrong!" Then they go on to say, essentially, "By default, ''my'' theory is right!", even though their theory has ''all sorts'' of observations that it can't predict.
* They hold tightly to ''ad hoc'' explanations. ''Ad hoc'' is worse than a hypothesis; a hypothesis is an explanation that's based on scientific research but just hasn't been tested yet, whereas an ''ad hoc'' explanation is just something someone came up with to explain an observation. If you try to poke a
* They tend to be based on unobservable phenomena. If you're trying to establish that the Big Bang happened billions of years ago, TheFundamentalist might respond that "maybe God made the Universe so that it ''looks'' like it was made billions of years ago, but it really wasn't!", you end up with two problems. First, no theory can stand if it has to predict something that can't be ''observed''; the whole point of a theory is to explain something we ''can'' observe! And second, such explanations are usually ''ad hoc'' -- they come up after the fact to invalidate the existing theory by [[IRejectYourReality undermining the observations behind them]]. It's a "theory" that explains an observation by arguing that the observation itself, while valid, for
All of this is borne from a
To combat some of this confusion of terminology,
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 15,16 (click to see context) from:
To combat some of this confusion of terminology, RichardDawkins invent the word "{{UsefulNotes/theorum}}" to distinguish between the core knowledge of science (evolution, heliocentrism, and the Earth being round) from both other scientific theories and the layman's conception of "theory." "Theorum" as a word has failed to catch on among scientists.
to:
To combat some of this confusion of terminology, RichardDawkins UsefulNotes/RichardDawkins invent the word "{{UsefulNotes/theorum}}" to distinguish between the core knowledge of science (evolution, heliocentrism, and the Earth being round) from both other scientific theories and the layman's conception of "theory." "Theorum" as a word has failed to catch on among scientists.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
Remember, a scientific theory isn't the same as the colloquial definition of a theory (as a synonym for conjecture).
What most people think of when they use the word theory is what scientists call a ''hypothesis'' (a possible explanation which hasn't yet been tested, but is based on a knowledge of related phenomena) or an ''ad-hoc theory'' (an explanation based on general experience, available evidence, and guesswork without research into related documents), with a strong preference for the latter.
A ''theory'' is an explanation for why something happens in nature. Theories have been tested and reproduced and can be backed up with evidence; e.g. germ theory, General Relativity theory, and atomic theory. Additionally, the "explanation" part is important: the theory of evolution, for instance, is a set of explanation regarding how evolution works, evolution itself is a "phenomenon", i.e. something that has happened that has been directly observed.
And then there's a ''law'' which is a mathematical correlation observed repeatedly in many situations, usually reserved for the physical sciences; e.g. Newton's laws, Ohm's law, and the law of conservation of energy. Scientific laws are patterns in nature that theories seek to explain. Laws are not stronger than theories (i.e., theories that have been "proven" true). From Rationalwiki: A law of gravity will tell you that two objects will be attracted to each other and the magnitude of the force, contrastingly a theory of gravity will offer an explanation for the existence of the force.
Therefore, accusing something of being false merely because it's "just a theory" is fallacious reasoning, as the "theory" label doesn't make it any less valid or true. Additionally, theory, technically, plural, a singular explanation should be a "theorem": a scientist referring to "gravitational theory" is referring to the collective body of research on the subject of gravitation, not a specific law or explanation.
Also, theories are considered incomplete (but workable) by default as they are based only on observable data, and the ability to observe data is limited by instrumentation. Thus, theories change according to new data observed as the instruments of observation improve. While these changes are often pointed to as proof of the earlier theory being completely "wrong" ([[ScienceIsWrong and thus, so is science]]), in reality the new data actually builds upon the old theory, forming a more complete but still incomplete theory. Simply put, ''being incomplete does not immediately prove any theory wrong.'' Gravity is a good example of this, with Newton's model still being correct to a very high degree at the speeds and masses observable by an unaided person, with quantum and relativity theory only adding more precision to size and speed scales only recently observable.
That said, however, the theory of gravity according to Newton indicates that gravity is actually a type of force which increases proportionally to the size of the object in question, while quantum and relativity theory implying that what we comprehend as the force of gravity is actually these masses causing the fabric of space to "bend" - to put it simply - around it. However, this is just a different way of looking at gravity. So obviously a new set of explanations for a particular phenomenon doesn't just add on to a previous one, but revises our understanding of it.
To combat some of this confusion of terminology, RichardDawkins invent the word "{{UsefulNotes/theorum}}" to distinguish between the core knowledge of science (evolution, heliocentrism, and the Earth being round) from both other scientific theories and the layman's conception of "theory." "Theorum" as a word has failed to catch on among scientists.
Compare WindmillPolitical: Depending on the setting and context, this trope can be for those who believe in gravity, those who don't, or those who believe in something else that the author is poking fun at by comparing it to gravity.
----
What most people think of when they use the word theory is what scientists call a ''hypothesis'' (a possible explanation which hasn't yet been tested, but is based on a knowledge of related phenomena) or an ''ad-hoc theory'' (an explanation based on general experience, available evidence, and guesswork without research into related documents), with a strong preference for the latter.
A ''theory'' is an explanation for why something happens in nature. Theories have been tested and reproduced and can be backed up with evidence; e.g. germ theory, General Relativity theory, and atomic theory. Additionally, the "explanation" part is important: the theory of evolution, for instance, is a set of explanation regarding how evolution works, evolution itself is a "phenomenon", i.e. something that has happened that has been directly observed.
And then there's a ''law'' which is a mathematical correlation observed repeatedly in many situations, usually reserved for the physical sciences; e.g. Newton's laws, Ohm's law, and the law of conservation of energy. Scientific laws are patterns in nature that theories seek to explain. Laws are not stronger than theories (i.e., theories that have been "proven" true). From Rationalwiki: A law of gravity will tell you that two objects will be attracted to each other and the magnitude of the force, contrastingly a theory of gravity will offer an explanation for the existence of the force.
Therefore, accusing something of being false merely because it's "just a theory" is fallacious reasoning, as the "theory" label doesn't make it any less valid or true. Additionally, theory, technically, plural, a singular explanation should be a "theorem": a scientist referring to "gravitational theory" is referring to the collective body of research on the subject of gravitation, not a specific law or explanation.
Also, theories are considered incomplete (but workable) by default as they are based only on observable data, and the ability to observe data is limited by instrumentation. Thus, theories change according to new data observed as the instruments of observation improve. While these changes are often pointed to as proof of the earlier theory being completely "wrong" ([[ScienceIsWrong and thus, so is science]]), in reality the new data actually builds upon the old theory, forming a more complete but still incomplete theory. Simply put, ''being incomplete does not immediately prove any theory wrong.'' Gravity is a good example of this, with Newton's model still being correct to a very high degree at the speeds and masses observable by an unaided person, with quantum and relativity theory only adding more precision to size and speed scales only recently observable.
That said, however, the theory of gravity according to Newton indicates that gravity is actually a type of force which increases proportionally to the size of the object in question, while quantum and relativity theory implying that what we comprehend as the force of gravity is actually these masses causing the fabric of space to "bend" - to put it simply - around it. However, this is just a different way of looking at gravity. So obviously a new set of explanations for a particular phenomenon doesn't just add on to a previous one, but revises our understanding of it.
To combat some of this confusion of terminology, RichardDawkins invent the word "{{UsefulNotes/theorum}}" to distinguish between the core knowledge of science (evolution, heliocentrism, and the Earth being round) from both other scientific theories and the layman's conception of "theory." "Theorum" as a word has failed to catch on among scientists.
Compare WindmillPolitical: Depending on the setting and context, this trope can be for those who believe in gravity, those who don't, or those who believe in something else that the author is poking fun at by comparing it to gravity.
----