Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Just a Theory?
From reading a couple different posts, it seems like we may not have a good working definition of what a theory is. What is a theory and is it different in science from a theory on TV? IS Einstein's Theory of Relativity not as important or reliable because it is only a theory? What about the Theory of Evolution, do the same rules apply?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
In the American Heritage Dictionary, Second Edition a theory is: "An assumption or guess based on limited information or knowledge" and "Abstract reasoning; speculation."
To me this means it's our best guess from what we have at the moment. It's not provable. Most of science has theory in it, which often contradicts another theory in another branch. Micro-science and Macro-science seems to always contradict eachother.
Is Einstein's Theory of Relativity not as important? As important as what? There isn't a comparison. Is his theory as important as the theory of the Big Bang? Pick one and there's a small chance your right.
I don't remember if I read this in the book or not but I think a theory is something that a person comes up with based off of what they know and they work to try and prove their theory. While I was reading the book, I found an interesting quote that made me think a little bit. "Once in a great while, a few times, in history, a human mind produces an observation so acute and unexpected that people can't quite decide which is the more amazing-the fact or the thinking of it" (48). I was just wondering if there has been anyone, recently, that has done this.
A theory is essentialy a well educated guess based on attained knowledge and research. A theory isn't a concrete fact, but it is usually the best estimate we have for any given idea that we are unsure of. Theories can be proven or disproven over time depending upon when enough evidence is gathered for or contrary to the theory. As of now Einstein's theory of relativity hasn't had as much evidence or time to be researched as the Theory of Evolution, but it doesn't mean it is wrong.
I think that the quote Elese found gives a definition of how a theory is formed, and therefore what it is. As part of the quote states “… a human mind produces an observation so acute and unexpected that people can’t quite decide which is more amazing-the fact or the thinking of it”(48). If a human observes something and can prove it true to the best of their ability, and then have belief that it could apply to more than just one aspect of life, it is a theory. Is a theory any less important and reliable because it is a theory? No, although a theory has not been proved, it provides the opportunity to discover something new and move forward in life.
In science lingo, a theory is something that has almost been accepted as fact. It has, through hundreds of trials, been repeatedly proven- and never disproven. However, in the increasingly cloudy world of quantum/cosmic physics, the complexity of some theories seems to bar them from ever being empirically "proven."
The same is true with the Theory of Evolution- no scientific evidence points against it, and what we do know points in its favor- if a little inexplicably at times. The fact that this theory in particular is repeatedly attacked in our cultural environment does not mean that scientifically less sound, and in fact one might wonder the rate of scientific progress if all theories were attacked and examined with such vigor.
A theory is a hypothesis that is experimented on a fair amount of times for it to be almost called a fact. Taken from facts already known, a theory can be concluded to be practically true until proven false. A theory can also be looked at as an idea or explanation of something but has not been proven to be entirely, under all circumstances, true. When the theory is proven to be positively accurate, then it is known now as a fact. Theories come in all areas of life, not just science. A theory can be complex such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity or the Theory of Evolution in which scientists spend a large amount of time testing and retesting experiments in order to come up with a theory. Theories can also be a simple as a girl coming up with the theory that guys just truly will never understand girls from her watching and learning from her boyfriends, brother’s, friends and so on. None the less all theories come from countless experiments, observations, and facts. They will withstand the title of a theory until they are either proven true or proven false.
I think it's interesting that Bryson hasn't (by page 126 at least) commented on people that disagree with Einstein, since his theory is just a theory after all. If you read A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking you get a totally different point of view as he seems to disagree with or criticize Einstein at times. (Even though in all honesty, I never got more than 20 pages into that book...)
But I don't think we can really answer the question of whether its being a theory discredits its importance or not. If so many scientists agree with him, the more likely it seems to be fact. On the other hand, there are previously widely believed theories that have been proven wrong. For example, most scientists (even Newton) believed the luminiferous ether was real until the 1880s (page 117).
Theories can be derived from almost any sort of evidence. As Sandy said- theories throughout science often contradict one another- and cannot entirely be proven. If they could- they would be called facts not theories. How can a theory be proven? Often theories explain things that are too large to be measured. That is why there is so much room for disagreement. I think that theories are just as important as facts- they just are more difficult to prove.
A theory is one way of thinking about or explaining a scientific phenomenon-something that cannot be proven. A valid or accepted theory is supported by substantial scientific evidence and is not contradicted by substaintial evidence. Gravity is a theory, along with Evolution, Big Bang, and the whole debate on whether the moon was created from cosmic debris or when a comet or asteroid hit the earth.
As I was reading page 147 today I had the notion that sometimes a theory is brought upon by a need to understand a concept. Bryson vividly depicts how frustrating the concept of quantum physics is to the point that even Einstein didn't sit well with it (146). Then while describing the strong force he says, "That's why the nuclei of atoms are so compacted and dense...the strong force just can't hold on to all the protons" (147). It seems like sometimes scientists are so determined to find the whys of our world, like why there is so much room between the end of an atom and the nucleus, they will depend on any theory that will fit the circumstances. (I am in no way trying to demean the theory of strong and weak forces. I'm just trying to make an observation about theories in general.)
A theory is the building block to finding the truth. It's what one comes up with based on prior knowledge and experimentation that they strive to prove. Often in science, theories are taken as fact...but are we allowed to do that? Are we allowed to claim that a theory is truth? What if we had taken Catastrophists' theories for what they were (pg 70) or for that matter the uniformitarians? Theories are an idea, an educated guestamate (sp?) and while they're valuable, they are simply building blocks to learning what is true.
A theory is an idea arrived from speculation or conjecture. A theory is not necessarily true or false. It is an idea. That means it needs more evidence to be considered a fact. It seems like there are always ways to prove and disprove theories. For example, it seems like people who believe in the theory of evolution can find ways to prove it, and the people who don’t believe in the theory of evolution can find ways to disprove it. All theories hold the same importance. They are all just theories until someone can find more evidence to support that the theory is a fact.
Post a Comment