.When did science change the definitions of fact from repeatable experiments to mathematical theory?

Question

Examples being Orbital Mechanics (observation) Big Bang (math only)( yes i know we can do observations that will fit the THEORY but that is not proof unless we can fill in all of the holes :expanding or contracting ?) It seems that we have slid deeply down the gotta have an answer to all things slope ( and yes i know that this is a perception but if you are not a practitioner then you must rely on popular publications we can't all follow a mathimatical proof published in Science)

I hate the people with no e-mail link !!! Richard I can prove gravity with no math and i can do the same with thousands of other things its not the existence of something that math is proving its the THEORY THAT WE USE TO EXPLAIN IT

and Juan science is provindg old science wrong on a regular basis ( the ever expanding atom from solid core to a flurry of particles observed particles that the math did not predict at the time)

Alan you define the language but in the real world it is defined by usage and not 'book' definitions witness the word GAY definition or not it is used to descibe anything but homosexual ( "a gay (old ?) night on the town" sure has changed in my lifetime)

insert "not used" sorry

Answer 1

There are unfortunately scientist who are careless with the use of the word "theory" as much as there are fundamentalists who are anxious to also confuse people with a different definition of "theory".

In science "theory" is a well tested and established way of explaining how things behave and why they behave the way they do.

The Theory of Evolution is a well tested and established way of explaining how species are developed and change. It is central to all aspects of modern biology. Fundamentalist, who, from ignorance or attempts to confuse people, define theory to be something unproven or unverified and still very much in question and unsettled. They attempt to confuse people who also use the word "theory" the way they do. Their objective is to get people so confused that they will stop thinking and just believe what they are told to believe. They also try to play different religions off against each other and get people fearful and hate each other. They are not honest people. They live off of ignorance, fear, and hate.

Like I said, scientists add to the confusion when they also use "theory" in an unscientific manner. When some theoritical physicist talk about "String Theory" they are misusing the word "theory" in an unscientific way. String theory is only a string idea. It is not even a String hypothesis that could be tested yet. Perhaps one of these days it will be tested but no one has figured out yet how to do that.

Mathematicians use the word "theory" is a slightly different way and also use the word "proof" while scientist use the word "verified" to mean something similar.

Inductive reasoning in a posteriori experiments cannot claim a "proof" as Karl Popper, the New Zealander philosopher pointed out, Science is not mathematics, which can get by with a priori logic. But science has the process of validation, which is good enough to construct useful models of the world. And, yes, science is open ended, in that we will probably always be able to improve on it and discover new things and come up with better and better models.

Filling in all the "holes" of a theory is not necessary to see that it is a useful and necessary framework to present and orientate related knowledge. Just because there are missing links between two stages over the evolution of that species does not mean that the explaination of how evolution of that species occurred is not valid and useful. Nor does it imply that there is some meddling supernatural force at play. Nothing indicates any supernatural force at play. And never has, other than wishful thinking and childish, primitive world views.

Systems based on beliefs and wishes have neither the a priori proofs of mathematics nor the a posteriori experiments, testing, and verification of science. They have nothing other than brutal authority and silly unjustifiable absolutes to construct their beliefs on.

Relying on popular science publications can be risky as they are sometimes written by people who don't have a good feel for science or who want to blow things up so they seem more important than they really are so they can sell more copies of their magazines or papers.

One final point. Good science does not pretend that it is describing reality. It builds models of reality and that can get pretty close to reality. But it is a philosophical error to say that science is recreating reality. That is an error called "reification", where you confuse the model of reality with reality. That can create problems if you make that error. Good science doesn't make that error. Religion and beliefs ALWAY makes that error.

Answer 2

Math is used as a tool within science much as a screwdriver is used in fixing a car. The proper use for the screwdriver is tightening or loosening screws, but you can also do other things with it. You could pry something loose, use it like a chisel, or mix some vodkya into some orange juice.

In science you use the mathematics in what way you see fit to get the job done. In physics you'll often drop cubed terms because they are going te be very small. And that's completely OK, we don't always carry all that extra precision, often we can't even measure it.

That said, much of physics is very mathematical. Results in some of the big particle accelerators these days are eked out with the faintest of statistical evidence. And theoretical physics, well it is way out there!

Here's where I take issue. What would you say is the difference between what really happens, and a theory that predicts every observable phenomena to whatever precision you can measure? The two would look the same. Or rather, they would be indistinguishable to the extent that you can measure. So if you describe some physical process in a way that is equivalent in all visible ways to the way that I describe that same process, it is kind of a wash as to which is the "true" way that the process works.

This is of course, a philosophical point. In real life theories are accepted and rejected based upon how well they agree with observables.

Answer 3

How can you be so close and yet not get it? The definition of theory given is correct if poorly worded. "Proof" in the strict technical sense exists only in mathematics were an established statement is based on previous established statements or axioms. Empirical science cannot prove things in the mathematical sense however a theory can accumulate so much evidence in it's favour that it becomes universally accepted. Evolution can be proven wrong by a contradictory result, falsifiability is a hallmark of a scientific theory, that does NOT mean that it has been proven wrong. Second, wouldn't DNA change Darwin's theory? Yes, it did. It improved it immensely, and today evidence from molecular and genetic methods is so absolutely beyond definitive it cannot be denied. By any reasonable standard (unless you are unwaveringly holding on to the mathematical definition), evolution is proven.

Answer 4

Actually scientists understand the difference between fact and theory and they are very clear on defining big bang as theory for the very reason that there is no experimental proof. It's mass publications that confuse the issue.
Of course there is the religious counterarguments that have to be discarded because they have neither evidence nor theory. Just the desire to believe.

Answer 5

I, for one, have encountered no evidence of any such change, math was, and is, a tool for defining and explaining facts, as well as finding the most promising directions in which to look for facts. Questions like yours, which assume facts not in evidence, are why so many people prefer math to popular speculation. Outside of math you can't prove anything, all you can do is go with that which is most probably correct and work from there.

Answer 6

You're completely wrong. In science, no theory is ever proven, and no theory is "fact". All theory is subject to further testing and verification.

It's just that some theories explain so much so well that it would be perverse to withhold one's provisional consent.

Answer 7

That got changed as soon as someone realized the Big Bang and evolution aren't factual.