Can a scientific theory be based on probability?

Question

The science teacher and myself (a social studies teacher) are arguing about whether or not a theory in science could be based on the probability of an event happening. In this case we're looking at the probability that life exists outside our solar system based on the likelihood that there exists an environment like ours that could support life. In this case can probability or statistical information be used to write a theory that life exists outside our solar system?

Answer 1

This is extremely complicated for a few reasons. Let's say for example that only physics exist. Probability is only a tool to try and measure or predict what might happen in the future. Therefore, I say it's dangerous to base a scientific theory on probability, but then again, it's only a theory.

You can go two ways with probability...
If everyone flips 2,000 pennies in their lifetime, most people would agree that you would get a fair scatter plot of heads and tails right? But, that's not what science says. If you live in the now and you DO NOT believe in the future, then every penny flip has a 50% chance to land heads or tails everytime. Which means it is just as plausable that someone could flip heads everytime for the rest of their life and they would have the same probability as someone who flipped 1,100 heads and 900 tails which is the same probability as someone who flipped all tails etc. We must assume THAT THE FUTURE MUST EXIST IN ORDER TO BELIEVE IN PROBABILITY (or at least what probability has presented us). Most people flip a scatter of heads and tails due to hundreds of thousands of permutations of flips (one could bell curve it out if they want). So that 1 person could still be the 1 who flips all heads, but that's not the same probability as someone who flips half heads, half tails. There is literally hundreds of thousands of combinantions of heads and tails. From our own observations, we know that someone is more likely to get a good scatter than they are to get all heads or all tails. Therefore, the future must exist. IF all things have already happened and everything that will happen has already happened (time is parallel, fate exists) then probability is valuable.

With that stated, if you believe in parallel time, then probability could technically support a scientific theory like this. But again, how do we prove time is parallel.

Answer 2

Depends on the definition of theory that you're using. Theories need only suspicion to be created. If you suspect something then you have a basis for a theory, or perhaps many theories.
When you say "write a theory" are you defining a theory as thesis? In which case I recommend against writing such a definitive statement without proof or facts.

Answer 3

you can cite quantum mechanics as validation of probability being a basis upon whcih to formulate a theory and conclusion. Quantum mechanics itself notes that on the smallest level particles behave according to probability. Ever do that light withthe two slits in a sheet experiment? That's quantum mechanics. Light particles react differently to there being two slits even if fired individually. Although they must pass through one or the other actually having the other one there can affect ones going through the other slit. Probability is a real affect on the universe. I'll leave your theory itself up to you but if that's your obstacle you can use that as convincing argument.

Answer 4

in a sense, all theories are based on probabilities since they are all based on observations, and there's some probability that what we observe is merely the likely thing to happen, as opposed to the necessary thing which will happen and that the next observation will violate the theory which was based on the previous observations.

Answer 5

no scientific evidence must be able to be studied and observed and must be able to be repeated therefore there is no scietific evidence for extrterrestial life same thing for evolution