What is a theory and what is a scientific truth?

Question

In response to my earlier question about evolution and global warming, I read answers that both are theories. My question is, what is a theory? Is it not what does not have evidence/ proof yet, but can be tested? In that regard, Evolution simply CANNOT be a theory, since it has proof enough that it exists and happens. Creationism or the existence of God's design can be a "theory" at best. Global warming also to the best of my knowledge has become a "fact" rather than a theory, looking at the melting of the ice caps in the polar regions. Or does we need actual changes from a monkey population to a human population for evolution to be deemed a fact? Then again people will call it a "Miracle" of creation!

Answer 1

There really is no such thing as a scientific fact.

For example, there is a theory that says the Earth revolves around the Sun. It's held up until now, time and time again. But that doesn't mean it's graduated from a theory. One day the Earth will not revolve around the Sun and the theory will be disproved.

Answer 2

Hard evidence is the only thing that could ever be called a fact -- something that holds true observer to observer. The existance of a fossil is a fact.

A hypothesis is an explanation of exidence. If it is tested, by confirmation of a prediction made by the hypothesis, it becomes a theory.

We have never seen a uranium (or any other) nucleus, but the same ores yield a metal with the same physical properties. It's a well founded theory that uranium exists. It relies on Dalton's atomic theory, and some other theories to say that.

Evolution has been tested and the mechanisms demonstrated. Since gravitons and gravity waves are yet to be confirmed, evolution is ahead of the theory of gravity. Anatomic evolution has predicted fossil finds and genetic relatedness. The confirmation of those predictions raises evolution from hypothesis to theory.

"Scientific" Creationism is a hypothesis. It makes no predictions since is says what's done is done. It can never become a theory.

Global warming is a theory, because it makes predictions that have been tested. There is evidence of cyclic climactic change. You can look at an uptrend and say it will never come back down, but without a mechanism, it's just a guess. There are sound mechanisms proposed -- many of these are hypotheses. Some have been tested, and rise to the level of theory (e.g. greenhouse gas theory). Enough has been proven to make global warming a theory No one has proven that we are not simply on the upwards part of the cycle. One good volcanic explosion, and we could be back in an ice age. If it happens, the theory is disproven.

Answer 3

A fact would be something that is observable. For example, it is a fact that life shows considerable variation. A theory is an explaination that can be tested using observable facts and is subject to deniability (i.e. it is possible to disprove the theory based on observed facts). A hypothesis is a conjecture as to what the theory may be that has not yet been tested against facts.

A theory can never be completely proven because you can never test 100% of all possibilities and the next test might possibly disprove the theory. A fact is a fact and can be observed directly.

An explaination that cannot be tested cannot be a theory, it is simply an act of faith.

Global warming, at least over the last 200 years is a fact.

The cause of global warming being increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels is a theory, but it is only poorly supported by observable data.

The cause of global warming being increased solar activity is also a theory and is in my opinion better supported by observable data.

Answer 4

You are confusing "evidence" with "proof".

According to logic, if a scientist says "According to my theory, X, Y, and Z will take place", two possible outcomes exist:

X, Y, and Z all take place: The theory may - or may not - be correct. (X, Y, and Z may have been caused by something entirely different than the scientist theorized.)
X, Y, and Z do not all take place (at least one does not): The theory must be false.

Basically, a theory cannot be proven by its success. Newton's theory of gravitation worked great - if any theory could have been 'proven' by its correct predictions, you would think it would have. But Newton's theory said light was not affected by gravity - and observation showed that it is. As a result, we know that Newton was wrong. We can still use Newtonian physics if we want a good approximation - as long as we are within the areas where it predicts well. If we go into areas where Newton's theory makes incorrect predictions, we have to use Einstein's theory.

Basically, any statement saying "X happened because..." is a theory. There are an infinite number of unknown causes, and you cannot conclusively determine that X was in fact caused by what you think. The best you can do is make a good, solid theory which is verified by evidence. It will never be a "fact".

Facts, on the other hand, are observations, and do not tell us "why" something happened. For example, "The temperature yesterday in Kansas City was 63°F at 4:15 PM central daylight time". Or, "Yellow light has a wavelength of 570–590 nm". These are facts.

If you have a good theory, and it makes accurate predictions, great. Go with it; but simple probability tells us that, with an infinite number of possible causes, the theory is probably wrong. If it makes accurate predictions, use it to approximate reality; if (or when?) you find that it does not make accurate predictions, find a better theory.

Answer 5

The confusion lies in the use of words and their different meanings outside science...

Basically, we know that some things happen - we can prove they happen, we can observe that they happen, but we cannot, from observation alone, say that we know why it happens. This is where the theory comes in.

A scientific theory is basically a set of observations and proposed causes of something ~

The theory of gravity proposes that mass attracts mass and large quanitities of mass attract smaller quantities that are close to it (simply put obviously). This doesn't mean that it is entirely true and it doesn't mean that it is simply "one theory". It is built on observation - predictions based on tests that have ultimately gone according to plan.

Similarly, the theory of evolution does NOT propose that evolution happened, we know it happened because we've seen it in lab tests and in fossil evidence (despite what people will have you believe). The theory goes into WHY it happens - genetic mutation, natural selection, etc. The theory of evolution proposes that benefits obtained through genetic mutation are kept in the gene pool due to the individuals that developed the benefit had a higher chance of survival and were able to breed more which ultimately lead to speciation over a long period of time.

Simply put, yes the facts are there, we have seen it happening, we need a theory to explain why and how it happened.

Answer 6

Well, according to science, a "Law" or fact is actually very rare. The idea is that in order to officially call something factual there has to be a preposterous amount of evidence supporting it as the only way that the universe can function. Since there is an extremely small chance that evolution might not be truth, it will probably never be called a Law or fact. This does not mean that it's questionable, only that all questions would have to be ruled out in order for it to be officially fact. Basically, as long as people cannot prove that there is not a god that just snapped his/her fingers and made everything instantaneously as it is (no one can ever PROVE this definitively), evolution will remain a theory. Fortunately for science, there is way more evidence supporting evolution and the Big Bang and such than any other theories competing with them, so we can say that while they are theories, they are about as close to being facts as they can be, considering the small likelihood that they are not.

Basically, it's all semantics. Scientists like to be definite people, and as long as they cannot be definitely certain of something, they are unwilling to call it fact. It's about the continuing quest to get things right, and to keep searching for truth, and to not just accept easy answers. It's what makes science science, and I, for one, put my faith in science's unrelenting search for truth over any other easy answer providing ideas or philosophies.

Answer 7

A theory is a logical argument explaining an observed occurrence, and is based on facts. Scientific truth is a misnomer, because even Scientific Laws are relegated to specific sets of conditions, and are void when those conditions are not met. Hypotheses require less proof than theories, and can sometimes be based on "guesses". Ideas like Creationism are based on beliefs and do not enter the realm of science, since they do not require experimentation or other valid scientific methods to be accepted by their proponents.

Answer 8

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them

Answer 9

Scientists call their ideas theories, there are proven and unproven ones. Religious nutjobs make use of that to try to establish that scientists don't know anything.

The difference is that scientists can prove their theories and religious fundamentalist nutters can't.

Basically a scientist says 'anything I didn't actually observe and record is theoretical'. Religious nutters say 'anything you can't absolutely prove isn't true is theoretical'. So they say one is as valid as the other.

The difference is that since I have never shot anyone I can only theorize that my 45 would actually kill them. A religious nutter might theorize that his god would save him if I tried. But I'm willing to bet that my theory works a lot more often in practice than theirs, pretty much 1:0.

Basically God and creationism are used as a way of saying "oh I don't understand, God must have done it". Well, these idiots don't understand their taxes either, God doesn't fill in their 1040.

I wash my hands of the religious, they are abdicating their responsibility to understand and deal with their world. But it's so much easier than doing something about being the most profligate country in the world.

Answer 10

Fact has proof. and works every time. A theory has evidence usually supporting and contradicting the idea.