English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

When I was a student in grade school, I was taught that a theory was a plausible explanation for phenomena which we could not be absolutely certain about. Many years later, I was in a college science course when my prof announced that just because a theory has not been proven that that does not mean the theory is not a solid fact. So which way is it?

2007-01-07 14:44:37 · 6 answers · asked by Unorthodox 3 in Science & Mathematics Other - Science

Hey KYKYGOO, I wasn't trying to spell possible, I was using an entirely different word. That word is "plausible", which means "seeming to be probable; appearing to be trustworthy or believable". Thanks for trying...

2007-01-07 16:40:47 · update #1

6 answers

A theory is a plausible explanation for phenomena that is *supported by evidence*. The more evidence, the more it approaches the status of accepted *fact*. But it is never considered absolutely "proven" because you can never eliminate the possiblity of one of the following:
1) A piece of solid evidence that is inconsistent with the theory;
2) A better (simpler) theory that explains the same evidence.

So I would not say that a theory ever becomes "proven fact" .... but rather that the theory is always on approach to being *accepted* as fact, the more evidence is produced.

For example, the Copernican Theory holds that the earth orbits the sun. The evidence for that theory is so overwhelming that it is *accepted* as fact. However, a true scientist still calls it a "theory" not a "fact".

The same holds for ALL theories in science.

2007-01-07 15:08:21 · answer #1 · answered by secretsauce 7 · 1 0

Well, it is a little more than a plausible explanation, as it is empirically supported and naturally explains a series of factual phenomenon. I guess you could say the theory of gravity is a " fact ", in that sense. Theories can be amended and sometimes overthrown and scientists do not " prove " things, but rather show a statistical, almost " sure thing " with some of the better known theories.

2007-01-07 14:52:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.

It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.

Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.

Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs. 1

2007-01-07 21:49:17 · answer #3 · answered by brady ewart 3 · 1 0

Good question.

A scientific theory is a (simplified) abstract (in words or by math) model of a natural process, that reasonably describes the process' behavior and can be used to make reasonably accurate predictions about the process' result.

No point having a theory if it does't let you predict the outcome of the phenomena.

2007-01-07 14:56:12 · answer #4 · answered by Radzewicz 6 · 0 0

Its both because it is a *possible*(you spelt that wrong btw) explanation meaning it could be a fact . Alot of hypothesis are based on theorys. . In turn, theories may be redefined as new hypotheses are tested

2007-01-07 14:51:49 · answer #5 · answered by kykygoo 3 · 0 1

a theory is proven and repeatable which you are confusing for hypothesis which is someones idea.

2007-01-07 14:47:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers