Questions for Creationists (part 12) would you answer this?

Question

How do you think scientists would rank the terms FACT, HYPOTHESIS, LAW, and THEORY?


Rank them in order of impotance from "most important" to "least important."

I will give the actual answer in about a half an hour, so keep checking back.

Thanks

OK 17 minuets, 15 responses and NO correct answer so far.

OK, 16 responses, no right answers...

Scientists rearrange the list as follows:

MOST IMPORTANT
Theories
Laws
Hypothesis
Facts
LEAST IMPORTANT

According to the National Academy of Sciences, a theory is definied as "a well-substantiated explaination of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences and tested hypotheses" (National Academy of Sciences 1998: 7).


It is no wonder the creationists are so confused if they do not understand the basics of science.
I will write more soon.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is considered to be one of the strongest scientific theories in existance.

Facts are confirmed observations, but can shown not to be true.

Hypotheses are statements of the relationships among things, often taking the form of "If.... then.... " statements.

Laws are empirical generalizations. They state what, under certian conditions, will happen. Scientific laws can change or not hold undersome conditions. But as descriptive generalizations, they rarely EXPLAIN natural phenomena.

Theories explain laws and facts.

Looks like ♥Servant_... edited her response AFTER I put the answer down.

OK, I'm getting a lot of folks writting to me on this one (glad to see the interest) so here's some more:

Facts we are all familiar with. You know many facts such as living things are composed of cells; gravity causes things to fall; the Earth revolves around the sun, continents move across the surface of the earth, ect. Facts are useful and important, but thery are far from being the most important elements of a scientific explaination. Facts can change and do not always hold true: gravity does not cause things to fall in space, it was once thought that humans had 22 pairs of chromosomes, after better techniques were developed it turned out we were wrong - there are 23. An observation doesn't tell you much about HOW something works. It is the first step towards knowledge.

The word "theory" is perhaps the most misunderstood word in science. Of course is does NOT mean the same thing as it does to a lay person (a hunch or a guess).

To explain something scientifically requires an interconnected combination of laws, tested hypotheses and other theoreis. This reliance upon inferential reasoning is the hallmark of theorizing.

Now, to be honest, the information I'm presenting here is very, very simpifilied, for which I apologize to philosophers of science.

But look at it this way - Theory building is the GOAL of science. If facts were most important, scientist might as well go out and measure and weigh every pebble and rock on a beach. The real goal is to describe HOW the rocks got there.

Theories do rest on facts, facts that are changeable. But to overturn a well established theory, you would need some incredible facts (e.g. rocks might start falling up tomorrow; the earth may stop spinning suddenly then start again, you might find a human fossil in Cambrian sediments - if any of these were discovered as facts, you would have to radically change your theory). If you are really interested in this, I suggest you read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," by Thomas Kuhn.

Answer 1

I'm pretty sure they're all on equal footing, man...

Answer 2

Certainly scientists used to have a theory of science where a hypothesis became theory when there was a bit of evidence and then became fact when it was verified. When I told my mates (in the eighties) of Popper's theory of science where nothing "becomes" fact they thought it was utterly ridiculous.

Twenty years on Popper is becoming mainstream (refered to with admiration by Hawkings). Under his system theories posit universal laws. These are NEVER verified, but can be falsified. In fact they need to be falsifiABLE or they're not science. One theory gets falsified that then gets replaced by another which explains all that the falsified theory explained AND MORE (viz the data the old theory got wrong).

So scientists these days are likely only to use the word "fact" when referring to specific instances (ie not general statements).

They are also likely to use the terms "law" and "theory" for the same types of things. Eg Newton's LAW of gravity got replaced by Einstein's THEORY of relativity. Both are actually the same type of thing - a description of a universal aspect of nature.

"Hypothesis" is unlikely to be used.


As for evolution I would say that it is:

1 A theory, a model of a natural process.
2 (In respect of a evolutionary view of the origin of species) A historical hypothesis (I would use the word) based on both a theory (the theory of evolution) and facts (fossil evidence etc). It couldn't possibly be a theory in Popper's system as it cannot be describing a general law - it is describing one instance. Popper called it a "metaphysical research programme". BTW he also described it as "true".

To discuss "THE" theory of evolution is a mistake. There is A THEORY/LAW of evolution which argues that given certain criteria (inheritability with variance and natural selection) a change in species will happen. This is a general law, it argues "if X and Y then Z", potentially applicable over the whole universe and in all times.

There is also the HISTORICAL HYPOTHESIS which explains the single instance facts (current diversity, the fossil record, similarities between animals) by means of the theory/law of evolution.

Answer 3

I guess you mean what is the most for sure thing?
if so then:
Fact
Law
Theory
Hypothesis

Fact should be something proven over and over again in the lab

Law is a function of multiple facts working together

Theory is something of an idea with some data to back it up but not enough to call it a Law or Fact

Hypothesis is something that is an idea but no data behind it yet usually because the experiment to prove it has not been done or cannot be done or whatever reason

Answer 4

Well, scientists treat the "THEORY" of Evolution like it is both scientific LAW and universal FACT. They even teach it in our schools for God's sake... AND IT'S A THEORY!

In other words... you, or any scientist can rank the order how ever they wish, it makes no difference in the way the scientific community will use it.

Peace.

Answer 5

Fact... as best as can be determined...because it seems to hold up and is repeatable and has proven reliable and usable.
Theory... as a valid tool for further scientific enquirey
Hypothesis... as an idea that might be worth checking out

There are no "laws" in science, as understood by man, as there is no way to tell if what is known will hold up over time. Mankind has not enough experience in science...and no authority... to decree man's understanding to be "law"

All science is from God... thus all science is good... it is mankinds missuse of God's science that is often bad.

Answer 6

An interesting point to me would be how do these definitions compare with definitions of the same words from 50 years ago. I noticed in my interactions with evoultionists that they seem to have rewritten the dictionary and changed meanings to suit what they believe. A theory was always an unproven hypothisist but today evolutionists claim that a theory is a proven fact and then claim creationists are wrong because we don't accept the updated definition.

Answer 7

Fact, Law, Theory, Hypothesis

That is the order I would rate them. Scientist my feel they are of all the same importance.

According to Websters Dictionary:
Fact: the truth, reliable information

Law: a code or system of conduct established by custom

Hypothesis: theory based on fact, put forth for further testing

Theory: conjecture or speculation; a body of fundamental or abstract principles underlying an art, science, ect.; proposed explanation

Answer 8

1. Law
2. Fact
3. Hypothesis
4. Theory

Answer 9

Law, Fact,Hypothesis and theory and evolution by the way is only a theory

Answer 10

I rate them this way
Law because it is what it is
Fact because it's proven to be true
Theory because its proven to be not false
Hypothesis is an idea, lets see if its true. This one could be 1 because its a motivater to seek truth.


But you are looking for the answer;Theory, Law, Hypothesis, Fact

Because scientists consider the Theory of evolution to be the most important theory of all. Law because you need law to prove hypothesis, then hypothesis because its something to prove, and fact because its already been proven true.

Answer 11

...

Law- What our human minds have established as certain and foundational

Fact- What our limited human minds can see and percieve as real and tangible

Theory- A possible, unproven idea made by men to describe something that is either unprovable or yet to be proven

Hypothesis- An educated guess of why something exsists/happens/etc

Is there a point to this?