Why do some people consider adapting a theory to fit the facts wrong?

Question

A scientist - say Newton - comes up with an idea - say gravity. He does many experiments and concludes that this force does in fact exist. He observes the facts - things fall, thrown objects fall in a parabolic pattern, etc. He puts all of this together and forms the THEORY of gravity, meaning that this is how he thinks it works, and that, although he can't prove it, nothing we as a species know about the way things work contradicts that theory.

Now lets wait a couple hundred years. Another scientist - say, Einstein - learns some stuff. the stuff he has learned is fact... like things falling. He cannot deny these facts, but they - for once - do NOT fit into Newton's theory. Did Einstein toss out Newton's theory og gravitation? No, he changed it. He took the known facts and made a theory that worked with everything we as a species know about the way things work. This did not negate the theory of gravity - it refined it to make it more true.

Why is that a bad thing?

Alleninthehills, gravity is still a fact. The change was in our understanding of how it works. The same applies for yesterday's news about evolution.

Answer 1

It's only bad to people who feel they have to have the answer to everything. These are the people that say things like "the telephone is the devil, those pictures in the tv are the devil, cell phones are the devil, computers are the devil, etc., etc." when ever a new invention is made available to the public and it changes the way people live their lives.

Everyone else can live with changes and can incorporate new findings into our lives. We're the ones that try the new stuff, thus encouraging scientists and engineers to further refine their ideas, driving innovation that eventually makes computers smaller, faster, more powerful and less expensive.

Of course, over time the people who rejected the new stuff have kids who grow up with the new stuff all around them, but still carry the biases instilled by their parents against innovation. They accept what's there because it was there as they grew up, but reject what's new because just like the innovations of their parents time, today's innovation is new to them.

Does religion play a part? Only so much as the views held by the religious leader that feeds them their beliefs. If he/she says that a thing is bad and backs it up with scripture, no matter how vague, the followers will accept that view as truth. If the religious leader embraces change, then so will her/his followers. In this regard, the religious leader acts as the parent in the relationship, giving guidance to his/her children and instilling her/his values into them, teaching them to embrace them as their own.

Science isn't bad... innovation isn't bad... people simply get locked into a way of thinking that makes them think it's bad. We see the question every day, if science is bad, why do theists use modern technology? The answer: they grew up with it and can't/don't know how to live without it. It's CHANGE that they truly have a problem with. Having to embrace a new way of thinking when they've invested so much into the beliefs that they already hold.





Edit: alleninthehills, the article you're referring to is not new news. The theory that there are several branches instead of one long chain has been being discussed for years. Just because you see an article that says that evolution is being challenged does not mean that the new evidence proves the bible. That's like saying that when your mechanic finds out that the fuel pump is causing the problem instead of the transmission you should throw out the car and invest in a flying carpet.

Answer 2

Actually, the news about evolution was nowhere near as unexpected as many people are making out. There have been many theories about the DETAILS of evolution. The basic fact that animals and plants do indeed evolve has not changed one whit. The only real change is to add some evidence to ONE of the theories involving the details.

I never did believe that simple linear pattern which is mentioned in the article that is going the rounds. And neither did a lot of other people. Many people have long held that some of the mechanism of evolution might be competition between two or more early hominids. There might also have been a fair amount of cross-breeding, for all we know.

Answer 3

Theory:
1. A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.
2. A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Law:
1. A statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.
2. A phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon

Huge difference wouldn't you say? And if you look Newton's "Theories" are call called LAWS.

Evolution does qualify as a theory, but is a weak one. It shows weakness at it's very base. The time involved in the creation of a new species is very long. Much to long to have created the giants of the last major ice age from the small rodent like remnants of animal life left on earth after the impact scenario SCIENCE teaches caused the end of the giants of the Jurassic period. Neither have we seen any movement in viruses to take a leap in evolution in the 200 years man has known of their existences to become a higher order of life. Yes they vary but still they remain viruses.. Evolution has no reasonable explanation for life to have move up their ladder as they it has. Here and there they will point to evidence but ignore the gaping hole in what real proven science demonstrates (Paleontology).. Jim

Answer 4

It's due to a bias against the theory. If, for instance, the theory of relativity had to be amended slightly to fit some new piece of evidence, I don't think many people would be citing that as proof that relativity was totally false. On the other hand, with evolution, creationists see it as an excuse to claim it has been disproved.

Answer 5

No. In fact, the way science progresses is by having people continually question the assumptions through new experiments and through new explanations. Of course, those new explanations have to be tested. It is the willingness to throw out or modify even the most cherished ideas that characterizes the strengh of science. But, any new ideas have to explain at least as much as the previous ideas have. They also have to be testable.

Answer 6

They take dogma and say it's unchangable. They then assume scientistis must do the same thing. They believe scientists cling to beliefs out of faith rather than reason. It's just projection. The thing I respect about science is its ability to challenge preconceived notions and search for the truth no matter what.

Answer 7

Very good observation.But it comes down to this,do people want to believe theories or facts?There can be a fact rite in your face and people will still argue till there blue in the face that its not a fact,some people just like to argue.

Answer 8

It is not a bad thing. It just increases the percentages of predictability which makes the theory more viable.

Answer 9

It is correct if one desires to advance knowledge. Indeed, it is the only way. Unfortunately, some people do not want to do that, for various reasons. I could write a book about this.

Answer 10

Science and knowledge is always growing and expanding.

Unlike the bible which is stuck in a past that was 1500 years ago.