Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scientific Theory For Dummies
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 1 of 57 (553580)
04-04-2010 12:43 AM


I'm sure there are a lot of threads on the nature of science, scientific theory, scientific inquiry, etc. But after years of discussing these things, there are still long time members that show little understanding of how scientific theory works.
The frustration doesn't end in this forum. Out there, scientists like Shermer and Dawkins who have taken upon themselves to educate the public also run into the same frustration that we do here. The general attitude seems to be that people are too ignorant to understand how science works or that they are too attached to their religious beliefs.
People tend to get caught up with scientific jargon. Everytime someone asks something about science, he gets hit by long montrous posts. I'm a reading addict (I read several books a week) and even I get a headache looking through those posts.
I started this thread with some hope that we could explain what a scientific theory is without bringing out the jargon. The purpose of this thread isn't to discuss how we should explain science to dummies. The point is for us to discuss what a scientific theory is in a language simple enough that can't be obfuscated by dummies. I've chosen specifically the topic of scientific theory because after years of discussing these issues I've noticed that most people out there don't have a first clue what scientific theory is. Most seem to think it's comparable to religious doctrine.
If this PT goes through, I'll start by explaining what scientific models are and their unrelatedness to doctrine.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 04-04-2010 7:34 AM Taz has replied
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 04-08-2010 9:38 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 15 by marc9000, posted 04-12-2010 7:32 PM Taz has replied
 Message 40 by kbertsche, posted 04-18-2010 10:57 PM Taz has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 57 (553615)
04-04-2010 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
04-04-2010 12:43 AM


Hi Taz,
I can see where you're going, but could you rewrite para 3 to be more generic, maybe say something along the lines of a sledge hammer not being the right tool to pound a nail because you'll just end up with holes in the wall.
You've also got two different topics. I'm a big believer in focus and brevity in discussion threads whenever possible, with the highest priority on making sure the key point or points are addressed, but the tactical errors of the science side is one topic, while clearly describing theory and the scientific process is another. I can see the topics are related, but could you draw them closer together, maybe by saying you want to use explaining science as an exercise for exploring what are the good and bad ways to explain something complicated.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 04-04-2010 12:43 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Taz, posted 04-04-2010 12:22 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied
 Message 4 by Taz, posted 04-04-2010 6:48 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 3 of 57 (553638)
04-04-2010 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
04-04-2010 7:34 AM


I'll get back to you later this afternoon. Go to church now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 04-04-2010 7:34 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 4 of 57 (553700)
04-04-2010 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
04-04-2010 7:34 AM


I edited it.
Added by edit.
I just noticed that I am now as popular as Admin. Woohoo!
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 04-04-2010 7:34 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 5 of 57 (553725)
04-04-2010 8:49 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Scientific Theory For Dummies thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 6 of 57 (554366)
04-07-2010 10:02 PM


Sorry for abandoning my own thead. Family emergency. Boarding plane soon. See you guys in a few days!

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Coyote, posted 04-07-2010 10:25 PM Taz has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 7 of 57 (554372)
04-07-2010 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Taz
04-07-2010 10:02 PM


Theory
Sorry about the family emergency. Hope things turn out well.
I started this thread with some hope that we could explain what a scientific theory is without bringing out the jargon. The purpose of this thread isn't to discuss how we should explain science to dummies. The point is for us to discuss what a scientific theory is in a language simple enough that can't be obfuscated by dummies. I've chosen specifically the topic of scientific theory because after years of discussing these issues I've noticed that most people out there don't have a first clue what scientific theory is. Most seem to think it's comparable to religious doctrine.
To put it as simply as I can, a scientific theory is the current best explanation for a given dataset.
To elaborate a little bit:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. (Source)
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
A theory can be contrasted with an hypothesis:
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.
And finally, there is generally only one theory at time to explain a particular dataset.
There may be several competing hypotheses proposed to explain a particular dataset (abiogenesis, for example), but in that case none has yet risen to the level of a theory.
One last point: In scientific terminology, "theory" does not equate to "guess" as it often does in the vernacular.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 04-07-2010 10:02 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by kbertsche, posted 04-17-2010 3:32 AM Coyote has not replied

  
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 4993 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 8 of 57 (554397)
04-08-2010 12:26 AM


"The most reasonable explanation that encompasses related facts".
the direct opposite, of course, is:
"A subset of related facts leading to an unreasonable explanation".

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 9 of 57 (554548)
04-08-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
04-04-2010 12:43 AM


Explanation, Falsification, Testing, Absence of Contradiction
Hi Taz, hope the problems are resolve soon.
The point is for us to discuss what a scientific theory is in a language simple enough that can't be obfuscated by dummies.
To my mind there are four elements involved in scientific theories:
(1) Explanation:
The theory explains all existing evidence related to the issue
(2) Falsification:
The theory must be capable of being falsified, and falsification tests are proposed (if A is true then B cannot happen)
(3) Testing, Testing, Testing:
The theory leads to new concepts to test that should only occur if the theory is true or that should not occur if the theory is true, and that this is an ongoing process (a scientific hypothesis is untested, a scientific theory is tested and tested and tested, each test passed leads to a new test)
(4) Absence of Contradictory Evidence:
There cannot be any contradictory evidence or the theory is falsified, there cannot be any evidence that the theory does not explain, or the theory is incomplete.
Personally, I think that People generally seem to get the concept of explanation and testing, but that points (2) and (4) are the ones that people who do not understand science have trouble with. These seem similar at first, but there is a difference: (2) arises from testing, from trying to falsify the theory, while (4) can exist independent of testing, and can even predate the theory, and ignoring it means you are starting with a bad theory (or an incomplete theory).
Certainly I have seen a complete failure to understand falsification, time and again, in these debates.
Enjoy.
PS -- responders please note: this is NOT the place to bring up your pet peeve to claim that "theory X is not falsifiable" etc etc etc: start a new thread if you think you have a valid argument. This thread (as stated in the OP) is to discuss the general process, not any specific applications.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 04-04-2010 12:43 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by subbie, posted 04-08-2010 9:57 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 10 of 57 (554550)
04-08-2010 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
04-08-2010 9:38 PM


Naive falsificationism
RAZD writes:
(4) Absence of Contradictory Evidence:
There cannot be any contradictory evidence or the theory is falsified,....
Be careful you don't fall into naive falsificationism with this. I daresay that there hasn't been an hypothesis or theory ever proposed that wasn't contradicted by some observation in its early stages. Hypotheses and theories are modified every day to account for new information that the previous incarnation didn't agree with. In essence, it becomes a judgment whether the seemingly contradictory evidence can be accommodated by a modification, or if the whole thing must be consigned to the dustbin.
I suspect that for any relatively sophisticated theory or hypothesis, it would be unusual for one single piece of contradictory evidence to cause scientists to abandon it.
Edited by subbie, : Subtitle

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 04-08-2010 9:38 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Stagamancer, posted 04-09-2010 3:10 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 4915 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 11 of 57 (554691)
04-09-2010 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by subbie
04-08-2010 9:57 PM


Re: Naive falsificationism
subbie writes:
RAZD writes:
(4) Absence of Contradictory Evidence:
There cannot be any contradictory evidence or the theory is falsified,....
Be careful you don't fall into naive falsificationism with this. I daresay that there hasn't been an hypothesis or theory ever proposed that wasn't contradicted by some observation in its early stages. Hypotheses and theories are modified every day to account for new information that the previous incarnation didn't agree with. In essence, it becomes a judgment whether the seemingly contradictory evidence can be accommodated by a modification, or if the whole thing must be consigned to the dustbin.
I think subbie makes an excellent point here, and I just wanted to add on. The discovery of contradictory evidence does not immediately render a theory false. In the same way that a single datum or experiment cannot "prove" a theory true, one bit of contradictory evidence cannot tear it down. Good theories are ones in which scientists have a high amount of confidence. Contradictory evidence only serves to lessen that confidence. Once it reaches a point where the contradictions outweigh the positive evidence, then the theory is done away with.
A great example of this is the way phylogenetic trees are constructed. Each tree is a hypothesis of the "true phylogeny" that is the relationships between the taxa of focus. Each hypothesis (tree) is tested with the collected data (morphology, molecular sequences, etc). If the same tree results with each data set tested then confidence in that tree grows until it becomes the accepted theory of how those taxa descended from a common ancestor. Once, that tree is well established, it's perfectly possible that new data could be discovered (let's say, a trait not used before is now used to test the tree) that gives a slightly different tree. Taxa A, B, C, and F are in a clade instead of A, B, C, and D. This one thing does not mean your original tree must be treated as complete bunk, it could very well be that there's something odd about that gene (perhaps it's a homoplasy not a homology).
A good theory doesn't have to be a perfect theory, it just has to be the best possible explanation we have right now for the evidence we have on hand.

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by subbie, posted 04-08-2010 9:57 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 04-09-2010 7:08 PM Stagamancer has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 57 (554740)
04-09-2010 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Stagamancer
04-09-2010 3:10 PM


Re: Naive falsificationism
So much for simple explanations eh?
I think subbie makes an excellent point here, and I just wanted to add on. The discovery of contradictory evidence does not immediately render a theory false. In the same way that a single datum or experiment cannot "prove" a theory true, one bit of contradictory evidence cannot tear it down. Good theories are ones in which scientists have a high amount of confidence. Contradictory evidence only serves to lessen that confidence. Once it reaches a point where the contradictions outweigh the positive evidence, then the theory is done away with.
And the creationists response would be that "see they never get rid of theories they ..." etc etc etc.
A good theory doesn't have to be a perfect theory, it just has to be the best possible explanation we have right now for the evidence we have on hand.
True, however when there are some contradictory anomalies then the onus shifts to show that they are not significant failures.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Stagamancer, posted 04-09-2010 3:10 PM Stagamancer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Stagamancer, posted 04-09-2010 8:24 PM RAZD has replied

  
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 4915 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 13 of 57 (554742)
04-09-2010 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
04-09-2010 7:08 PM


Re: Naive falsificationism
And the creationists response would be that "see they never get rid of theories they ..." etc etc etc.
Well, we all know that's bollocks. Plenty of theories have been gotten rid of.
however when there are some contradictory anomalies then the onus shifts to show that they are not significant failures.
I would say that depends on the nature of the anomalies and the reproducibility of them. The onus remains to demonstrate that one anomaly was not due to some error on the part of the people would found it. If the anomaly is confirmed then, of course it require further investigation, possibly some tweaking of the theory, and if it is deemed significant enough, dropping the theory all together.
But again, saying any contradictory evidence means the theory is falsified is not true. When scientists started looking at the quantum level, they found phenomena that contradicted the Theory of Relativity. Plenty of solid evidence has been collected, and we know that Relativity does not completely explain the physical properties of everything we can observe, but it still has its own positive evidence, and it is still a useful theory. Both Quantum Theory and the Theory of Relativity are incomplete, but that doesn't mean that are false.

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 04-09-2010 7:08 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2010 4:44 PM Stagamancer has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 57 (554874)
04-10-2010 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Stagamancer
04-09-2010 8:24 PM


explanation with useful predictive power
Sorry, Stagamancer and Subbie, but I have trouble with this.
But again, saying any contradictory evidence means the theory is falsified is not true.
To me this says the theory is damaged goods.
Both Quantum Theory and the Theory of Relativity are incomplete, but that doesn't mean that are false.
Forgive me, but this just seems like semantic quibbling. Incomplete means that it is not a complete theory (because it does not explain contrary evidence so we know it is wrong in some way).
When scientists started looking at the quantum level, they found phenomena that contradicted the Theory of Relativity. Plenty of solid evidence has been collected, and we know that Relativity does not completely explain the physical properties of everything we can observe, but it still has its own positive evidence, and it is still a useful theory.
Curiously, many people here will not be surprised that I consider the Theory of Relativity to be damaged goods, but that is a topic for another thread.
What you are really saying is that you know the theory is not true in some areas, but you use it anyway because it can make some useful predictions in other areas (you just need to stay away from areas where it doesn't work). What you have done is adjust the theory to restrict it to the area/s where there are no known contradictions.
This is like using Newton's gravity theory to launch probes to Mars and the other planets - it can make useful predictions within a subset of reality, in a restricted area of application.
So one of the requirements of a useful scientific theory is that it provide predictive power in specified areas, and that within that specified area there are no anomalous or contradictions ... or that the anomalies are known and empirical adjustments are factored in to the predictions.
Certainly I hope you are not claiming that these incomplete theories can make useful predictions in areas where we know they break down.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Stagamancer, posted 04-09-2010 8:24 PM Stagamancer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Stagamancer, posted 04-13-2010 1:37 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 15 of 57 (555246)
04-12-2010 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
04-04-2010 12:43 AM


Hi Taz - looks like your thread needs to be 'livened up' a little. I can be an okay 'livening upper' at times.
Taz writes:
I'm sure there are a lot of threads on the nature of science, scientific theory, scientific inquiry, etc. But after years of discussing these things, there are still long time members that show little understanding of how scientific theory works.
The frustration doesn't end in this forum. Out there, scientists like Shermer and Dawkins who have taken upon themselves to educate the public also run into the same frustration that we do here. The general attitude seems to be that people are too ignorant to understand how science works or that they are too attached to their religious beliefs.
There are other reasons for confusion. When confusion is an issue, the blame for it doesn’t always lie with the confused. In this case, there is plenty of fault with those who DO the confusing.
People tend to get caught up with scientific jargon. Everytime someone asks something about science, he gets hit by long montrous posts.
And whose fault is that? Is it really the fault of the one who asked the question? The reason long, monstrous posts happen is because the definition of science varies according to the claims or questions about what science can DO. In some applications science can do biological research to create vaccines to combat disease, and other scientists apply it to show that God does not exist. It depends on what the scientific claim is, who is making the claim, what their reasons are, who they’re trying to convince, etc. etc. In completely different contexts, it only makes sense that claims of what scientific theory, or inquiry is, will vary from scientist to scientist. The people listening to these scientists are not to blame for the confusion.
I started this thread with some hope that we could explain what a scientific theory is without bringing out the jargon. The purpose of this thread isn't to discuss how we should explain science to dummies. The point is for us to discuss what a scientific theory is in a language simple enough that can't be obfuscated by dummies. I've chosen specifically the topic of scientific theory because after years of discussing these issues I've noticed that most people out there don't have a first clue what scientific theory is. Most seem to think it's comparable to religious doctrine.
In many cases it is, because so many scientists use it that way to try to discredit religion. It's interesting that you use Dawkins as an example of someone trying to educate the public.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to imply that confusion about what scientific theory is, is a 100% to 0% ratio, all the fault of the uneducated, and not at all the fault of the educated. That’s simply not true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 04-04-2010 12:43 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Coyote, posted 04-12-2010 9:53 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 04-14-2010 8:50 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 19 by Taz, posted 04-14-2010 9:25 PM marc9000 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024