What is a Scientific Theory?

[gareb]

---

a lot of people have a misconception for the term "theory" and what it means as used in different contexts (scientific or otherwise). there are also a lot of misconceptions on how it relates to a "scientific law" and a "hypothesis", even what a "scientific fact" is. i hope this one clears it all out.

in common parlance, a "theory" essentially means a hypothesis; a conjecture or an educated guess. however when used in a scientific context, the term "theory" takes a different meaning altogether.

What is a Scientific Theory?

From Wikipedia:

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena

what this means is that a scientific theory is an "explanation" of the how's and why's of a phenomena. this explanation is based and limits itself to observable facts and the scientific laws that govern the relationship between each. this essentially means that a "scientific theory" isn't just an ordinary wild guess, but a conclusion based on available facts.

the strength of a scientific theory lies on its malleability to new facts presented. a scientific theory is not static; it can be significantly altered, or even discarded if new facts and obvervations come into place that strongly suggest that it is incorrect.

Is a Scientific Law stronger than a Scientific Theory?

this notion comes up under the false assumption that a hypothesis, if proven, becomes a scientific theory, and gradually becomes a scientific law if proven further.

a Scientific Law according to Wikipedia:

... is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning.

furthermore...

A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated.

while a scientific law is largely "descriptive" of a phenomena or a scientific fact, a scientific theory is largely "explanatory" on why such phenomena comes into being. at the same time, a scientific theory is also "predictive", as it leads to the generation of new testable predictions and observations. a scientific theory essentially shows the way on what to look for next, strengthening or weakening the position of the theory itself, creating more useful knowledge of the world.

the strength of a scientific theory depends largely on it being available for scrutiny. and by saying this, a good scientific theory should be "falsifiable".

from Wikipedia:

Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it.

Wikipedia has some simple examples of how falsifiability works and why it is useful. ("black swans", "mortal men", etc.)

[gareb]

now a lot of people equate a "theory" with a mere hypotheses. not knowing that a lot of things that are considered as fact (so much so that we get to interact it in our everyday lives) are actually products of scientific theory.

1. the fact that the earth orbits around the sun is Copernicus' crude Heliocentric Theory.
2. how we explain the tectonic origins of earthquakes are under the Continental Drift Theory.
3. the existence, structure, dynamics of atoms and its parts? Atomic Theory.
4. bird poop on your head? Universal Theory of Gravity.
5. why boats (and some people) float, while others sink? Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle.
6. the thing that powers your gadgets is best explained by Electrical and Electronic Theories.

just to name a few.

[breinrules]

Theory for me is a proven hypothesis

A law is a theory that is accepted by the center of science ( Forgot the name of the place)

Naa pa mn to usa ka term na di na kailangan e prove unsa gai pangan atu?

[gareb]

Theory for me is a proven hypothesis

A law is a theory that is accepted by the center of science ( Forgot the name of the place)

Naa pa mn to usa ka term na di na kailangan e prove unsa gai pangan atu?

that's a misconception that lead to everybody thinking that a law is stronger that a theory, which in turn is stronger than hypothesis. these three things are of different kinds altogether. apples and oranges.

so that it's easier to understand, let's think about a scientific law as a scientific principle, while a scientific theory tries to explain the how's and why's of that principle, as it is observed.

[breinrules]

that's a misconception that lead to everybody thinking that a law is stronger that a theory, which in turn is stronger than hypothesis. these three things are of different kinds altogether. apples and oranges.

so that it's easier to understand, let's think about a scientific law as a scientific principle, while a scientific theory tries to explain the how's and why's of that principle, as it is observed.

Ahhh, then i stand corrected

[The_Child]

a scientific theory is a product of scientific methodology which is not scientific.

[rodsky]

a scientific theory is a product of scientific methodology which is not scientific.

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The_Child, if you're in the Science section in the hopes to become its resident "thorn", I will ban you without batting an eyelash. I'm watching you.

-RODION

[The_Child]

OT: i didn't know i have that reputation that moved you to consider me as a potential resident thorn.
Analyze and describe the world through science, that will make sense, but do not analyze science with science, it will not make sense. That was my point, that was my caveat. No rules broken.

[rodsky]

...but do not analyze science with science, it will not make sense.

Science, as a tool, has the ability to look into itself and explain its method and processes. Tools can make other tools. It's your statement that doesn't make sense. You're basically saying you cannot study words because you'll be using words to study words.

-RODION

[fritzd]

but do not analyze science with science, it will not make sense. That was my point, that was my caveat. No rules broken.

I do not agree to this. Your understanding of Science is completely twisted. Doing Science brings new Science. That's how it is. eg.. If you want to understand the relationship between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics or the Standard model, you do further Science. And that is why we have String theory like Philosophy or whatsoever. You can not use any other means to explain Science. Science is science. If there is none of it, it is not Science.

I think your first definition of a scientific theory is direct form circular definition. Maybe because it rhymes and maybe also it may sound intelligent. But its not. It's wrong. Anyway, that's what I think. I could be wrong. But I'm a full breed Scientist, so I may somehow or maybe in a small way, right.