Automoderated users, edit
3,552
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 24:
Line 24: − + − − Common misunderstanding of the difference between a scientific theory and the laymen definiton of the word often leads to confusion regarding scientific topics - especially Evolution. While science holds that the Theory of Evolution is a credible explanation for the facts observed in the fossil record and in the geographical distribution of species, many people see the word 'Theory' and are led to believe that Evolution is not completely valid. − − Other common theories include: − − Cell Theory - how our bodies are made up of cells. − Gravitational Theory - the explanation (which is yet unfinished, as scientists attempt to find the elusive Higgs Boson) for why matter attracts other matter. − Atomic Theory - the current understanding of the basic makeup of living and nonliving things.
Undo revision 729100 by JPope (Talk)
:''In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.''
:''In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.''
One common way the term 'theory' is misused in scientific literature is in the field of speculative physics, which proposes something commonly deemed 'String Theory'. At it's most basic level, string theory states that the entirety of the universe is made up of tiny, multi-dimensional strings. However, this proposal cannot currently be verified or refuted by modern science - that is, scientists cannot determine if this is right or wrong. Since String Theory makes no verfiable predictions about the universe, either, scientists can say nothing more about String Theory than that it may or may not fit the facts we currently know. However, this would disqualify String Theory as a scientific theory, which must both be evidenced by facts and must make correct, verifiable predictions about the future.
One common way the term 'theory' is misused in scientific literature is in the field of speculative physics, which proposes something commonly deemed 'String Theory'. At it's most basic level, string theory states that the entirety of the universe is made up of tiny, multi-dimensional strings. However, this proposal cannot currently be verified or refuted by modern science - that is, scientists cannot determine if this is right or wrong. Since String Theory makes no verfiable predictions about the universe, either, scientists can say nothing more about String Theory than that it may or may not fit the facts we currently know. However, thsi would disqualify String Theory as a scientific theory, which must both be evidenced by facts and must make correct, verifiable predictions about the future.
<ref>For example, this 2004 NY Times article on the pros and cons of string theory [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/science/07stri.html?ei=5090&en=fd15a74e2dca3af0&ex=1260075600&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all&position=] used the word "theory" 70 times without any suggestion that ideas must be well-substantiated before they qualify as a theory. Physicist Lawrence Krauss used the term "string theory" even though the theory has "yet to have any real successes in explaining or predicting anything measurable". [http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/08essay.html] A month later, he argued that it should really be called the "string enterprise" because using the word "theory" causes problems with intelligent design advocates and those who say that evolution is "just a theory". [http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/newscieditorial.html]</ref>
<ref>For example, this 2004 NY Times article on the pros and cons of string theory [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/science/07stri.html?ei=5090&en=fd15a74e2dca3af0&ex=1260075600&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all&position=] used the word "theory" 70 times without any suggestion that ideas must be well-substantiated before they qualify as a theory. Physicist Lawrence Krauss used the term "string theory" even though the theory has "yet to have any real successes in explaining or predicting anything measurable". [http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/08essay.html] A month later, he argued that it should really be called the "string enterprise" because using the word "theory" causes problems with intelligent design advocates and those who say that evolution is "just a theory". [http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/newscieditorial.html]</ref>
== See also ==
== See also ==