Scientific Method..When does Theory become fact?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I was wondering this...I thought I would ask here for a straight forawd simple answer without googling it,since google only shows creationist links and nonsense.


So when does a Scientific Theory Become a Scientific Fact?


I have herd that when it can be observed in a lab.

If this is true,Why is Gravity A theory? The Theory of Gravity.It can be observed,but it's still a theory?


Please explain this to me.

 

[Dilb]

Theories never become fact. They only become so well accepted that they don't need to be constantly questioned. A "fact" doesn't really have a useful meaning in science. A theory, in science, is a way of explaining and predicting observations. A theory is still a theory even if it's wrong, it's simply an wrong theory.

Newton's theory of gravitation (F = GMM/r^2) is a wrong theory. However for large objects moving less than about 1/10th the speed of light, this theory correctly predicts the observations you can make (within error, of course). So if I want to tell you what the gravity is 50000 km above the earth, I can use this theory to make a prediction which will be correct.
Other theories can correctly predict the effect of gravity at relativistic speeds, but they are still theories, which still could be wrong.

Also, it should be noted that there are "laws" in science, like the gas laws, but "law" is used only because it was first called that in the 1600's or so. Properly they would be called theories.

 

[crimresearch]

As Dilb said, they become so well accepted, that they act as the prevailing explanation...

And that is usually about 5 minutes before a new phenomenon is observed that can't be neatly explained by the current theory.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So What are some Examples of Facts in Science?

Or Examples of Laws?


Are there NO facts or laws at all in science? just Theories?

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Dustin,

So What are some Examples of Facts in Science?

As Dib explained, if by "fact" you mean something we can be absolutely certain of, then there are none. Most scientists would use the term "scientific fact" to refer to things which are so extensively supported by scientific evidence that we are simply no longer concerned with the miniscule possibility that it might be wrong. In other words, since there is no such thing as absolute certainty in science, we instead use the word "fact" to refer to things which we are extremely confident in.

Examples would the following:

Fact: The acceleration of gravity on the surface of the Earth is about 9.8 m/s^2.
Fact: Carbon atoms consist of 6 protons and 6 neutrons.
Fact: The tides are primarily caused by the gravitational pull of the sun and moon.

Or Examples of Laws?

In science the term "law" is used in the same sense as in mathematics. It refers to some set of mathematical rules. For example, Newton's theory of classical mechanics provides an explanation for how objects move when under the influence of various forces. Newton's laws are the specific mathematical expressions which describe the theory. F = ma is a law. That does not mean that it is absolutely true, or that it is known to be absolutely true. It just means that it is the mathematical rule which seems to accurately describe the observed behavior.


Dr. Stupid

 

[materia3]

The short answer: never

 

[JSFolk]

To those saying that theories never become facts... I disagree.

For example, that the earth goes around the sun is something that, say, 100 years ago, would be a theory. A coherent explanation for a series of related observations. Testable, falsifiable, etc. Now, if we launched a satellite to above the ecliptic, pointed its cameras back towards us and just watched for a few years, we would then be directly observing that the earth goes around the sun, and thus it would "become" a fact.

So, I say that a theory becomes a fact when we develop new observational tools that allow us to directly observe what we could only theorize about prior to the new technology.

 

[Dilb]

To those saying that theories never become facts... I disagree.

For example, that the earth goes around the sun is something that, say, 100 years ago, would be a theory. A coherent explanation for a series of related observations. Testable, falsifiable, etc. Now, if we launched a satellite to above the ecliptic, pointed its cameras back towards us and just watched for a few years, we would then be directly observing that the earth goes around the sun, and thus it would "become" a fact.

So, I say that a theory becomes a fact when we develop new observational tools that allow us to directly observe what we could only theorize about prior to the new technology.

We're certainly free to disagree, but I think most scientists would be inclined to call facts "observations", rather than a fact, simply because calling it an observation forces you to consider how your observation could be misinterperated.

For instance, it's a fact that we observe the sun moving in a circle around the earth. To shorten it, iti's a fact that the sun moves around the earth. It just happens to be that this is because the earth is rotating. By calling it an observation it's easier to remember that a reference frame is needed.

I would definately argue that a theory does not become fact, only a hypothesis about an observation. The fact that the earth is moving around the sun is an observation, which can be predicted from the theories of gravity and motion.

 

[materia3]

To those saying that theories never become facts... I disagree.

For example, that the earth goes around the sun is something that, say, 100 years ago, would be a theory. A coherent explanation for a series of related observations. Testable, falsifiable, etc. Now, if we launched a satellite to above the ecliptic, pointed its cameras back towards us and just watched for a few years, we would then be directly observing that the earth goes around the sun, and thus it would "become" a fact.

So, I say that a theory becomes a fact when we develop new observational tools that allow us to directly observe what we could only theorize about prior to the new technology.

Perhaps it would be helpful to review Dr Michael Blaber's explanation of hypothesis versus theory versus fact. It is important to note that a theory, by definition, can be
disproved but that Blaber does not acknowledge the occurrence of a theory being proved and thus turned into a fact.

A theory is a theory is a theory and is created to be disproved. No matter how sure your new tools of observation are in not disproving it, a theory continues to exist. Hence a theory never linguistically becomes a fact. Its premises may become facts but the theory is not modified, replaced (except by another theory)nor does it dissapear or cease to exist.

http://wine1.sb.fsu.edu/chm1045/notes/Intro/Theory/Theory.htm

And then there is the favorite stomping ground for the theory versus fact debate: evolution versus creationism where the creationist folks cling to the notion that their theory is as good as the other guy's:

“In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess.”

The operant word here is"downhill."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

[JSFolk]

Dilb, it kind of sounds like you want to get rid of the word "fact" altogether. While that does eliminate the issue in a way, it's not very satisfying. The question then becomes "When does a theory become an observation?" and my answer remains as above.

Blabler's definitions leave something to be desired in that any fact can be disputed by someone. Hell, creationists dispute the existence of transitional fossils, observed speciation, and many other things that are facts. I still maintain that if we directly observe something that we couldn't previously due to new technology, a theory can "become" or be supplanted by, a fact.

Here's another example... suppose that we were to develop some sort of telescope that could see back in time. (Yes, I know this is pure sci-fi, but bear with me.) We could then set up a computer to use this temposcope to backtrack along our family tree for a few million years to the most recent common ancestor between us and chimps. This would supplant the theory of common descent (at least as regarding humans) with an observation of a fact. This same setup could, given enough time, follow the lines of all vertebrates back, or pretty much any level of animal you choose. In this scenario, I don't think it would be correct to still discuss the "theory of common descent".

 

[Ladewig]

For example, that the earth goes around the sun is something that, say, 100 years ago, would be a theory. A coherent explanation for a series of related observations. Testable, falsifiable, etc. Now, if we launched a satellite to above the ecliptic, pointed its cameras back towards us and just watched for a few years, we would then be directly observing that the earth goes around the sun, and thus it would "become" a fact.

What are you talking about? You believe that photographs of the earth revolving around the Sun are stronger evidence than parallax, accurate measurements of the earth's mass and the Sun's mass, and a host of other observable facts (1) available to early 20th century scientists?

(1) using the above definition of "fact can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

 

[epepke]

If this is true,Why is Gravity A theory? The Theory of Gravity.It can be observed,but it's still a theory?

Please explain this to me.

It's quite simple.

There is a fact called "gravity." It can be observed.

There are several theories of gravity. Two are popular. One of them is more accurate but harder to calculate.

I've never heard anyone use "gravity" to describe a theory, but if someone does, it's a kind of verbal shorthand.

"Fact" is also a kind of verbal shorthand to describe something that is so well supported by observation that it would be perverse to withhold consent.

These terms have technical meaning in science that can be subtly but importantly different from their common meanings, so one must be careful.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

For example, that the earth goes around the sun is something that, say, 100 years ago, would be a theory. A coherent explanation for a series of related observations. Testable, falsifiable, etc. Now, if we launched a satellite to above the ecliptic, pointed its cameras back towards us and just watched for a few years, we would then be directly observing that the earth goes around the sun, and thus it would "become" a fact.

No. Movement is relative, it is the sun what moves, or the earth, depends on the point of view. The frame of reference of an observer determine the more coherent theory for his observations, this is the only fact.

 

[hammegk]

Re: Re: Scientific Method..When does Theory become fact?

I've never heard anyone use "gravity" to describe a theory, but if someone does, it's a kind of verbal shorthand.

Higgs field. M-theory.

 

[Bruce]

What's a fact?

 

[scribble]

To those saying that theories never become facts... I disagree.

For example, that the earth goes around the sun is something that, say, 100 years ago, would be a theory.

And still today is a theory. It is called "Copernican Theory" I believe.

The answer actually is never.

 

[Iconoclast]

The question then becomes "When does a theory become an observation?" and my answer remains as above.

You seem to have everything arse-about. We come up with a theory based on observations.

Here's another example... suppose that we were to develop some sort of telescope that could see back in time. (Yes, I know this is pure sci-fi, but bear with me.)

That's a terrible example, since ALL telescopes can see back in time, the bigger the telescope the further into the past we can see.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

What's a fact?

A consensus.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Scientific Method..When does Theory become fact?

Higgs field. M-theory.

Yeah, a couple, but not the most popular.

 

[a_unique_person]

What's a fact?

There always has to be a troublemaker, doesn't there.

A fact is something that no-one questions, an assumption. You can take it for granted, common sense.

As far as science goes, a fact is something you can base your science on. No scientist can spare the time to recreate all the scientific knowledge to date, and prove it, so he can then go on to create his new scientific theory. He has to be able to say that 'so and so says shows that....' and work from there. To a large extent, this works, for without it, we would all be using typewriters still to communicate with each other using letters, to a mailbox in Florida called the JREF, and waiting two weeks for a reply.