Scientific Theories vs Laws
Another aspect of the nature of science is the distinction between scientific law and theory. Within science the number of theories far outstrip the number of laws. Scientific Laws are long established and relationships that have withstood the rigors of scientific testing. Laws are accepted as truth. Simple. Boyle's Law for example describes the relationship between the pressure of a gas sample and the volume it occupies. This relationship is unwavering and since it has not been proven wrong, accepted as a fundamental truth.
Theories are not so cut and dried. Basically a theory is an idea that has evidentiary support and that can be tested. The discussion of theory vs. law is reminiscent of "Fact vs. Inference". Just as an inference can ultimately become a fact as evidence mounts in its favor, a theory can become a law if repeated attempts to disprove it have failed. Gradually, experimental evidence mounts in support of a theory or shapes a theory until it is accepted as truth (becomes a law).
The term theory is tossed about perhaps too casually. Within the realm of Science, a theory is an idea that explains a phenomenon and is backed by evidence. By its nature a theory is not entirely correct and is subject to modification as experimentation makes it clear that adjustments need to be made that better fit our observations. For example, atomic theory has been around since Democritus coined the word "atomos" (indivisible). It was hypothesized then that matter was made of particles that could not be further broken down, no matter how much you pounded it with a rock.
Over the centuries, our view of atomic structure has changed as experimentation has shed new light.
You might ask then, that if a theory is not "correct", why bother with them? The answer is simple. Since they are based on evidence they are useful in explaining phenomena and indeed predicting its behavior under diferent circumstances. Think about it, many theories are used routinely to make decisions that affect us all. Nuclear Medicine is the result of our incomplete view of atomic structure. CAT Scans, X-Rays, computer technology, and prescription drugs are all based in theory.
Theories should perhaps be considered as "correctish" and subject to change (improvement) as more information comes to light.
Misuse of the Term
Theories above all must be testable. A researcher must be able to make a prediction about a theory and then actually test that hypothesis for its validity. If a theory cannot be tested either directly or indirectly (see post below), then it isn't a theory - merely an idea.
Another aspect of the nature of science is the distinction between scientific law and theory. Within science the number of theories far outstrip the number of laws. Scientific Laws are long established and relationships that have withstood the rigors of scientific testing. Laws are accepted as truth. Simple. Boyle's Law for example describes the relationship between the pressure of a gas sample and the volume it occupies. This relationship is unwavering and since it has not been proven wrong, accepted as a fundamental truth.
Theories are not so cut and dried. Basically a theory is an idea that has evidentiary support and that can be tested. The discussion of theory vs. law is reminiscent of "Fact vs. Inference". Just as an inference can ultimately become a fact as evidence mounts in its favor, a theory can become a law if repeated attempts to disprove it have failed. Gradually, experimental evidence mounts in support of a theory or shapes a theory until it is accepted as truth (becomes a law).
The term theory is tossed about perhaps too casually. Within the realm of Science, a theory is an idea that explains a phenomenon and is backed by evidence. By its nature a theory is not entirely correct and is subject to modification as experimentation makes it clear that adjustments need to be made that better fit our observations. For example, atomic theory has been around since Democritus coined the word "atomos" (indivisible). It was hypothesized then that matter was made of particles that could not be further broken down, no matter how much you pounded it with a rock.Over the centuries, our view of atomic structure has changed as experimentation has shed new light.
You might ask then, that if a theory is not "correct", why bother with them? The answer is simple. Since they are based on evidence they are useful in explaining phenomena and indeed predicting its behavior under diferent circumstances. Think about it, many theories are used routinely to make decisions that affect us all. Nuclear Medicine is the result of our incomplete view of atomic structure. CAT Scans, X-Rays, computer technology, and prescription drugs are all based in theory.
Theories should perhaps be considered as "correctish" and subject to change (improvement) as more information comes to light.
Misuse of the Term
Theories above all must be testable. A researcher must be able to make a prediction about a theory and then actually test that hypothesis for its validity. If a theory cannot be tested either directly or indirectly (see post below), then it isn't a theory - merely an idea.
Hold onto something.
Evolution Theory vs Creation Theory - (the views expressed here will be unpopular with some but represent the predominant scientific view)
Evolution is a theory. On the whole it is sucessful at explaining the diversity of life and how change occurs over time. It is consistent with the archaeological record. Sure there are unanswered questions. Time and research will undoubtedly answer these.
Creation Theory is a misnomer, simply because Creation as a theory cannot be tested. Proponents will quite often cite the inconsistencies with Evolutionary theory as proof of Creation. This does not make Creation a theory, it validates Evolution's status and relelgates Creation to the realm of idea (or belief).
_(s)_(b)%5B1%5D.JPG)
No comments:
Post a Comment