The definition of "Theory" and perhaps other big words...

[piece-it pete]

big at least in meaning.

Well Paul you have piqued my curiosity.

In an attempt to de-ignorize and de-stupify myself I'm starting this thread.

We've got your definition:

"Theories are designed to explain WHY facts are. In scientific epistemology, a theory is a well substantiated explanation, that is there is sufficent reason and evidence as to why we should think that a given explanation (evolution, gravity) is valid."

_________________________________

Merriam-Webster:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...heory&x=9&y=10

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
synonym see HYPOTHESIS

_____________________

This useful definition came up while searching for "scientific theory":

http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p10/theory.html

"A scientific theory is a synthesis of well-tested and verified hypotheses about some aspect of he world around us. When a scientific hypothesis has been confirmed repeated by experiment, it may become known as a scientific law or scientific principle. A scientific fact may be defined as an agreement by competent observers of a series of observations of the same phenomena. From time to time scientific facts are revised by additional data about the world around us. Scientists often employ a model in order to understand a particular set of phenomena. A model is a mental image of the phenomena using terms (or images) with which we are familar. For example, in the planetary model of the atom scientists visualize the atom as a nucleus with electrons orbiting around it in a manner similar to the way that planets revolve around the Sun. While this model is useul in understanding the atom, it is an over-simplified description of a real atom and does not describe/predict all of its attributes."

___________________________________

Actually Paul very similar to yours, with the large IMO exception of "well tested", "verified", and "confirmed". The above professor goes on to say:

"Here are five criteria that are generally used when comparing theories and a new theory statisfying these will then replace a previously accepted theory.

I. The previously accepted theory gave an acceptable explanation of something, the new theory must give the same results.
II. New theory explains something that the PAT [Pete note: Previously Accepted Theory]either got wrong or, more commonly, did not apply.
III. Makes a prediction that is later verified.
IV. Elegance - Aesthetic quality - simple, powerful includes universal symmetries. That is simple, easy-to-remember or apply formulation, experssed as some symmetry of nature, be powerful enough to used in many applications
V. Provide a deeper insight or link to another branch of knowledge"

________________________________________

While searching for the above info I came of course across many many references to "Scientific Method". Here's an online definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The scientific method or process is considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence. Scientists propose new assertions about our world in the form of theories: observations, hypotheses, and deductions. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives. Any theory which is cogent enough to make predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way. The method is commonly taken as the underlying logic of scientific practice. The scientific method is essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable, evidenced understanding of our world.
_______________________________

Interesting how prediction is important enough to be mentioned multiple times. It reminds me of the Russian scientist in the old sci-fi novel "The Black Cloud" (Fred Hoyle, 1957), who says throughout the story "Theory nothing. Prediction everything".

So, to use your two examples, evolution and gravity, I see that one (gravity) has proof in prediction and reproductable testing and the other (evolution) has *none*.

So why on Earth or elsewhere would evolution be a litmus test of rationality, outside of prejudiced views - the enemy of scientific method?

Pete

[paul_pci]

Pete,

You've done some good work here. As you've seem to have realized (hope I'm not misreading you), the standard dictionary is of no help when talking about scientific use of the term theory. I'm glad we are past that.

That one def you say is close to mine except for well tested, verified or confirmed, is what I mean by substantiation. But I will say that terms like verified or confirmed belie the fact that new evidence may/will alter aspects of theory. Abstractly that means while we may hold confidence that one theory has been verified or confirmed by existing evidence, as time progresses new evidence may unseat said verification and confirmation; so much for predictability. My problem then is, that "confirmed" or "verified" is a bit to arrogant and idealized when it comes to forwarding theories. At one point in time we might be so confident as to pop open the champagne and delcare that we have found THE explanation for a given phenomenon, but later on, may come to realize that said theory was insufficient (not necessarily wholly wrong, but deficient in certain aspects). That is why I prefer the vaguer term substantiated. And evolution is. You can deny that, dispute it, but that act of denial or disputation won't alter evolution's substantiation. That theory's substantiation exists independently of your acceptance (or mine for that matter) of it as such.

Now, as for predictability. I think that depends on the specific aim of the given theory. For instance, Newton knew that every time he were to let go an object, it would fall. I really don't think he needed a theory to predict that. (I know; I'm oversimplifying). For Darwin, he was more interested in how different species in his time got to be that way (so diverse; I'm thinking of the finches on the Galapagos islandsfor instance). However, evolutionary biologists would point out that evolution is predictable, but not on the same time line as gravity is, or other theories for that matter. As the theory goes, evolution can and will take thousands and thousands of years for a given species. The more biologically complex, the longer reproduction cycle, the longer evolution/change will take place. Simpler organisms will evolve more quickly. So here is where we can actually witness the "proof" you claim does not exist for evolution. Viruses. If you've or someone you know has ever received a flu shot, you have benefited from evolutionary science. Flu shots are based on one strain of the flu virus because the flu virus mutates, that is it changes and evolves into different strains/species that the medical establishment basically guesses on which a given year people will be stricken by the most. You can't tell me or anyone else that you believe in vacinnations but don't believe in evolution. It just doesn't work that way. When it comes to more complex organims on this planet, we will not be alive to see them evolve into new species, but we witness that very phenomenon all the time when it comes to bacteria and viruses. There's your substantiation. There's your predictability. To recap, while predictability is important, its role varies from specific context and conditions to the next. The timeline on which evolution operates predictably is beyond human life spans for most organisms. But we can see evolution in action for simpler organisms like bacteria and viruses. What is predictable is that species will evolve, change their biological constitution, but no one can predict what that change is, but that is not a flaw in the theory. The theory is predicated on the fact that the only thing that is predictable is change in biological constitution, not what that specific change is.

Look, I'm sorry. Evolution is well substantied. It's bigger than your or me. Its validity doesn't depend on our back and forth here. Same thing with smoking and lung cancer. We can scream to the top of our lungs that smoking does not cause lung cancer, but we both know that won't have any impact on the truth of the matter. We can go back and forth, (and I'm sure we will) but that won't stop the flu virus from mutating next year, necessitating further changes to the vacinne.


BTW: reproducability has to do with the validity of experiments more than it has to do with theories. By definition you cannot reproduce a theory; therefore that is not applicable.

Lastly, I'd like you to explain this evolution as a litmus test for rationality business. Doesn't necessarily sound like what I am asserting. I guess I would be inclined to say that it is irrational to dismiss the theory of evolution, but I usually base that on the fundamental misunderstanding of what theory means and how it is substantiated, etc. But that is not specfic to evolution which is why I bring up the uncontroversial example of gravity. Gravity, contrary to what you want to believe, bears the same epistemological status as evolution, but nobody gets their shorts in a bunch over gravity. To, me, that makes no sense.

If I've missed or ignored anything important here, please point that out.

[piece-it pete]

Paul,

Although the standard dictionary is "substantially" different, tracing root meanings of words certainly helps give a braoder understanding of what that word is trying to communicate.

When it comes down to brass tacks I believe most would agree the scientific meaning of theory, while detailed and application-specific, definitely has something in common with most of the above listed definitions.

Of course a theory can and usually will evolve with new proofs, information, and understanding. From a scientific viewpoint we know squat!

THIS is why "well tested", "verified", and "confirmed" is so important. Otherwise, we might as well be writing fairy tales. A smart and/or very well educated man looking at various infomation may come up with a more pausible sounding explanation for what he sees than a less educated and/or less intellegent one, but without some sort of testing it remains speculation by any name.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...substantiation

One entry found for substantiate.


Main Entry: sub·stan·ti·ate
Pronunciation: s&b-'stan(t)-shE-"At
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
1 : to give substance or form to : EMBODY
2 : to establish by proof or competent evidence : VERIFY
synonym see CONFIRM
- sub·stan·ti·a·tion /-"stan(t)-shE-'A-sh&n/ noun
- sub·stan·ti·a·tive /-'stan(t)-shE-"A-tiv/ adjective

_______________________________________

And while I realise the theory of gravity may have as many proofs as the theory of evolution the FACT of some sort of gravitational forces' existence is easily provable by anyone.

So any scientific philosophy that gives the two the same level of credence is obviously flawed.

I realise that by the theory of evolutions' very definition it would be impossible to say "I will do (a), and this [insert animal] will evolve into (b) as a response". So how about saying "Over (x) many years we will find (y) many examples of evolution occuring naturally"?

THAT fits the theory. Although it states it may take many years the earth has BILLIONS of organisms and of them there should be a verifiable at least incremental change. What are the results of our many years of looking for exactly that?

The flu - mutation is proof of the theory of evolution? That's interesting. Can you show ONE example of a mutation bringing POSITIVE chromosonal change to a complex life form, that would be an absolute neccessity for the theory of evolution to be a reality?

As far as litmus tests of rationality, that is the result of your original statement that those who believe without proof are insane. And here we are arguing about needing proof.

Pete

[paul_pci]

You're killing me Pete,

Definition is my bag, as Austin Powers would say. Thus, I'd usually be the first one to step up to the plate to examine the "evolution" of any definition, as it were, but in this case, given current debates over evolution, I believe its important to stick to the strict definition that scientists mean when using that word. I have and do use the word theory outside of the scientific domain, and I usually do mean something else and usually it does have something to do with the status of how an explanation is or is not verifired, can or cannot be verified, depending on its subject matter. For instance, social, psychoanalytically, or politically based theories often have no concrete evidence associated with them as one would find with scientific theories, not necessarily because they are invalid, but because the subject matter and the claims made therein are of a different class, if you will. I know, this is getting all abstract, but my ultimate point in invoking other intellectual disciplines is that science, be it physical or biological, is mostly an empirical game and thus their theories depend on empirical evidence and mechanisms, where a theory as to why Mr. Smith prefers red cars to blue cars would not be the same as a scientific "theory" because there is no empirical basis as to why a person prefers one color over another. Therefore, I precisely disagree that most Americans understand the differences between the term theory used in a strictly scientific context and that very term used outside that context. I base that conclusion on talking with people and in various readings I've come across. Most Americans who dismiss evolution, as mere theory, do so because they think its just some guess, or hypothesis. But, of course that is wrong. They are uninformed on how scientific epistemology makes a strategic distinction between guess (hypothesis) and substantiated explanation (theory). And, granted, it is more comforting to dismiss a notion thinking that its just someone's guess work than to dismiss a concept that has a whole host of evidence behind it.

Where to go next, where to go next. Um, no, gravitational force is not provable, only that objects fall to the ground, planets revolve around other celestial objects, and light bends is provable. In my mind, and I guess not yours, gravity, as this invisible force (almost Star Wars like) strikes me as more like voodoo than does evolution, being a natural, somewhat random mechanism of biological organisms and their relationship to their environment. Gravity asks us to believe in this magical, invisible force binding objects in the space-time continuum, as it were. Evolution asks us to believe that through random, unpredictable biological variables, species produce variants that eventually do and do not change into wholly different species, depending on the adaptability of the new variation to an existing environment that itself will change across time. We grow up in a culture that does not question gravity but gets all anxious over evolution, but when you step back and break it down, gravity is more voodoo than evolution. I mean we can test the rate at which objects fall on Earth or in a vacuum and create a stable, invariable equation, but at the end of the day, you're still asking people to believe in this invisible force. Let's juxtapose that against the combustion engine. The force that propels a car is not invisible, but has empirical sources and a chain of phycial and chemical cause and effect that gravity just doesn't have. Perhaps I'm wrong, as I am not a physicist, but that is how I understand it. Therefore, I maintain that your are wrong to suggest that giving the same credence to gravity and evolution is flawed. At best, I'm flattering the theory of gravity.

Next: I guess in some sense one should be able to say over x years you will find y changes in z species which may result in b new species, except taking a survey of the biological landscape would suggest its just not that easy. I will use the example of birds and sharks. Birds, of course, have been determined by many evolutionary biologists to be evolved from dinosaurs. Now there is definitely room for doubt and debate about that actual lineage, but there is no doubt that birds did evolve from an entirely different species at a given point in history. Now, you take sharks and you get an entirely different story because sharks are today what they have been for millions and millions of years, relatively unchanged. Scientists estimate that sharks have been around for 200 million years, longer than any other complex animal like birds. How many stages of evolution occurred before their present morphological structure is impossible to say, but it is clear that over time x, no y change has occured. (I'm sure all the fact are not correct here but the basics I'm predicated my general points on are correct). And because evolution is likewise predicated on the notion that not all biological variants are successful, we have two vastly different examples of birds and sharks which ultimately indicate that a generalized formula that over x years, y changes will occur across z species just won't work.

Finding the chromosomal change you want: I wish I was still in contact with my ex-girlfriend, as I really don't have the time for that kind of research and it would get really technical really quickly. Then there's the whole what constitutes a complex life form deal. Yet, a quick web search did reveal an article about S. cerevisiae, otherwise known as yeast and the way geneticists were able to construct an evolutionary tree of related but separate species to show its evolution through marking shared and unique genes. For instance, S. cerevisiae had only 18 genes unique to it and not shared by the other species: S. paradoxus, S. mikatae, and S. bayanus. Together, the four species of yeast have a greater than 90% shared genome—very similar to the shared genome between humans, gorillas, and chimpanzee, but I fear you would be too uncomfortable with that association. But I will say this: DNA technology has made it possible to prove evolutionary relations between species. You do believe in DNA don't you? It's the pool of evidence that shows biological relation and distribution that Darwin, of course, didn't have access to, but best substantiates his theory of evolution.

Litmus test: saying that it is insane to believe in something that has no proof does sound like me, but in terms of this debate, what bothers me, or strikes me as insane, is how people can dismiss evolution which has a great amount of substantiation, embrace gravity which has no more substantiation than evolution, and then embrace religion which has absolutely no substantiation. To me that is crazy, but I would not single out evolution as some litmus test. To me it comes back to a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific function of the term theory.

[dean_martin]

Let's get to where the bone is buried here. I'm half-heartedly trying to understand the debate between the proponents of creationism and evolution. Little did I know that one of the cornerstones in this debate is the age of the Earth itself - but it does make sense. If the Earth's age is determined along Biblical timelines then the Earth hasn't been around long enough for evolution to work as set forth by bioligists. At least that's the argument. But who knows how long a "day" was to God? The Bible itself says that there are some things we will not know nor understand. The creationists actually have a scientific basis for disputing the age of the earth through inconsistencies in carbon dating and evidence of relatively rapid forming coal formations.

Creationists, at least the hardcore ones, insist that dinosaurs and humans cohabitated the earth at the same time. Apparently, human footprints, fossilized trilobites and dinosaur bones have been found in close proximity and at the same sedimentary strata level. Of course they also cite Bible verses in Job (Ch. 40&41) as referencing dinosaurs - the Behemoth and the Leviathon. (The editors of my Bibles explain these as hippos and crocodiles in footnotes.) In addition, the Bible is full of references to "exiled" peoples living primitively in the wilderness. The creationists cite these verses as proof of cavemen cohabitating the earth at the same time as socially advanced humans.

Some of the more scientifically oriented creationists (an oxymoron, perhaps) have employed mathematical formulaes to determine an approx number of species that evolution would produce. The earth could not accomodate the results. Bioligists, apparently conceding this point, incorporate another concept to explain why the earth hasn't been overrun.

Bioligists insist that for over 100 years there has been little or no dispute over evolution as fact and that scientific data consistently confirms that the earth's age is in the billions of years. (Just by observation, it seems that each new test or discovery relevant to the earth's age yields the conclusion that the earth is older than what we thought the last time there was a relevant discovery.) OTOH, bioligists readily concede that the method or methods by which evolution occurs is not completely understood.

To explain the fact of evolution, bioligists begin with the pholygeny tree. There is more than one method one can use to fill in the tree, but it's similar to a family tree where relationships are shown within phyla and across phyla, but inherent in constructing this tree are certain inferences which must be made. Of course, an inference is a reasonable conclusion which can be drawn from known facts - at least that is the definition we use in the law. I am not a scientifically oriented person. From this point, the pholygeny tree as proof of evolution becomes very technical. There's no doubt however that there are characteristics that overlap among phyla. But, the ultimate conclusion of evolution is that all species have a common origin. The science of evolution does not attempt to explain how this common source came about. I'm presently looking for a set of bullet points or examples that demonstrate evolution in action, but through lack of time and sketchy research, I don't have anything. The bird's commonality with dinosaurs is probably one, but remember, the ultimate conclusion of evolution is that all living things originated from a single source.

This is a current topic as the debate in Kansas is grabbing headlines. I'll have to look at what each side is asking for and what the issues are before I comment. Most of these debates are over "disclaimers" regarding evolution in textbooks. The new trend is probably a push to include creationism in science books. I'm beginning to believe that the fuel that makes these debates so volatile is ignorance on both sides. I used to think that only the religious zealots fighting the teaching of actual science in the classroom were ignorant. I'm beginning to see that the scientific community has also displayed ignorance of their opponents beliefs. For example, it is foolish to take one phrase from the Bible such as "go unto the four corners of the earth" and conclude that the Bible is fiction because it suggests that the earth is flat. There are verses in the Bible that refer to the earth as a cirlce and that refer to the horizon. It is also foolish to conclude that the Bible is full of ignorance because it classifies a bat as a bird instead of as a mammal - if the people of Israel had to be told not to eat bats, then telling them that bats aren't really birds would probably have turned their world upside down. These are just two examples I've seen in writings of preeminent bioligists that demonstrate either ignorance or disdain.

I have some scientific understanding of the factual concepts of evolution and have no reason to doubt certain aspects of it. OTOH, I have my faith and the beliefs that are inherent in my faith. But I've been able to reconcile quite a bit. If you look at the big picture, both sides agree that all species came from a common source. Similar characteristics within and among phyla not only suggest a common source, but also suggest a design. I would not attempt to date the earth based on a literal reading of 7 consecutive 24-hour periods in Genesis. According to the Bible, the second person on earth did not come from dust, but was "derived" from the first. According to the Bible, the serpent had legs at one time. There's a living species of whale that has bones that suggest it had legs at one time. Of course my reconciliations may make me look like a simpleton to some, but at least I'm not consumed by this debate. I do believe that if there is evidence that the earth is not as old as we think it is, then that evidence is fair game for kids of appropriate age, even if there are ideas that suggest that this evidence doesn't have anything to do with the age of the earth, but is actually evidence of something else.

[MomurdA]

please quit using the term evolution when not talking about evolution. This next one goes back to the religion topic, but I just dont see how anybody can take the word from a 1500 year old book, compiled word of mouth for 500 years before it was first printed, as anything but a moral guide to living a good life and gaining widom(a la Aesops fables, the Book of Virtues). Im talking about ideas from a time in human history when almost nobody could read, write, add, subtract, etc.

My point is, that with more information and knowledge, better ideas come into people's minds. Look at the progression of mathematics over the last 300 years. Or, maybe im a blasphemer and when i hit submit ill have a front row seat to an eternity of damnation. I'll let you decide.

[dean_martin]

please quit using the term evolution when not talking about evolution. This next one goes back to the religion topic, but I just dont see how anybody can take the word from a 1500 year old book, compiled word of mouth for 500 years before it was first printed, as anything but a moral guide to living a good life and gaining widom(a la Aesops fables, the Book of Virtues). Im talking about ideas from a time in human history when almost nobody could read, write, add, subtract, etc.

My point is, that with more information and knowledge, better ideas come into people's minds. Look at the progression of mathematics over the last 300 years. Or, maybe im a blasphemer and when i hit submit ill have a front row seat to an eternity of damnation. I'll let you decide.

I was talking about the debate between proponents of evolution and creationism. I thought my comments on evolution were correct albeit over-simplified. Although I'm not well-versed in biology, I understand the concepts. I'm not a Bible scholar either but before I write off the creationists, I would like to know a little more about their position. Yes, I did take this in the direction of the Religion thread, but this thread is really beating around the bush to get to the debate, IMO. I gave a little more ink to the creationist side because I personally haven't seen much coverage of their contentions. I actually found some of their contentions interesting and logically based, after doing some research.

I think some would take issue with you that evolution is a "better idea" than being created by God in God's image - more scientific perhaps and easier to substantiate, but "better"? I used to think that those opposed to teaching evolution in schools were closed-minded whackos. But now I think that if someone has something to say, I should at least listen before rejecting their ideas. Also, I have no desire to see anyone condemned to an eternity of damnation and further it's not my decision, if such a decision is to be made. What I find disapointing is the level of venom in the debate. (I'm not referring to your comments at all.) Geez, we're all here no matter how we got here and we ought to learn how to live with another - which goes back to your reference of living a good life (which is generally measured by how you treat others) and gaining wisdom (which I believe includes patience and tolerance).