Listening to a Dave Matthews' song today made me think of some talk that I've heard regarding science, both in favor and against it. Mostly I hear misconceptions about the use of the word theory, on both sides. The mystics say that something is "just a theory", while the science students insist that in science, theory is fact. Of course, neither are correct.
We have a certain set of facts -- things that are known to be true by verifiable, repeatable experience. Science takes these facts, and builds theories about the nature of universe such that the theories are consistent with all of the facts. These theories are conclusions drawn from the facts, they are not the facts themselves.
The scientific method cannot prove the theories, it can only disprove them. An experiment collects empirical evidence (that is, facts that are experienced and/or recorded by our senses or instruments used to enhance them) and checks if they support a given theory. If they do, then the theory stands, and if not, then the theory has been disproved.
The science students misrepresent scientific theory when they call it "fact." That's not what science is. A theory that stood for decades or centuries can still be disproved and replaced by a new theory. It has happened and is still happening. The religion students misrepresent science, too, by implying that the word "theory" means that it holds no weight. It's silly to try and discredit a theory when it still holds as the best explanation of the world around us, and not for a lack of attempts to disprove it.
12 comments:
What if a theory fits the standards by which one determines a theory to be? Is that theory then a fact?
Or in other words, what if a theory is an established theory?
Facts are dependent on theories for verification. They all assume certain theories are true in order to be a fact. Thus, facts are mostly just really really good theories.
I think you have that last statement backwards (whether intentional or not).
Facts don't depend on theories for verification. Facts depend on experience, and for it to be generally accepted as fact it depends on that experience being verified, usually by the repeatition of that experience by others.
what i mean is that the very process of verification is dependent upon theores. ie. chemical theories, theories of light, vision, physics, experience, etc.
the notion of a fact is dependent on theories of truth.
in other words, the scientific process of verification is itself a theory and dependent on other theories.
What if a theory fits the standards by which one determines a theory to be? Is that theory then a fact?
Or in other words, what if a theory is an established theory?
There was a time when the established theory about the nature of the planet was that it was a flat surface. It's easy to say in hindsight that this was superstitious or uninformed view, but that's not entirely true. There was a time, before people had the evidence that we now have, that such a theory actually did fit the evidence: The earth looks flat, I walk on it as though it were flat. It seems obvious. The acceptance of the theory did not make it fact, thought it would have been reasonable if people of said time accepted it as such, but only because they had no reason to do otherwise.
As time passed, and more evidence was gathered, that theory was eventually ceased to be accepted as fact. That theory was probably resistant to change, and wasn't entirely accepted until the evidence was such that it wasn't possible to explain with the old theory (such as the fact that people could sail around the world).
There probably comes a point when the theory itself can be seen in evidence. With the example above, this could be when the Earth could be seen from space. "Oh, I see the Earth. Yep, it's round alright. I guess we were right about that one." I suppose you could come up with an alternate explanation for that if you tried hard enough, but that's not the point.
The point is that scientific method can only disprove theories, and theories can only be proven through experience, at which point they are no longer debatable as fact, but undeniable as such.
Just as the theories about the world, it's possible that a theory is fact (such as the round theory), but the existence of a theory doesn't automatically mean it is fact (such as the flat theory). The old theory that gets disproved simply never was fact. The new theory might be fact, or it might not be. It's fair to treat it as fact, but also acknowledging that future experience might change that way that past experience is interpretted.
what i mean is that the very process of verification is dependent upon theores. ie. chemical theories, theories of light, vision, physics, experience, etc.
I guess that's true, though I think it depends on the extent to which you want to wonder "if you really have a brain and how you might know it."
I guess you could say that we operate on the theory that the things we experience really happen, or to the extent that's not entirely true, that the things we experience repeatedly that are also experienced by others must really happen. It's arguable that anything we hold as fact ultimately comes down to whether or not we accept our own experience as a valid method of interpretting reality.
To a degree I think it's silly to put in question your own experience, but you bring up a good point with this (if it is that I understand the point you're making): I realize that my confidence in my experience is based on the theory that what I experience is representative of reality as it is (or can be) experienced by anyone -- an objective reality. I choose to accept that theory as fact (mostly because without it I have no basis for fact at all).
Maybe the point that this raises is, simply, that it makes sense for us to treat a theory that is logically consistent (either with evidence, or maybe even with other accepted theories, I don't know) as fact. As you point out, that's what we do even with our own experience.
I think this emphasizes (or at least clarifies) my original point: We shouldn't throw out or block our minds against theory any more than we should cling to it and insist that it is eternal.
The things we hold true now may be disproved in the future. That doesn't mean we shouldn't act on them now. We have a certain interpretation of reality that makes sense, and it would be foolish for us not to act on that interpretation. We should also acknowledge that said interpretation is constantly evolving.
This may be out there, but to me, a theory is a model used for interpreting what is really happening (the actual empirical evidence/experience). Scientific theories, physics, and even mathematics are tools used for approximation. We should use them as far as they are applicable, but should always realize they are models, and not the facts themselves.
I guess what I am trying to say (and what I think you and Russ are saying) is that facts are just really popular theories.
This all sounds very familiar...have you said this before, Be?
And to think all this was spurred by Dave Matthews! I am so pleased right now. If a recording can do this, one can only IMAGINE what effect the concert will have tonight!
What epistmological quandry have our ontological delusions gotten us into this time?
Or is it an ontological quandry causing epistimological delusions?
Maybe we're just crazy.
I'm reading a book called The World is Flat. I'm convinced.
Post a Comment