Remember, kids:
-
@juergen_hubert
Climate scientist here. Global warming (or global heating rather) is an established fact by now.
It was a theory until last century. -
@lritter @juergen_hubert
It is *not* a theory. Climate science has worked intensely the past forty years, based on theory that was first formulated in the 19th century, that the observed global heating is caused mainly by the emissions from burning fossil fuels.
We know this for sure. Period.And that's what makes it a scientific theory.
The "facts" are the observations. The "theory" is the tested explanation for those observations.
-
@lritter @juergen_hubert
It is *not* a theory. Climate science has worked intensely the past forty years, based on theory that was first formulated in the 19th century, that the observed global heating is caused mainly by the emissions from burning fossil fuels.
We know this for sure. Period.> based on *a hypothesis* that was first formulated in the 19th century
fixed that for you.
to be even clearer this time: you use the word "theory" wrong, like many people and politicians do.
-
> based on *a hypothesis* that was first formulated in the 19th century
fixed that for you.
to be even clearer this time: you use the word "theory" wrong, like many people and politicians do.
@lritter @juergen_hubert
If your use of the word “theory” confuses everyone, then it is a confusing use of this word and should be avoided.Even if You Know You Are Right
. -
@lritter @juergen_hubert
If your use of the word “theory” confuses everyone, then it is a confusing use of this word and should be avoided.Even if You Know You Are Right
.@swoonie @juergen_hubert tomorrow it's going to hit a word that matters to you professionally, as punishment for what you just said.
-
@swoonie @juergen_hubert tomorrow it's going to hit a word that matters to you professionally, as punishment for what you just said.
@lritter @juergen_hubert
Gotta get on with my day now, buddy.
Have a good one! -
@swoonie @juergen_hubert it was a *hypothesis*, now it is theory. that is exactly jürgen's point.
You can't observe a theory.
What we observe is facts.
The explanation we tack onto it is a theory.
Most of evolution is the facts. We can literally see evolution happening.
Those facts are not a theory, they're the bar any theory has to get over.Climate change, likewise, is observable fact. And any theory of climate will have to incorporate those facts and explain them.
Does that clear it up?
-
You can't observe a theory.
What we observe is facts.
The explanation we tack onto it is a theory.
Most of evolution is the facts. We can literally see evolution happening.
Those facts are not a theory, they're the bar any theory has to get over.Climate change, likewise, is observable fact. And any theory of climate will have to incorporate those facts and explain them.
Does that clear it up?
@androcat @swoonie @juergen_hubert in your words, what is the difference between hypothesis and theory?
-
Remember, kids:
In proper scientific terms, an attempt to explain observable phenomena is called a "hypothesis".
It is called a "theory" when it fits all the observable facts, and there is no observable evidence to the contrary. We don't call it a "truth" because there's always a chance that it might be overturned by later evidence - but as far as science is concerned, a "theory" is as hard as it gets.
This is often confusing to people who dismiss science they don't like as "it's just a theory". But this distinction should be kept in mind when discussing things like the "Theory of Evolution", "Theory of Relativity", "Global Warming Theory", and "Dead Internet Theory".
#PSA #Evolution #GlobalWarming #DeadInternetTheory #Science #Theory
@juergen_hubert Good reminder! One thing I'm missing from your description: Can you have competing scientific theories in your definition? I'm reminded of Kuhn's concept of paradigms which entails that there is always some conflicting evidence that any paradigm tends to dismiss (as noise, mistakes etc). Paradigms tend to shift when the conflicting evidence becomes overwhelming and a new theory manages to account for those previous exceptions.
-
@androcat @swoonie @juergen_hubert in your words, what is the difference between hypothesis and theory?
I am not arguing about that, it's as Jürgen laid it out.
But there is some confusion around how facts fit in.
If you see E. Coli bakteria adapt to the substrate you're using, becoming resistant to an antibiotic in the process, what do you call that?
It's not a "theory" or "hypothesis".
The measurement is not a theory or hypothesis.
The theory or hypothesis are attempts at explaining the measurement.
It never supplants it.
What you observe with the E. Coli is a fact of evolution, which is separate from the theory of evolution.
And when a theory falls over, the facts it were built on remain untouched. Ready to support the next, improved theory.
-
@juergen_hubert The people who try to discount evolution for being "just a theory" should also feel free to discount gravity for being "just a theory."
@ljwrites It was such a great time before newton invented gravity. Just floating around! /j @juergen_hubert
-
Sorry to be a pedant, a Law is the hardest it gets. You can't fuck around with the Laws of Gravity.
Theories come and go and many are a work in progress: some withstand the test of experiment and observation better than others as the theory gets better and better at explaining all the facets of a phenomenon. However, as far as lay people are concerned, science as a constantly moving feast goes against the absolutism promoted by many non-scientists to justify the shit they come out with.@tribactam @juergen_hubert ... and you can have a theory of what the Laws of Gravity are - that's all you can have.
The issue is that, like most words, the word "theory" is used differently in different contexts. As Wikipedia puts it
1/2 -
I am not arguing about that, it's as Jürgen laid it out.
But there is some confusion around how facts fit in.
If you see E. Coli bakteria adapt to the substrate you're using, becoming resistant to an antibiotic in the process, what do you call that?
It's not a "theory" or "hypothesis".
The measurement is not a theory or hypothesis.
The theory or hypothesis are attempts at explaining the measurement.
It never supplants it.
What you observe with the E. Coli is a fact of evolution, which is separate from the theory of evolution.
And when a theory falls over, the facts it were built on remain untouched. Ready to support the next, improved theory.
@androcat @swoonie @juergen_hubert ok i see. so fact and theory are not antonyms.
-
@tribactam @juergen_hubert ... and you can have a theory of what the Laws of Gravity are - that's all you can have.
The issue is that, like most words, the word "theory" is used differently in different contexts. As Wikipedia puts it
1/2@tribactam @juergen_hubert People, who are very into science, tend to ignore or even negate the vernacular (what a word) usage. People, who aren't interested in the foundations of science normally don't even know the definition of "scientific theory"
2/2 -
@androcat @swoonie @juergen_hubert ok i see. so fact and theory are not antonyms.
The relationship is set and subset.
Not all hypotheses become theories.
But all theories began as hypotheses.
Facts are the world. -
You can't observe a theory.
What we observe is facts.
The explanation we tack onto it is a theory.
Most of evolution is the facts. We can literally see evolution happening.
Those facts are not a theory, they're the bar any theory has to get over.Climate change, likewise, is observable fact. And any theory of climate will have to incorporate those facts and explain them.
Does that clear it up?
@androcat @lritter @swoonie @juergen_hubert
One additional confusing (for lay people’s understanding of the word) issue is that theory also means “the entirety of human thought” on a given subject.
When we say music theory, we don’t mean that we’re speculating if music actually exists. We mean the entirety of what we think regarding how it works. Same for evolution. The theory of evolution is not a speculation on the existence of the phenomenon, it’s the totality of what we know about how it works. Well, technically it’s “what we think we know”.
On one hand I understand why this word is confusing and prone to misuse, on the other can’t get over the frustration that it is.
If only the average person wasn’t so insecure about uncertainty.
-
@tribactam @juergen_hubert People, who are very into science, tend to ignore or even negate the vernacular (what a word) usage. People, who aren't interested in the foundations of science normally don't even know the definition of "scientific theory"
2/2this is a very valid point - words can mean very different things in different contexts and scientists often make the mistake of assuming that their definition of the word is what is generally understood.
-
this is a very valid point - words can mean very different things in different contexts and scientists often make the mistake of assuming that their definition of the word is what is generally understood.
-
@juergen_hubert Good reminder! One thing I'm missing from your description: Can you have competing scientific theories in your definition? I'm reminded of Kuhn's concept of paradigms which entails that there is always some conflicting evidence that any paradigm tends to dismiss (as noise, mistakes etc). Paradigms tend to shift when the conflicting evidence becomes overwhelming and a new theory manages to account for those previous exceptions.
@malte @juergen_hubert I'd say yes. If you have two theories fitting to all (currently!) observable facts etc.
You can look at the predictions these theories make. If they are identical it's basically the same theory worded differently. If there are different predictions you have an indicator where you can find interesting facts...
-
No Allen, the laws of thermodynamics, motion etc are mathematically describable. That's what makes them Laws. This is not a problem: the mathematical relationship is always that. There is no conjecture.
Note that the word Law is applied to really fundamental things like gravity, motion etc.
Hooke's Law - describes the behaviour of a spring under load. It never changes and applies to all springs, with the proviso that the elastic constant will depend on the material. But that's experimentally verificable.
Many of these physical Laws (and chemical Laws) were elaborated in the 17th-19th Century. It wasn't a case of more confidence (think about their instruments compared to our), it was a case of observation-measurement over many cases.
In contrast, only certain aspects of evolution are mathematically certain, the difference being that evolution refers to complex systems whereas a spring is a spring.@tribactam @juergen_hubert No, that doesn't sound right at all.
The theories of relativity, and quantum theory, to pick very well-known examples, are both mathematically rigorous, derived from foundational principles and empirically tested. They are also better at making predictions that match reality. The Laws you've quoted tend to only work under limited conditions which weren't obvious when they were first formulated - they remain valid as very good approximations and give reliable predictions within their limits, but they fail under more extreme conditions where the realities behind the assumptions start to matter.
I think that the concept of a natural law is archaic, and the reason we don't use the term anymore is because generations of scientists have watched these Laws come apart over time and have since realised that Science is not about cataloguing God's Laws of Nature, but creating a model of how the natural world works, describing it in a formal Theory, and refining or replacing that model over time as new data makes it necessary.
