Remember, kids:
-
@deedo
Exactly. Although, in general using correlation to "prove" (and by extension "disprove") something is a very slippery slope at best. I always use this example when I'm explaining correlation:There is a perfect positive correlation between "being married" and "getting divorce", and even higher correlation between "being born" and "death", as you cannot have the latter without the former, and yet, neither means causality.
@Mehrad @juergen_hubert haha, I realized that and chose to stick with this wording anyway.
But it's exactly this nuance and wording in probabilities instead of black and white exclamations! that gets misunderstood.
I mean, "vaccines kill!¨ is so easily put. And science says: "Technically you are correct that in some cases ..."
-
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
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. -
@juergen_hubert A thought occurs: Older theories are often referred to as laws. Newton's laws of motion. The laws of thermodynamics. Presumably a relic from older and more confident ways of thinking about truth, but the problem is that we *still* call them laws.
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. -
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 All hail science!
-
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
Climate scientist here. Global warming (or global heating rather) is an established fact by now.
It was a theory until last century. -
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 not sure we're going to be able to fix the colloquial fubar of this one.
-
@juergen_hubert
Climate scientist here. Global warming (or global heating rather) is an established fact by now.
It was a theory until last century.@swoonie @juergen_hubert it was a *hypothesis*, now it is theory. that is exactly jürgen's point.
-
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 Probably too many syllables in that ten dollar word you got there, "theory" works the same don't it? /s
-
@juergen_hubert
Climate scientist here. Global warming (or global heating rather) is an established fact by now.
It was a theory until last century.@swoonie @juergen_hubert Yeh, this is the one example given in the OP that I wouldn't apply the word 'theory' to. It was conjecture at one time, maybe a hypothesis at some point, but it is a fact that global warming is happening, not a theory.
There are theories I've heard that it is something to do with burning fossil fuels...
-
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
Yes, but then we have things like terrain theory which...eesh. -
@swoonie @juergen_hubert it was a *hypothesis*, now it is theory. that is exactly jürgen's point.
@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. -
@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.
