When does a theory stop being a theory?

[ajh]

Is there a point where a theory stops being a theory and just becomes fact?A lot of creationists bring up "evolution is just a theory",but given the vast amount of evidence that shows evolution to be true,could it really be called a theory anymore?Or is "theory" just a blanket statement that only means a basic principle that explains something?

It's something I've had rolling around in my head for a while,I'm just looking for clarification,so I could be better prepared for when someone says "it's just a theory",or something to that degree.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Theory is the highest level of confidence one can reach in science outside of the field of Mathematics.

Theories can never be proven. Atomic Theory wasn't even proven at Hiroshima.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

A theory stops being a theory when a better theory replaces it?

Evolution is a fact. The theories that explain the fact of evolution include natural selection and punctuated equilibrium.

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

Facts are merely observations. They are data points. Theory is there to make sense of facts.

It's a fact that we see different developments in the fossil record over time. It's a fact that all living organisms we know are based on cells. It's a fact that these cells replicate by means of DNA. It is a fact that different species share more or less of this DNA. Evolutionary theory is there to tie these facts together.

Theory is above fact in the scientific pecking order, but colloquial usage means that most people don't understand this.

 

[imbosales]

a theory stops when it becomes a law.

 

[australopithecus]

Er, no. It doesn't. Laws are observations that are true under a specific set of circumstances, it doesn't explain the observation. Theories do.

Also, welcome to the forum

 

[Andiferous]

Theory is philosophy that has yet to be science. I suppose it depends on your perception of philosophy?

 

[kenandkids]

a theory stops when it becomes a law.

Sorry, not correct. A theory is always a theory unless or until it is supplanted by a theory that is more accurate.


Side note: Most professors I've had and most of the scientists that I've met do not use or like the term "law." It implies ultimate finality, when actually scientists are always ready to add to or otherwise modify a theory.

 

[kenandkids]

Theory is philosophy that has yet to be science. I suppose it depends on your perception of philosophy?

? What?

 

[Andiferous]

Well, just that this was attempted here. I still feel bad about not finishing it (please, someone else take up the torch), but the question mark was a silly attempt at self-depreciation. I'm sorry for being confusing.

 

[Squawk]

a theory stops when it becomes a law.

No it doesn't. Laws are often component parts of theories, but a law is generally speaking either a factual statement or a mathematical model of a given phonena, with no explanation attached.

Newtons law of gravitational attraction, for example, are simply a mathematical representation of the interaction between particles with mass.

The theory of gravity explains why those laws hold (or as is the case don't in certain situations, but they are a close approximation).

 

[imbosales]

a theory that is more accurate may replace an existing theory, so on and so forth..thus, the most accurate theory amongst the other theories may be ultimate, therefore, it becomes a law. the law is ultimate and conclusive!

 

[Pulsar]

No, a theory never becomes a law. And using a bigger font doesn't make your comment true either.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

how about a smaller font? does it make my points more valid?
anyway, you have to make a difference between the terms -theory- and -scientific theory-

in short,

A scientific theory has been tested repeatedly and is correct for observed results.

A common theory is pretty much just a guess.

There is no mathematical theory of that sort, you have laws that apply on all numbers when same formulas are used.
For evolution you can't say "test subject A started growing bigger wings after 50 generations therefore B will also grow bigger wings after 50 generations" you can't even say that A will grow bigger wings after 50 generations again, even if you give the same circumstances.
So scientists talk about theories based on observations, you can't make a law out of it.
If somebody wants to correct the nebulousness i wrote, go ahead, i wouldn't be surprised if i got something wrong.

But however you turn it, what i will always stand behind is that saying

well you guys call it a theory, so i'm safe to call it bullshit and stick to what some morons wrote in my ancient book, i just have to choose which version i will pick because there are 2 versions few pages apart

is plain moronic, and calling it "creation science" is almost too sad to be funny.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

There are some rights but most are wrongs.

Theories don't get promoted to facts or laws or what no, laws will allways be laws facts will allways be facts and theories will always be thoeries, hypotesis may become laws but that is a different thing. So what is what?

Theory basicaly just means the conceptual work as oposed to pratical work.

Laws are specific relations, specific statments held true.

Facts are observations.

Example gravity, the fact is when I drop this item I see it fall I can say that "object 'X' falled when I let it go on that moment", and that is a fact in the sense that it is something that we see it happen. A Law would be the "inverse square" relation of the strenght of gravity and the proportionality of mass, it is law in the sense that describes a instance that it is held true and it sort of describes how things fall. The theory of gravity on the other hand mentions the entire conceptual work relating to this subject, it means that one can learn about the inverse square law but also you can learn about other laws, you can learn for instance that 2 bodies with mass will have conic orbits (eliptic, parabolic, hyperbolic) and it can also refer to work regarding energetic balances involved in gravitic fields, it can also involve relativistic phenomena, and so on and so fort.
Theorys are not synonim to guesses or very good and educated guesses backedup by mountains of evidence but short of absolute true. The exact same usage of the word theory is used in mathematics withoutany guess being involved. In number theory it encompasses subjects like the relation between numbers like prime numbers, in diferential theory there is calculus and diferentiation by parts and partial diferential equations, integration, integration by substitution, line integrations. There is also complex theory that englobes everything related to complex numbers. And so on, you get the picture.

 

[Deleted member 619]

A fact is a data point. A hypothesis is an attempt to explain a data point or a set thereof. A law is a (usually mathematical) description of a process or relationship. A theory is an explanatory framework dealing with a set of facts, hypotheses and laws of specific interest.

At no point do we encounter a set of circumstances in which one becomes another, because they are all qualitatively different things.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

A fact is a data point. A hypothesis is an attempt to explain a data point or a set thereof. A law is a (usually mathematical) description of a process or relationship. A theory is an explanatory framework dealing with a set of facts, hypotheses and laws of specific interest.

At no point do we encounter a set of circumstances in which one becomes another, because they are all qualitatively different things.

Show me where the big bang THEORY or THEORY of evolution are talked about in the Bible and we can have a debate. Otherwise, your, point is moot. Good day.

but how do you explain that to somebody who says things like this?

 

[Laurens]

a theory that is more accurate may replace an existing theory, so on and so forth..thus, the most accurate theory amongst the other theories may be ultimate, therefore, it becomes a law. the law is ultimate and conclusive!

Nope.

Laws are constituent parts of theories.

Dollo's law states that evolution does not reverse itself, e.g: whale's won't re-evolve into land animals.

This law is part of the theory of evolution.

In mathematics there is a term 'theorem' which is I believe higher than the status 'theory', but that is reserved for mathematics, you do not get scientific theorems.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

In mathematics there is a term 'theorem' which is I believe higher than the status 'theory', but that is reserved for mathematics, you do not get scientific theorems.

No, theorems in mathematics are proven propositions, there is no such things as Laws in mathematics there are theorems (which incidently is not the same as theorems in science in the rare instances they are used, although I would contest to such usage in science).

 

[Laurens]

In mathematics there is a term 'theorem' which is I believe higher than the status 'theory', but that is reserved for mathematics, you do not get scientific theorems.

No, theorems in mathematics are proven propositions, there is no such things as Laws in mathematics there are theorems (which incidently is not the same as theorems in science in the rare instances they are used, although I would contest to such usage in science).

Thanks for the correction