One of Maximum PC’s article had two commenters duking it out on Scientific Theory. The funny thing about the discussion, it had no relation to the article whatsoever. It was all about what was considered the definition term for Scientific Theory.

The convo is pretty lengthy so I’m just going to put two snippets of where it gets really technical. But I have to say, one of the guys explained it really well. I never seen somebody discuss a whole comment about Scientific Theory. I found it fascinating!

---

Oliver Sudden:

“Just a Theory?”

You vastly misunderstand what that means in science, sir.  So let me tell you about it.

When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.  It all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof.  In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch.  It’s a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.  It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions.  In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation.  It’s as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it’s proven, it becomes a law.  That’s not how it works.  In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them.  You don’t promote a theory to a law by proving it.  A scientific theory never becomes a law.  Let me give that sentence its own line so we can be clear.

A scientific theory never becomes a law.

In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws.  There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory.  Laws describe things, theories explain them.  An example will help you to understand this.

There’s a law of gravity, which is a *description* of gravity.  It basically says that if you let go of something it’ll fall.  It doesn’t say why.  Then there’s the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why.  Actually, Newton’s Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein’s Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it.  These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories.  They can’t be changed into laws, because laws are different things.  Laws describe *what*, and theories explain *why*.

Just because it’s called a theory of gravity, doesn’t mean that it’s just a guess.  It’s been tested.  All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we’ve tested.  Also, gravity is real!  You can observe it for yourself.  Just because it’s real doesn’t mean that the explanation is a law.  The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Regarding conspiracy theorists: *those* theories ARE merely guesses.  All evidence presented that disprove their conspiracy theories is systematically discarded.

Now, onto your point about the burden of proof.  Yes, the burden of proof is on the theorist, not the critic.

I agree with you there.

The difference I was highlighting is that the scientific theorist has done the work to make something a scientific theory.  The conspiracy theorist most certainly has not.

So I wouldn’t make that comparison again as it’s not very fair: it elevates the conspiracy theorist to a height he’s never known while at the same time dragging down science to a deep abyss.

---

Maximum Mike:

Ehhhhh… you’re really arguing semantics at this point. I will give you that scientists do alot of work to establish their theories, but you and I both know that there are some scientists who do very little work to substantiate their work. These are bad scientists. And yes, unfortunately, because the topic is highly controversial and because many people have a moral stake on both sides of the controversy, there are lots of scientists doing bad science on both sides of the issue. That isn’t to say that there isn’t also some very good science being done. However, it is a popular topic and it is easy for anyone to find some bad science being done on either side of the debate over evolution. This is unfortunate for the scientists doing the real work. However, that has no bearing on the fact that that bad science is being done in the field of evolution. So, as much as you may hate to face the facts, my analogy holds up fine.

Secondly, I disagree with you entirely that laws are lower than theories. That is absolutely absurd. Yes, I agree that some laws are generalizations that are the results of casual observations that anyone can repeat. I also agree with you that once a law is known, there will inevitably be new theories describing the laws and seeking to answer new questions that will certainly arise. However, there are some logical flaws in you reasoning.

First, Laws are those scientific statements that have been proven to be true and have been demonstrated. Theories, on the other hand seek to answer questions that we don’t know the answers to. Even if they have lots of good evidence to support them, they cannot be stated to be true unless they are proven. So how is it that you reason that the thing which is known to be true is on a higher level than the thing which is not known to be true? This is about as absurd as it gets. You might reply that theories seek to determine the things on which laws are based, so therefore those things are more important. I would grant you that they are, but once those things are fully known there will be laws regarding them. So, yes some laws may be more important than others, but theories can NEVER be higher than laws, because they are not known to be true.

The field of mathematics is a good example of why we dont give unproven theories the weight of law. How many times have mathematical scientists thought that they had a formula that generated all prime numbers, and then some time later someone produced a prime number that could not be generated by that formula? Those formulas or theories remain unproven. And don’t take my statement lightly and say, “oh that’s just some dumb formula and not the same thing as a scientific theory at all.” Mathematics is one of the most important sciences. It is the very language with which we can describe proofs and on which they must be based. Mathematicians and computer scienctists have both done a considerable amount of research on prime numbers, and there are some very complicated theories regarding them. This is not an easy field of study. However, mathematicians will tell you there is a grave difference between laws and theories. If your deffinitions of these things are endemically different from theirs, then I know you to be a liar.

This brings me to my next point. I take your statement that a theory can never become a law as an outright lie. Such a statement has the ringings of a lazy scientist who doesn’t want the grant money to run out. You may find my statement harsh, but I see no other reason for you to make yours. The fact is that many theories have become laws. Laws are not alway simple generalizations like, “what goes up must come down.” Some of them are very complicated, having indeed started as theories which later became laws. For instance, take the laws or aerodynamics. They involve some pretty complicated mathematical calculations. We did not know most of these laws 200 years ago. Much of what we now consider law started as theory. Sure, alot of it is still theory, and as we learn more there will be even more theory. But that does not change the fact that what was once theory has become law.

Now to be fair to you, I am sure that you are just defensive because evolution science is a controversial field and alot of good scientists are taking heavy fire every day. Were it in my power we would remove the factors of politics, hidden agendas, and personal ambition from science. However, the reality is that to be a scientist today is to live with some heavy, and many times unmerited, scrutiny, especially in the field of evolution. I understand the desire for one’s work to be appreciated and esteemed, and for it not to be simply shrugged off by some half-wit who couldn’t understand the half of it. However, that is no excuse for skewing the facts. That is no excuse for artificially elevating that which is theory to some ethereal position which is called “higher than law.” That my friend is the beginning of delusion.

---

You can find the full comment here

Tags: Epic, funny, Science