After watching an embarrassing clip of the Muslim apologist "Dr" Zakir Naik, where he gets a good question but he just dismissed it buy claiming that the student who asked the question didn't know basic English languish regarding "theory" and that theory is not a "law".
Of course, Naik was using the common language version of that a theory is, a classic misunderstanding of apologists.
I'm attempting to get a clear understanding of the terms and the differences between them, to distill it down to a short but clear way to effectively explain it to others.
Note that I'm not suggesting any of this is the "ultimate" truth, instead it represents my current understanding of the terms. The point here is to get suggestions, critique, etc, to improve the explanations below, and/or suggestions on how to phrase it to spread the understanding better.
1 --- In the context of common language ---
The word "theory" means:
- A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural.
The word "hypothesis" means:
I don't see much difference towards the word "theory". Is this word is even used in common language?
2 --- In the context of science ---
The word "theory" means:
- A well substantiated explanation, usually corroborated by vast bodies of converging evidence. Acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.
The word "hypothesis" means:
- A proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
3 --- The difference between scientific theory and scientific law ---
A common misunderstanding is that a scientific theory is a step on the way of becoming a scientific law. No one of these ever become the other.
A scientific law is a repeatedly observed phenomena in nature that often can be described by mathematical models. They are merely descriptions of the observed phenomenon, not an attempt at an explanation of why a series of observations reliably occur.
A scientific law can describe for example a certain force and what its effects will be, while a scientific theory will offer an explanation for the existence of that force.
TL;DR
I'm attempting to get an clear understanding of the terms "hypothesis", "theory" and "law", and the differences between them, with the purpose to be able to briefly but clearly explain it to others.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Well there is a good explanation here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqk3TKuGNBA
Ironically I know he is using the wrong example for theory(ape->human) but what he is saying is correct.
(Evolution by natural selection is in fact a theory, but the picture he is showing is macro evolution which is a hypothesis which extends on the theory.)
Even his last comment should be Hypothesis not Theory lol
He ended the video with me palm facing myself lol
"I predict the future will be bright, I like that theory."
Hypothesis!!!!!!
But yea the definitions he gave are quite accurate and clearly point out the difference between Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law.
Thanks.
Regarding the specific example, I'm focusing on the terms themselves and their definitions and I'm intentionally leaving the ape->human discussion out of it. :)
Yea, my main focus was on "the terms" too, but I know people that would jump on the occasion to misunderstand what I am saying, so I just wanted to make sure I don't get misunderstood.
I actually think that those definitions are the easiest to understand in that video once the mistakes are pointed out.
So to clarify your question:
"I don't see much difference towards the word "theory". Is this word is even used in common language?"
When someone says I have a theory, he is actually saying he has a hypothesis as described in the video.
Also pointed out in the video is the idea that a theory is also a prediction model which is the only thing you missed in your definition of theory.
For the rest is mostly correct.
"a theory is also a prediction model"
Good point, thanks.
The word "fact" should of course have been included in the OP as well.
Yea fact gets confused too, it is good that the video talks about it too, since it does explain the differences better.
Double post.
Then you have principles as well, like:
stationary action
relativity
etc
Doh! Right...
"Scientific principle" seems harder to find a clear definition of.
The closest thing I got to an explanation for a layman, would be something like:
- A scientific principle is a specific logical reasoning about a specific subject.
I have no idea if that is an accurate simplified explanation or if it's way off.
Thanks Jeff Vella Leone! It is always good to keep these basic terminologies clear in our minds. The misuse of these terms are both a common fallacy and rhetorical weapon applied by the enemies of reason.
You are welcome, yes as you said they truly are "applied by the enemies of reason."
In an attempt to keep it as short and simple as possible, this is what I got so far.
--------------------------------------------
Theory (in common language):
- A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural.
Fact (in common language):
- A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. A statement of fact is verifiable.
Scientific fact:
- A repeatable careful observation or measurement, by experimentation or other means.
Scientific principle:
- A specific logical reasoning about a specific subject.
Scientific hypothesis:
- An educated guess used as a starting point for further investigation.
Scientific theory:
- A rigorously tested and corroborated explanation for the "how" or "why" regarding a specific subject. It is also a prediction model, where the predictions are used to validate or invalidate the theory.
Scientific law:
- A description of an observed phenomena that can often be described by mathematical models.
The difference between scientific theory and scientific law:
A scientific law is a description, while a scientific theory is an explanation.
Scientific law, theory and fact can all coexist simultaneously.
Ex:
Gravity is a fact - It is repeatable and measurable.
The law of gravity - Describes the effect of gravity on objects.
The theory of gravity - Explains how gravity works.
--------------------------------------------
The point is to be able to explain the terms in a discussion with just about anyone with no prior knowledge about scientific terms.
Is any of this incorrect? Anything to add? Can something be simplified even further?
I welcome critique and suggestions.
Another point worth mentioning is that scientific theories typically can't be totally wrong. Let's look at an old stinker:
caloric theory
Back when the first serious investigations of heat took place (1700's) it was realized that the flow of heat could be modelled mathematically as the flow of a fluid, so the a theory arose that heat was a fluid. They called it the caloric fluid and the calorie we use today is still descended from this time. This theory made incredibly successful predictions and led to huge advances in the understanding of heat. Of course in the modern era our understanding of the microscopic nature of heat is very different than this idea that it is an actual fluid. But you can still use the theory to predict the outcome of an experiment, and of course it still works.
Thanks.
Good point, but I think I'll leave it out of this short and simplified explanation. Scientific theory is still the longest explanation, and it was hard enough to bring down that short. :)
I think it's useful for when a discussion goes in deeper on the subject of what scientific theory is.
"The theory of gravity - Explains how gravity works."
Well put, indeed we don't have a theory of why gravity works only how it works(general relativity). We do have some hypothesis though.
Thanks for the feedback.
You guys realize that even if you told a theist these definitions they would (A) Not understand them or (B) Not believe you even though you are stating fact(commen theme much) which would be brought about by the fact that both their religion and the media had convinced them and brainwashed them into accepting incorrect definitions.
Or both. Don't forget that both are likely to happen at the same time.
Sure.
But be careful about dismissing religious people as stupid. A believer can be as intelligent as anyone else. But of course, that does not matter if they are not willing to listen or are unable to change their viewpoint.
The point is first to know the terms for yourself, then to be able to use a short simple explanation in a discussion.
I never said anything about them being stupid. Blind from fact and logic, yes. Stupid, no. I don't believe their is any human that is or has been "stupid" Even those mentally challenged of us are just as smart. They just lack the full capacity to use it, which dosent mean it isn't their.
Ah, I stand corrected. :)
I assumed that was what you meant by "(A) Not understand".
Prag, I may think theists are blind, blubbering fools. But I'm not arrogant or enough of an ahole to the point of calling them stupid.
Good to know. My bad, sorry. :)
Ah, nothing's wrong here. Everyone interprets things differently, and that's no different for atheists. Man, I feel a bit to preachy now.
Unlike Keeper of Worlds, I do KNOW theists are willingly ignorant of their own religion which makes them quite stupid.
The exact term:
Artificially made stupid through indoctrination.
Stupid:
"Having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense:"
"Dazed and unable to think clearly:"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stupid
When you are accepting anything on faith while ignoring the conflicting evidence, you willingly refusing to learn which automatically makes you a stupid person in that regard.
I am ready to accept that there are bright people which are theists, but they are stupid for the fact that they do not search for the truth(without bias) of their religion for some reason.
The question is;
Can a person be smart in a field and stupid in an other.
Yes it can happen and it does happen especially where indoctrination is at place.
Where our attachments/feelings cloud our judgments.
We sometimes willingly decide to be stupid in a particular subject.
Eg:
(failed marriages is one such example where you see partners making stupid decisions they would not do if they weren't emotionally compromised)
They are only ignorant in the area of religion, you petulant fool. No other area is ignorant. And you know people take the slang and not the literal.
Yea but they choose to base their lives on an area they wish to remain ignorant on.
Stupid is the word that fits such a person.
If you wish to base your life and career on marketing but decide to not even study the subject, then the word that describes you the most is STUPID.
Ignorant is lack of knowledge, everybody is ignorant in something.
Stupid is choosing to be ignorant on a subject you need/want.