About scientific theories as facts

[wautd]

Here goes. Last night I found myself in yet another evolution vs ID debate. Resistance was light with basicly only the good ol' "But it's just a theory111!!" statement and that was smacked down accordingly. During the debate I also stated that due to overwhelming evidence towards elultion and the lack of evidence disproving evolution that evolution is a fact


Someone made an interesting point however:

Evolution of species is a fact the same way falling down instead of upwards is a fact.

Indeed, this statement is key to the point i'm trying to make, whilst it is a fact that animals have genetically adapted to their environment over millions of years, and that you fall down instead of up.... can the theories that describe these facts, be themselves classified as facts?

I would suggest that it would be dangerous to do so.

P.S a foetus exposed to heavy radiation, can exhibit drastic mutations and appear with missing limbs/two heads etc... and other genetic 'defects', this is also a fact, that evolution when darwin concieved it did not explain.......

context as to why it can be dangerous:

Isnt it dangerous to talk of scientific theory as 'facts', though?

I mean, overwhelming scientific evidence, shouldnt turn a theory into a fact, this of itself would close the door to any further development or refining of a theory, which would then stop the theory being scientific in nature and instead dogmatic.

Scientific theory is itself evolutionary, to seal the fate of a theory and have its evolution terminated by stating it a 'fact' would be counter-productive, dont you think?

P.S these discussions are fun.. and yup im a nerd

Would saying "Scientific theories change a lot over time. Evidence is overturned and replaced by new evidence and new theories are formed. That is why its science and not dogma" be a good reply? (I want to be completely sure my answer both answers his question without having the slightlest error in it)

[mr friendly guy]

National Geographic addressed this issue when it published the famous issue with the words "Was Darwin wrong".

To paraphrase it, a theory is taken to be the correct explanation (ie itself a fact) but with the proviso that it can be changed to fit in with new evidence. This is a recognition that as humans we can make mistakes.

Of course you could simply bypass it altogether and used Darth Wong's argument on the main site where you differentiate between the progress of evolution and the theory of evolution. So to use your gravity analogy

Falling down instead of up is an observed fact. The theory of gravity explains this observation.

Species changing into a different species (the phase of evolution known as speciation) over time is an observed fact. The theory of evolution explains this observations (through the processes of mutations and natural selection).

Talk origins http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
give numerous examples of speciation.

[Zero]

Just tell him that we base our notions of 'fact' on observation. For example, we know from repeated experimentation that gravity is an attractive force between any two masses, and that the only actual difference in the rate of falling is caused by resistance with the air.

We also can be quite certain that the world isn't the center of the universe, as all observations indicate that we're moving around the sun, which is moving around the center of the galaxy, which is also moving. That's why geocentrism died, and was replaced with the more practical heliocentric models.

We also take note that in terms of our planet's history, fossils reveal an increase in organization and complexity as we come closer to the present time from the past, and also that genetic mutations are possible. There is no plausible explanation for this increase in diversity, organization, and complexity except for evolution. Even if evolutionary theory is constantly changing, we know that the basic notions of natural selection and speciation are true. We disagree on certain mechanisms and details, but the theory is very well documented, understood, and practically proven. It can be taken as fact, just as it's taken as fact that the world goes around the sun.

[wautd]

Excellent. That'll be more than enough

[Darth Wong]

Evidence is not overturned by new evidence unless it was fraudulent in the first place. The only thing that happens is:

1) We get new evidence which forces a revision of theories in order to explain simultaneously with the old evidence

2) We get more accurate evidence. Note that "more accurate" is totally different from "overturned", which implies that the new evidence is drastically different than the old evidence and forces us to go in a completely opposite direction.

As for theories and facts, since evolution is both theory and fact it's ridiculous and patently false to say that it's "just" a theory.

[Nephtys]

Fact does not really exist, outside of pure mathematics. The best analogy to this I've heard is as follows.

The sun rises from East to West. That's just a theory. There's no way I can prove that tomorrow, the Sun will rise. But we're pretty damn sure it will, with a probability very, very close to 1. Thus, it's a 'fact'.

A Fact is but a theory with an unarguably high probability of truth. In this case, evolution has enough (good) observation matching up with it to place it well in the 'scientific fact' category. Much like we pretty much know Stars are burning balls of fusion, not Apollo's Dandruff.

[Darth Wong]

What the fuck are you talking about? Scientifically, facts are observations. Theories are attempts to provide a model which will accurately predict future observations. It is a fact that I just dropped my pen on the ground and it fell down, not up. It is a theory that if I do it again, it will still drop down, not up.

[Dooey Jo]

Fact does not really exist, outside of pure mathematics. The best analogy to this I've heard is as follows.

Actually, that would be proof. An observation can be said to be a scientific fact. Interpretations of observations are also sometimes said to be scientific facts if most scientists agree on them.

The sun rises from East to West. That's just a theory. There's no way I can prove that tomorrow, the Sun will rise. But we're pretty damn sure it will, with a probability very, very close to 1. Thus, it's a 'fact'.

No, that the sun rose from East to West today would be fact. To say that it's going to rise the same way tomorrow because it rose today would be a form of inductive reasoning. It's not really a theory, because it's just a statement; "the sun will rise from East to West". There's no mechanism to explain it. It can however be an effect of a theory...

A Fact is but a theory with an unarguably high probability of truth. In this case, evolution has enough (good) observation matching up with it to place it well in the 'scientific fact' category. Much like we pretty much know Stars are burning balls of fusion, not Apollo's Dandruff.

Well if a fact is something which is generally regarded as true, and certain theories are generally regarded as accurate, or true, models of things, then those theories could be refered to as "facts". But facts normally refer to observations so it could lead to confusion...


Actually, speaking of confusion, you English people are lucky. Your language at least makes a difference between the words "proof", "evidence" and "fact". In Swedish, while they do exist, they are practically interchangeable, which leads to many head-aches in debates. In fact, I've had really long discussions on wether it's possible to disprove Santa Claus' existance or not, simply because the Swedish language doesn't make a definitive distinction between the words "proof" and "evidence"

[Vendetta]

Actually, speaking of confusion, you English people are lucky. Your language at least makes a difference between the words "proof", "evidence" and "fact".

But then we bugger it all up by having multiple definitions for the same word.

"Prove" for instance, has several definitions. It can mean showing something to be true, or it can also mean putting something to the test.

The expression "The exception that proves the rule" does not mean that the exception shows the rule to be true (though it's often used that way), it actually means that the exception challenges the truth of the rule, almost the exact opposite meaning for the same word in a different context. That one's so uncommon, awkward, and confusing that most native English speakers don't understand it.

[Surlethe]

Fact does not really exist, outside of pure mathematics. The best analogy to this I've heard is as follows.

fact Audio pronunciation of "fact" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
1. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
2. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
3. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

(I have bolded relevant definitions)

Pure mathematics has nothing at all to do with facts. Mathematics is based on assumptions, and is concerned with structure: essentially saying, "let's assume these to be true, and see what we can logically derive". In useful mathematics, the assumptions line up nicely with real-life facts, but that doesn't mean pure mathematics concerns itself with facts.

[Ariphaos]

Even if evolutionary theory is constantly changing, we know that the basic notions of natural selection and speciation are true.

The fact of evolution is that allele frequencies change over time. This is a fact as sure as the existance of gravity is a fact, or the speed of light is really friggin' fast is a fact.

Another fact of evolution is that mutations occur. Quite often. Many of these, indeed, are bad mutations - that also is a fact. The counterfact that creationists tend to ignore is that 70% of human pregnancies end in miscarriage.

Another fact is that the above mutations create new alleles, and destroy old ones (in the case of turning a gene off, for example).

These are facts. A creationist who claims otherwise is either wrong or lying.

The theories of evolution are natural selection, and the extrapolation that all life came from a single source. They are called theories, and not hypothesis, because they have the weight of evidence behind them. We watch natural selection occur in the modern day, and all life consists of the same amino acids, proteins and bases. All life has the same genetic means of replication, though multiple means are both possible and efficient.

------------

The only things that change are the specific orders in which species have evolved, what they evolved and when. This has nothing to do with the theory - it is merely gathering data, just like we gather data when we find new stars and galaxies. Creationists aren't daft enough to claim that astronomy changes when we find a new star, or when a new type of cepheid variable was discovered.