Jump to content

Basic Concepts of modern science


Recommended Posts

I'm not sure that I fully understand the basic Concepts of modern science.

Therefore, Please advice if you agree with the following descriptions:.

Observation: Whatever we see. For example we see redshift of farthest galaxies.

Evidence: a direct outcome from this observation that had been proved by confirmed theory or physics law. For example based on the redshift observation and Doppler Effect we know for sure that all the farther galaxies accelerating from us. Therefore, this is evidence.

Theory: Any unconfirmed/unproved Idea or Speculation which can give a feasible explanation/ solution for that observation or evidence.

Confirmed Theory: A theory which had been fully confirmed. However, it is forbidden to use the same original evidence for confirmation. Different evidence or a fully proved lab test is needed to confirm a theory.

No Math: It is also forbidden to confirm theory by Math. (unless it is based on a proven physics law or confirmed theory.) For example It is perfectly O.K. to develop a formula in order to get a theory of the dark energy in the universe, but this math can't be used as an approval for that theory.

Hypothesis: any theory which had been accepted by our elite scientists. For example Dark energy.

Argument: any idea or speculation which had been offered by any one of us.

Illogical argument: Any unrealistic argument which had been disapproved by confirmed theory or real evidence. Trash must be the only place for those arguments

Logical argument: Any argument which can't be disapproved by confirmed theory or real evidence. It is forbidden to disapprove an argument by Hypothesis.

Physics law: Fully confirmed thesis. However, we must use this law for its specific scale. For example Newton law is applicable for objects but not for particles.

 

I’ll give you a few suggestions. In science the words “proof,” “proven,” “know for sure” are seldom used concerning theory.

 

“based on the redshift observation and Doppler Effect we know for sure that all the farther galaxies accelerating from us. Therefore, this is evidence.”

 

 

The redshift of galaxies is evidence to support the proposal that the universe is expanding and that galaxies are moving away from each other. It is evidence for the related theory but we do not know for sure that this effect could not be otherwise caused and that the universe is not expanding. Other possibilities proposed have been light losing energy as it travels, the most well know of these proposals is called “tired light,” light is bent by gravity as well as redshifted by its passage through the universe, this is called gravitational redshifts, or Einstein redshifts, Light is spread out by its interactions with a background field such as dark matter or a Higgs field. This is called interaction redshifts or aether redshifts, proposals that light losses frequency when interacting with free electrons, part of its energy is absorbed. And there are many other such proposals explaining the observed galactic redshifts that presently cannot be disproved. .

 

Although it is the present theory, the galactic redshifts could be evidence for other theories and hypothesis other than the universe is expanding.

 

Theory: Any unconfirmed/unproved Idea or Speculation which can give a feasible explanation/ solution for that observation or evidence.

 

 

This is only the common use of the word, not the meaning in science. In science a “theory” usually involves a collection of different hypothesis that point to the same conclusion. It is usually considered to be well tested and which has had many predictions believed to be supported by evidence.

 

“Confirmed Theory: A theory which had been fully confirmed. However, it is forbidden to use the same original evidence for confirmation. Different evidence or a fully proved lab test is needed to confirm a theory.”

 

 

 

In science once a theory is “confirmed” it no longer is considered theory. An example is the “Earth is a spheroid in shape.” It is now referred to as fact. Other modern examples might be that “the surface of the Earth is divided into plates and these plates continuously move.” The basis for Plate tectonics theory, and “natural selection” whereby there is a mountain of evidence to support it. It is one of the primary foundation tenets for biological evolution theory.

 

“Hypothesis: any theory which had been accepted by our elite scientists. For example Dark energy.”

 

 

Hypotheses are speculation, one of many hypothesis that can explain particular observations It can be the starting point for testing and observation or the continued speculation of both.

 

"Dark Energy" has probably graduated in many practitioners minds from a hypothesis to a theory since the Nobel Prize was granted for its supposed discovery, even though what Dark Energy really involves is still hypothetical.

”Illogical argument” is often a matter of opinion. It is rarely used as a term in science, some simply assert that a certain argument is illogical (or seems illogical) for “xyz” reasons.

 

“Physics law”: Usually involves a mathematical (physics) formula which has not, or cannot be confirmed, but is thought to be valid for all venues where it has been used or might be otherwise tested. An example would be the Hubble Formula, AKA Hubble’s Law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm not sure that I fully understand the basic Concepts of modern science. Therefore, Please advice if you agree with the following descriptions:. Observation: Whatever we see. For example we see

I'd put it this way:   We have the theory of general relativity, which is well-tested and works insanely well in these tests. It explains the expansion of the universe and gravitational effects (and

I'd say it's what we measure. Saying see implies a human eye.   A measurement and prediction that are consistent, you need knowledge of the errors on both for this.   An accepted mathematical fr

In science once a theory is “confirmed” it no longer is considered theory.

In a word, no.

 

 

An example is the “Earth is a spheroid in shape.” It is now referred to as fact. Other modern examples might be that “the surface of the Earth is divided into plates and these plates continuously move.” The basis for Plate tectonics theory, and “natural selection” whereby there is a mountain of evidence to support it. It is one of the primary foundation tenets for biological evolution theory.

The shape of the earth would never rightly be considered a theory, in the scientific definition. In a sense, it's too small. And your use of evolution and theory in such a juxtaposition falsifies your earlier claim. Evolution is a fact — it has occurred. And we have the theory of evolution which explains how it happens. We have the theory of relativity in physics, which is very well confirmed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks

One last issue with regards to spiral galaxy;

In all the articles which you have delivered, I couldn't find any information about the spiral galaxy structure.

Please advice how the science explains the different activity and rotation curve at each segment - Bulge, spiral arms and Hallo.

 

Additional information.

 

When astronomers are claiming rotation curves of galaxies they are not talking theory. Since the late 1970's, or earlier, they have been able to fairly accurately measure the rotation curves of the bulge and the disc (arms) of a spiral galaxy by redshift differentials from one side of the galaxy to the other. Beyond that they measure the movement of neutral hydrogen where the movement of individual stars are difficult to observe or measure. This is primarily where the divergence of predicted velocities differ the most from observed velocities. This is called the Halo of the galaxy, the domain of the dark matter hypothesis.

 

The Bulge of the galaxy is presently, based upon observations, thought to more closely follow Newtonian dynamics generally without the need for dark matter. The stellar disc begins to diverge from Newtonian dynamics, but the Halo of hydrogen's velocity greatly diverges from predicted velocities based upon measurement, without the dark matter hypothesis or some other explanation.

In a word, no.

 

The shape of the earth would never rightly be considered a theory, in the scientific definition. In a sense, it's too small. And your use of evolution and theory in such a juxtaposition falsifies your earlier claim. Evolution is a fact — it has occurred. And we have the theory of evolution which explains how it happens. We have the theory of relativity in physics, which is very well confirmed.

 

I was not talking about theories in modern times, but the shape of the Earth was once considered a matter of conjecture or theory, at least by some, as recently as 6-7 hundred years ago. Of course this assumes that the idea of theory existed before Columbus with a similar meaning to it. IMO we are talking semantics here. I also consider that the theory of Evolution is not fact, but this too is semantics. Yes, the main points of the theory of natural selection are "fact" (a mountain of evidence to support it), but the modern theory of Evolution involves much more than this, much more than what Darwin originally proposed. Some of this modern theory might change over time such as the mechanics of epi-genetics, for instance, which involves good hypotheses IMO but will likely change to some extent over time.

 

IMO neither theory of relativity, SR or GR, is necessarily fact and either or both could be replaced someday. For instance, if there is truly a background field such a dark matter or a Higgs field, the Zero Point Field, dark energy, or another field, then any of these fields, or combinations thereof, could be the basis for a preferred reference frame concerning motion, and Special Relativity might lose favor to Lorentz theory or a better theory someday.

 

General Relativity has been around for a hundred years and has shown success at Solar System distance scales, but its warped space proposal has never been observed at galactic or universe scales. At these scales the hypothesis of dark matter must be added to it. GR might be replaced someday if a better model explains all venues predictably better with or without the inclusion of dark matter. Not saying that MOND gravity or that any of its presently proposed known alternatives are a better model, but such a better model could exist. That's why I think both SR and GR should still be considered theory rather than proven fact.

 

Do you disagree?

Edited by pantheory
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was not talking about theories in modern times, but the shape of the Earth was once considered a matter of conjecture or theory, at least by some, as recently as 6-7 hundred years ago. Of course this assumes that the idea of theory existed before Columbus with a similar meaning to it. IMO we are talking semantics here. I also consider that the theory of Evolution is not fact, but this too is semantics. Yes, the main points of the theory of natural selection are "fact" (a mountain of evidence to support it), but the modern theory of Evolution involves much more than this, much more than what Darwin originally proposed. Some of this modern theory might change over time such as the mechanics of epi-genetics, for instance, which involves good hypotheses IMO but will likely change to some extent over time.

 

IMO neither theory of relativity, SR or GR, is necessarily fact and either or both could be replaced someday. For instance, if there is truly a background field such a dark matter or a Higgs field, the Zero Point Field, dark energy, or another field, then any of these fields, or combinations thereof, could be the basis for a preferred reference frame concerning motion, and Special Relativity might lose favor to Lorentz theory or a better theory someday.

 

General Relativity has been around for a hundred years and has shown success at Solar System distance scales, but its warped space proposal has never been observed at galactic or universe scales. At these scales the hypothesis of dark matter must be added to it. GR might be replaced someday if a better model explains all venues predictably better with or without the inclusion of dark matter. Not saying that MOND gravity or that any of its presently proposed known alternatives are a better model, but such a better model could exist. That's why I think both SR and GR should still be considered theory rather than proven fact.

 

Do you disagree?

 

Yes. I disagreed before and I still disagree. I never compared theory with fact, you did. They are two separate things.

 

Evolution is a fact. It has happened. Separate from this is the theory of evolution, which is the framework that explains what has happened. However, this is not the same as saying that the theory of evolution has become the fact. They are distinct. The facts support the theory.

 

Similarly, time dilation and length contraction are facts — these are phenomena that have been confirmed by experiment, as has the gravitational deflection of light, and other phenomena. The framework that explains these phenomena is the theory of relativity. Again, the facts support the theory.

 

The theories will always remain theories. That's the pinnacle in science. There is no moving up from there. Nothing about that says that they could not be replaced if something better came along. Your comparison of theory vs fact is incorrect. It doesn't work that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes. I disagreed before and I still disagree. I never compared theory with fact, you did. They are two separate things.

 

Evolution is a fact. It has happened. Separate from this is the theory of evolution, which is the framework that explains what has happened. However, this is not the same as saying that the theory of evolution has become the fact. They are distinct. The facts support the theory.

 

Similarly, time dilation and length contraction are facts — these are phenomena that have been confirmed by experiment, as has the gravitational deflection of light, and other phenomena. The framework that explains these phenomena is the theory of relativity. Again, the facts support the theory.

 

The theories will always remain theories. That's the pinnacle in science. There is no moving up from there. Nothing about that says that they could not be replaced if something better came along. Your comparison of theory vs fact is incorrect. It doesn't work that way.

 

Again, we are just arguing semantics IMO. You have clarified your points.

 

I'll try to better clarify mine: "facts" are verifiable observations which may have once been considered theory only -- like the Earth is round. You gave even better examples such as time dilation, length contraction.

 

Theories cannot necessarily be verified, such as the warping of space, and the time dilation of Special Relativity can be otherwise explained.

Via : define: scientific fact:

 

“A scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.”

 

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1252&bih=558&q=define%3A++scientific+fact+&oq=define%3A++scientific+fact+&gs_l=serp.12..0i22i30l10.5759.12236.0.15857.22.22.0.0.0.1.605.3082.0j17j1j5-1.19.0.msedr...0...1c.1.62.serp..4.18.2927.CdihO9KuqBc

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

 

“A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.”

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

Words have more than one definition for them even in science, so I agree that these definitions themselves are debatable concerning a single preferred definition. I know that many scientists would agree with you that when theory becomes fact it still can be considered theory by scientists. As for me, I prefer a definition of "fact" like the one above, where fact and theory would be separate and in contrast with each other.

 

I think more in agreement with your statements, I will clarify and change my previous statement below.

 

"In science once a theory is “confirmed” it no longer is considered theory."

 

to be changed to:

 

"in science once a theory is "confirmed" (known to be fact, such as Darwin's theory of natural selection for instance) then that foundation aspect of the original theory (Evolution theory) will no longer be seriously debated amongst scientists." IMO

Edited by pantheory
Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, we are just arguing semantics IMO

 

As the subject of the thread was the meaning of various terms, then it is explicitly about semantics.

 

 

“A scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

 

You quote this, despite the fact it contradicts what you have said. When was it ever a "theory" that Earth was round? It is an observational fact that has always been known to a large number of people (some people who were not in a position to observe it, may not have known this fact).

 

 

"in science once a theory is "confirmed" (such as Darwin's theory of natural selection for instance) then that foundation aspect of the theory (Evolution theory) will no longer be seriously debated amongst scientists." IMO

 

Absolutely not. You can see (i.e. it is a fact) that there are frequently attempts made to test (falsify) even the most well-established theories. And there are often observations made which show that long established theories are wrong.

Edited by Strange
Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, we are just arguing semantics IMO. You have clarified your points.

 

 

Strange beat me to this, but: Yes, precisely.

 

I'll try to better clarify mine: "facts" are verifiable observations which may have once been considered theory only -- like the Earth is round. You gave even better examples such as time dilation, length contraction.

Here you are using a different definition of theory — the one that means "guess". If we are to properly and strictly adhere to scientific definitions, then the earth being round or not was an hypothesis, but since we have verified it, it is now a fact.

 

 

Theories cannot necessarily be verified, such as the warping of space, and the time dilation of Special Relativity can be otherwise explained.

Theories can be verified, which happens when the evidence supports them and no other possible theory. Time dilation, as the example, has been verified. No other explanation which is also consistent with the body of science can do that.

 

 

“A scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.”

 

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1252&bih=558&q=define%3A++scientific+fact+&oq=define%3A++scientific+fact+&gs_l=serp.12..0i22i30l10.5759.12236.0.15857.22.22.0.0.0.1.605.3082.0j17j1j5-1.19.0.msedr...0...1c.1.62.serp..4.18.2927.CdihO9KuqBc

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

 

“A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.”

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Right. Theory and fact are distinct (that's what the "in contrast" implies). Glad you finally agree with me.

 

Words have more than one definition for them even in science, so I agree that these definitions themselves are debatable concerning a single preferred definition. I know that many scientists would agree with you that when theory becomes fact it still can be considered theory by scientists. As for me, I prefer a definition of "fact" like the one above, where fact and theory would be separate and in contrast with each other.

But a theory never becomes a fact. You are the one who keeps saying this. Your definition above does not agree, and I do not agree. Please stop presenting that as if I agree with it.

 

I think more in agreement with your statements, I will clarify and change my previous statement below.

 

"In science once a theory is “confirmed” it no longer is considered theory."

 

to be changed to:

 

"in science once a theory is "confirmed" (known to be fact, such as Darwin's theory of natural selection for instance) then that foundation aspect of the original theory (Evolution theory) will no longer be seriously debated amongst scientists." IMO

But a theory never becomes a fact.

 

"confirmed theory" is redundant. In order to be properly* called a theory, it must already be confirmed. If it's unconfirmed, it's an hypothesis.

 

 

*Much of this confusion arises from the other definitions of theory being used, and in ways where the context does not tell you which definition is meant. But in this thread, especially, we should take care and not use lay definitions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*Much of this confusion arises from the other definitions of theory being used, and in ways where the context does not tell you which definition is meant. But in this thread, especially, we should take care and not use lay definitions.

 

This terminology is used informally, even by scientists. There is an excellent BBC radio program called The Life Scientific, where Jim Al-Khalili interviews various scientists about their life and work. They will often talk about an idea and say something like, "of course that is purely theoretical". Very occasionally, they will catch that and clarify what they mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange,

 

Natural Selection as a foundation tenet of Evolution, is no longer debatable. Find me a scientist that does not believe that the following statement is fact.

 

"Species adapt to their environment. Natural selection leads to evolutionary change when individuals with certain characteristics have a greater survival or reproductive rate than other individuals in a population and pass on these inheritable genetic characteristics to their offspring."

 

This is the foundation tenet of natural selection.

 

The statement above is now known fact IMO, regarding what was once called the theory of natural selection (and still is by creationists). Evolution theory in general is much broader theory and will remain theory since aspects of it can and will change over time. Still semantics being argued with valuable exchanges of ideas IMO mixed in :)

Edited by pantheory
Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange,

 

Natural Selection as a foundation tenet of Evolution, is no longer debatable. Find me a scientist that does not believe that the following statement is fact.

 

"Species adapt to their environment. Natural selection leads to evolutionary change when individuals with certain characteristics have a greater survival or reproductive rate than other individuals in a population and pass on these inheritable genetic characteristics to their offspring."

 

This is the foundation tenet of natural selection.

 

The statement above is now known fact IMO, regarding what was once called the theory of natural selection (and still is by creationists). Evolution theory in general is much broader theory and will remain theory since aspects of it can and will change over time. Still semantics being argued with valuable exchanges of ideas IMO mixed in :)

 

That it was/is called that by creationists carries zero weight — this is science conversation. Most likely, creationists would call something a theory thinking that they were discrediting it, and thinking of the terms as meaning "guess"

 

It was called the theory of evolution via natural selection (stemming, most likely, from Darwin's book whose title begins as "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection"). Natural selection is a mechanism within the theory. It is a fact that natural selection happens, i.e. it has been observed. It is a fact that evolution has been observed. But the overall explanation for evolution is still the theory of evolution. (i.e. "Evolution" can be used in more than one context. It can be a fact, it can be a theory. But those are two different things.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That it was/is called that by creationists carries zero weight — this is science conversation. Most likely, creationists would call something a theory thinking that they were discrediting it, and thinking of the terms as meaning "guess"

 

It was called the theory of evolution via natural selection (stemming, most likely, from Darwin's book whose title begins as "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection"). Natural selection is a mechanism within the theory. It is a fact that natural selection happens, i.e. it has been observed. It is a fact that evolution has been observed. But the overall explanation for evolution is still the theory of evolution. (i.e. "Evolution" can be used in more than one context. It can be a fact, it can be a theory. But those are two different things.)

 

OK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.