Vague_Boy Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Most ordinary people get a bit confused about the word "theory" when applied in science: Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean. Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory." In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true. Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist: Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true. Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse. Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity. Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation. Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology. In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time. The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process. A simple analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile. A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back. An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged. A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole. Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced. A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Nothing in that research shows that the speed of light is not a constant. Just saying. jb You have to look at the numbers. Sorry - no cartoons available for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien52 Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I am not sure about Christmas being Santa's birthday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 'Management Theory' - it's up there with astrology. I don't know if this is management theory but it does seem to be the conventional wisdom that to get the best out of & motivate the rich you need to pay them more; but to motivate and get the best out of a poor worker you need to pay them less. Sounds more like a self serving justification to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I don't believe that the Daily Mail and its readers are as bad as they're made out to be on here. I think it's a decent honest newspaper that highlights the truths the PC brigade don't want us to hear. Some people on here also judge the reader by the newspaper they read - like calling Guardian readers the 'PC Brigade'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 You have to look at the numbers. Sorry - no cartoons available for you. While I'm at it do you have any cartoons that explain to me how neutrinos are part of the electromagnetic spectrum and not sub atomic particles... hang on wait a sec... you're not going to have any of those because neutrinos aren't light. You got anything else you want to fail at... maybe you would like to explain why you think all observations to date demonstrate that the speed of light is a constant* yet you think otherwise? I've been arguing that Einstein was a bit of a moron with his daft theory about the speed of light being constant for ages. Looks like I'm finally to be proven right. jb * for any given medium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0742Sheff Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Is there anything out there that is widely accepted which you personally disbelieve? Maybe it's the big bang theory or the theory of evolution for example. Personally for me it's anti matter. I am not sold on the idea of anti matter, no matter how much I read up on it or watch videos. I just can not come to terms with it. I wouldn't say I disbelieve the big bang but I can't get my head round where it all came from in the first place For years, i have asked 'what went bang?'. No one could ever tell me, and it wasn't until i watched a pretty complicated program last year, that i finally realised no one knows. I just about managed to keep up with what the latest theories were in the program but now the different ones have amalgamated into one. I need to watch it again it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Is there anything out there that is widely accepted which you personally disbelieve? Maybe it's the big bang theory or the theory of evolution for example. The existence of a god must be the biggest hoax ever. If you don't believe in evolution I assume you believe in creationism. There's plenty of scientific evidence to disprove that myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hennypenny Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I don't believe the widely held view that schools are the best place to educate children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 The existence of a god must be the biggest hoax ever. If you don't believe in evolution I assume you believe in creationism. There's plenty of scientific evidence to disprove that myth. The good thing about evolutions is that it doesn't require belief, you can go and check out all the supporting evidence yourself jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.