Fact Vs Theory

[BluePriest]

I was very little prepared when I first entered the religious/scientific discussions in this forum, and mentioned how evolution is a theory, not a fact, and that it should not be treated like one. I was then informed that theory>fact. At the time I didnt know how to respond. Many sites that claim intelligent design warn to stay away from mentioning that it is a theory and not a fact for this very reason (which I didnt discover til after this community brought it up).

However, I am challenging this.

Maybe not so much in the realm of Theory>Fact as far as the amount of knowledge it encompasses, but that Theory<Fact in the validity of the information presented.

Facts can not be wrong. If they are wrong, then they are, by definition, not a fact. Theories on the other hand, can be proven wrong. They are a collection of facts, therefor they themselves are not necessarily true, but just assumed to be true based on the facts. Theories should not be treated like a fact, because theories can be proven wrong, facts, if proven wrong, were not true facts to begin with. 

Please note, that although I mentioned evolution in the beginning, it was just to give a backstory. I do not want this discussion to be AT ALL about that. Instead I want it to focus just on theory vs fact.

[Wimbledofy]

Evolution actually isn't even a theory, it is a hypothesis. So this topic should be changed to fact vs. theory vs. hypothesis.

[russianspy1234]

you are hung up on a colloquial definition of "theory".  the scientific definition of theory is quite different.  the argument of "evolution is only a theory" is easily rebuffed by "so is gravity." 

[mildlyfrightenedboy]

you are hung up on a colloquial definition of "theory".  the scientific definition of theory is quite different.  the argument of "evolution is only a theory" is easily rebuffed by "so is gravity."

Russian is right, some aspects of science are still called theories within the scientific community regardless of whether they are proven or not.  Usually, the general public calls it a theory because it is what they are used to saying or because the name seems more fitting (ex. string theory, quantum theory, etc.).  Some are actually "theories", and some are facts.

[russianspy1234]

you are hung up on a colloquial definition of "theory".  the scientific definition of theory is quite different.  the argument of "evolution is only a theory" is easily rebuffed by "so is gravity."

Russian is right, some aspects of science are still called theories within the scientific community regardless of whether they are proven or not.  Usually, the general public calls it a theory because it is what they are used to saying or because the name seems more fitting (ex. string theory, quantum theory, etc.).  Some are actually "theories", and some are facts.

the fact that evolution happens is a fact.  the reason it is called "the theory of evolution" is because we do not know all of the mechanisms by which it happens, same thing with gravity, we know big things have more of it than small things, but we dont actually know exactly how it works.

[OldTrees]

Genetics major: Junior year

Facts are true.
People can erroneously call false things facts.

Scientific Theories are testable hypothesizes that Scientists have made lots of valid attempts at disproving that all to date have failed to disprove the explanation.
Scientific Theories can be incorrect or incomplete.

Facts > Scientific Theories

Sidenote: Theories tend to be impossible to prove though they must be falsifiable.

[BluePriest]

Thank you OT for not starting to talk about evolution.

Evolution actually isn't even a theory, it is a hypothesis. So this topic should be changed to fact vs. theory vs. hypothesis.

No it shouldnt because this topic isnt at all about evolution. Its about facts vs theories and which is more valid,

[Wimbledofy]

but you mentioned evolution as a theory so i assumed it was included or something like that. sorry

[PuppyChow]

What OldTrees said is correct.

Also, however, theories generally try to explain a law. For instance, there is the law of gravity, and then something that attempts to explain WHY or HOW gravity works would generally be regarded as a theory.

That's my contribution to this discussion >_>.

[Belthus]

Let's specify two categories: abstract and concrete.

Abstract: ideas, theories, constructs, hypotheses
Concrete: data, facts, observations, measurements

Science, as well as other knowledge-seeking activities, use both abstract and concrete. Sometimes the idea comes first and then is tested though data collection. Other times, a specific observation may inspire the idea, which is then tested through data collection. Where you start is not important. What is important is that it's a circular process. You move from one to the other and back again. You form a hypothesis (abstract) and then you test it by collecting data (specific) and then you accept/reject/revise the hypothesis, and then repeat.

A theory is more abstract than a hypothesis. A theory is a conceptual framework that is useful for generating testable hypotheses. It isn't tested directly, but if its hypotheses fit the data better than the hypotheses of competing theories, then it will have a high standing in that field. A theory that has high standing for over a century will have thousands, or tens of thousands, or even more empirical studies that tested hypotheses generated by that theory. Mentioning one or a handful of anomalous data points isn't going to overturn a well-established theory. What you would need is a better theory, which can account for all those thousands of studies plus more.

[johannhowitzer]

Simple: facts are what is true.  Your theory could be fact, or it could not be fact.  Facts correspond to reality and are by definition true.  Theories - and in fact scientific laws, as well - are subject to revision with introduction of new evidence.

Fact: I am looking at my monitor and seeing words.
Fact: 2+2=4, in the human exact abstract science we call mathematics.
Fact: As I type this message, I feel a sensation of my fingers striking keys.
Fact: I remember having been to a place called Chicago several years ago.

Theory: I am not hallucinating.
Theory: The things I am seeing on my computer screen are actually downloaded from the internet, and not a complex virus program designed to fool me into thinking that.
Theory: My brother is currently living about a half hour north of here and is safe in bed right now.
Theory: Chicago still exists today.
Theory: There is such a thing as a black hole.
Theory: The dinosaurs died out due to a meteor shower and a resulting ice age.

The above theories may be fact or they may not.  Even though we say scientific theories are so certain, they are still theories, and are subject to revision.

Thank you, next question.

[russianspy1234]

Simple: facts are what is true.  Your theory could be fact, or it could not be fact.  Facts correspond to reality and are by definition true.  Theories - and in fact scientific laws, as well - are subject to revision with introduction of new evidence.

Fact: I am looking at my monitor and seeing words.
Fact: 2+2=4, in the human exact abstract science we call mathematics.
Fact: As I type this message, I feel a sensation of my fingers striking keys.
Fact: I remember having been to a place called Chicago several years ago.

Theory: I am not hallucinating.
Theory: The things I am seeing on my computer screen are actually downloaded from the internet, and not a complex virus program designed to fool me into thinking that.
Theory: My brother is currently living about a half hour north of here and is safe in bed right now.
Theory: Chicago still exists today.
Theory: There is such a thing as a black hole.
Theory: The dinosaurs died out due to a meteor shower and a resulting ice age.

The above theories may be fact or they may not.  Even though we say scientific theories are so certain, they are still theories, and are subject to revision.

Thank you, next question.

not a single one of those is a theory, they are each either a hypothesis (some of which have been proven or supported by theories), or a conclusion based on past experiences facts (which could be organized together to form a theory)