Fact Vs Theory

[johannhowitzer]

Response was to the OP, not to you.  OP was using the colloquial definition of theory - which, as it happens, both scientific hypotheses and scientific theories fall under.

[BluePriest]

*snip*

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)

It seems to me the only reason they ARENT theories is because he didnt give supporting facts, however, he also seemed to give many that very well could be theories, and just didnt give the supporting facts.

[russianspy1234]

Response was to the OP, not to you.  OP was using the colloquial definition of theory - which, as it happens, both scientific hypotheses and scientific theories fall under.

doesnt seem that he is using it that way...

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.

If he were using the colloquial definition of theory there would be no discussion to be had, because colloquial fact is prima facia greater than colloquial theory.

*snip*

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)

It seems to me the only reason they ARENT theories is because he didnt give supporting facts, however, he also seemed to give many that very well could be theories, and just didnt give the supporting facts.

The supporting facts are an important part of what makes a theory scientific.  The theory of evolution is not "Man and ape evolved from the same ape-like being."  It is a collection of facts from which that conclusion is drawn.
There is also the fact that scientific theories don't actually get proven wrong.  They are again, a collection of facts.  Sometimes certain facts are found out to be wrong, or new facts are found that slightly change the theory, but as a whole the theory remains.  Best example I have off the top of my head is Newtonian Physics.  it was thought for a while to perfectly explain all objects in motion, then einstein comes along and discovers that it doesnt work at certain scales, for example at near the speed of light, or when the objects involved are extremely small.  does that disprove newtonian physics?  no, we still teach and use it, because it applies perfectly well in a very large number of situations.  likewise, if it was discovered that humans were one of the first oranisms on earth and did not evolve from an ape ancestor, and in fact existed long before any such animals which had a completely different evolutionary path, it would not disprove the theory of evolution (particularly because it includes something called convergent evolution) it would simply disprove one conclusion that has been drawn from it.

[darkrobe]

I guess ill give my two cents. Theories are attempts to explain available facts. Facts by themselves are useless, unless we tie them together in theories. Theories are what allow us to make predictions about what would happen in a different situation. the fact that you can observe an apple fall from a tree means nothing in the context of what would happen if you let go of a rock, or launched a rocket, etc, unless you tie those events together through the theory of gravity.

If facts emerge that seem to disagree with a given theory, the theory is modified to included those facts. after of course those "facts" are tested by the scientific community to prove that they are indeed observable phenomenon. Sometimes two competing theories emerge when different people look at a given set of facts. for example, mold grow on bread. theory 1: life spontaneously appears on any surface left out too long (the theory of spontaneous generation). theory 2: there is microscopic life in the air and when it lands on a suitable surface it grows to visible size (Germ theory). In this case each side produces experiments that try to negate the other theory, through predictions. Louis Pasteur predicts that if he boils one vial of liquid and not the other. the boiled one will not grow any life, while the non boiled one will. he disproves the life that appears on any surface left out too long. and his theory now allows predictions that you can boil liquids to prevent spoilage.

Of course you can still say "well life appears spontaneously on certain surfaces, but not all" but your theory is now useless because there is no way to make predictions of what happens in other situations. what surfaces? what situations? how do i prevent spontaneous generation of life? how do i cause it? The scientific community throws it out.

so my general point is that theories allow predictions based on facts. thus theories are more useful and carry more weight than any single fact. On the flip side, any statement that cannot allow predictions to be made about other situations is not an acceptable theory.

[darkrobe]

on a side not. The fact that theories are judged based on the predictions they allow us to make is the reason Evolution is more commonly regarded as a good respectable theory, and Creationism is not generally in the scientific community. the theory of evolution allows us to make predictions about what will happen to say for example: microorganisms that are exposed to antibiotics. evolution predicts that microbes with resistance to antibiotics will be selected and those that arent will die out, thus the community of microorganism will develop immunnity to antibiotics over time through natural selection. Creationism has no relevant prediction for this situation.

[johannhowitzer]

It is a collection of facts from which that conclusion is drawn.

That's exactly the point - the conclusion IS the theory, and may or may not itself be fact.

[russianspy1234]

It is a collection of facts from which that conclusion is drawn.

That's exactly the point - the conclusion IS the theory, and may or may not itself be fact.

again, not in the scientific sense of the word.  a theory is a collection of facts, an explanation that ties those facts together, and can be used to predict future phenomenon.  the conclusion is not a theory, it is a hypothesis that is (sometimes) supported by the theory.

[darkrobe]

It is a collection of facts from which that conclusion is drawn.

That's exactly the point - the conclusion IS the theory, and may or may not itself be fact.

again, not in the scientific sense of the word.  a theory is a collection of facts, an explanation that ties those facts together, and can be used to predict future phenomenon.  the conclusion is not a theory, it is a hypothesis that is (sometimes) supported by the theory.

exactly. A theory is an explanation of facts. gives understanding about facts. facts are just data points that are useless without theories, and hypothesis are predictions that are tested to support or adjust theories by collecting more facts. Facts can negate hypothesis, but theories can simply be adjusted to allow for new facts. Theories die out when they have been adjusted to the point that they are no longer useful, or when broader theories appear that allow better predictions of phenomenon. 

thus i propose: theory > fact > hypothesis

AKA theory of gravity > watching rock fall > predicting that rock will also fall on the moon.

Where people get confused is that they often mistake hypothesis for theories and vice versa.

[OldTrees]

In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena. Such theories are constructed from elementary assumptions that are motivated by empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Scientific_theories

Thus a Scientific Theory is a Theory that has passed certain basic requirements (falsifiability, rigorous testing, accurate methodology, ...). Each of these requirements were created to ensure that the theories that pass are more likely to lead to knowledge than those that didn't. Note that Knowledge is my criteria of judging these theories and facts.

Scientific Theory > Theory

However at no point should we EVER claim a potentially mistaken explanation to be superior to necessarily TRUE facts. Many Scientific theories are modified and refined as more facts are revealed.

Fact > Scientific Theory > Theory

aka: Observation of falling > Theory of gravity > Theory that certain things fall
If a fact contradicted the Theory of Gravity and the observation was verified, would you choose to believe the Fact or the Scientific Theory? Hopefully you said you would believe the Fact and the eventual modified Scientific Theory.

[Belthus]

Rank ordering fact and theory is stupid. Let's rank order atoms and molecules next. Then we can rank order cells and organs. Let's rank order sentences and paragraphs.

[Belthus]

Fact > Scientific Theory > Theory

aka: Observation of falling > Theory of gravity > Theory that certain things fall
If a fact contradicted the Theory of Gravity and the observation was verified, would you choose to believe the Fact or the Scientific Theory? Hopefully you said you would believe the Fact and the eventual modified Scientific Theory.

Really? You would feel it necessary to revise the theory of gravity based on a single contrary data point? It's true that every fact demands respect, but an established theory like gravity embodies centuries of facts and scientific testing. When there is a fact that can't be explained by existing theories, do you throw them all out the window and say we know nothing?

[johannhowitzer]

russianspy, once again OldTrees expresses my thoughts better than I could.  All I was ever saying was that theories are not necessarily facts, which is true - otherwise the words would be synonyms.

To equate theory with fact would be to condemn science to stagnancy.