Fact Vs Theory

[darkrobe]

lets try this again. 

a theory is the simplest possible explanation that explains all the relevant facts. we define the boundaries of applicability of said theory by using hypotheses. when a hypotheses is tested and a phenomenon is observed that is not explained by the theory, a footnote is added to the theory which says "not applicable in this instance". and theories are developed  to explain that unexplained phenomenon. If a theory is developed that explains both the unexplained phenomenon and the phenomenon explained by the original theory. that theory generally replaces the original theory. (although in many cases we simply use the old theory over its range of applicability and the new theory for the other stuff, since the new theory is generally more complicated than the old one.)

So that brings me to what old trees just said:

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.

because a theory correctly predicts certain observations. new facts cannot negate it. it can only be replaced by other theories that are more useful.

also, theory that certain things fall is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. which i have already stated can be negated by facts. 

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.

lol. this is probably true. but if people insist, then i will rank them however i want. which i have done above.

[darkrobe]

so in answer to your questions oldtrees. I would say i believe in both the theory and the fact. i would simply say that the theory does not apply to the instance in which the fact was observed. and i would ask you to help me come up with another theory that explained such an observed instance.

[OldTrees]

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?

1) You are confusing Facts and Interpretations of Facts. (sources of error?)
2) You are confusing what the Theory of Gravity says. Variance due to air resistance/friction/other forces is expected.
If the data point was verified and still contradicted the Theory of Gravity, I would revise the explanation for how things fall to better model Reality. Reality, Truth and Fact are the most accurate because they are the same thing. In this manner they are all more important than Theory.

lets try this again. 

a theory is the simplest possible explanation that explains all the relevant facts. we define the boundaries of applicability of said theory by using hypotheses. when a hypotheses is tested and a phenomenon is observed that is not explained by the theory, a footnote is added to the theory which says "not applicable in this instance". and theories are developed  to explain that unexplained phenomenon. If a theory is developed that explains both the unexplained phenomenon and the phenomenon explained by the original theory. that theory generally replaces the original theory. (although in many cases we simply use the old theory over its range of applicability and the new theory for the other stuff, since the new theory is generally more complicated than the old one.)

So that brings me to what old trees just said:

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.

because a theory correctly predicts certain observations. new facts cannot negate it. it can only be replaced by other theories that are more useful.

also, theory that certain things fall is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. which i have already stated can be negated by facts. 

I contest your definition of theory. A theory does not need to be the simplest possible explanation of all relevant facts. First it fails to require the theory be falsifiable. Second by requiring it to explain all relevant facts you are excluding false falsifiable theories. This leaves your definition of theory looking more akin to the definition of Fact than Scientific Theory.

Newtonian Physics were a collection of Scientific theories. They are not always accurate. Therefore Scientific Theories do not always correctly predicts certain observations. When Facts come along that contradict the theory due to its inaccuracy, the theory is modified to better model Reality. Facts can refute some of a Scientific Theory.

Also: The theory "Certain things fall" is a theory. It explains the falling of certain things. It fails to be a Scientific Theory because it is not predictive and thus not falsifiable. In some Scientific disciplines it would also fail because it does not explain the cause of the falling. However it is a decent example of a Non Scientific Theory.

[darkrobe]

as Indiana Jones says, if you are looking for truth, you need to head to philosophy class, archeaology is about facts. fact and truth are not necessarily the same thing.

but as far as your contestion, we are getting into how we distinguish different types of theory,

check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_demarcation

I take the position in the Kuhn and paradigm shifts section:
"If the acceptance or failure of scientific theories relied only on simple falsification, according to Kuhn, then no theory would ever survive long enough to be fruitful, as all theories contain anomalies."

"That is, the value of a scientific paradigm is its predictive power and its ability to suggest solutions to new problems while continuing to satisfy all of the problems solved by the paradigm that it replaces. Pseudoscience can then be defined by a failure to provide explanations within such a paradigm."

so my point is that when you are talking about a well established and long held theory. its value is not in that it has failed to be disproven, its value is in its superior ability to make useful predictions for problem solving applications. and thus the value of a well established and long held theory is greater than the value of any individual fact.

[OldTrees]

Good link about demarcation. Thanks.

I disagree with Kuhn's assessment on the basis that most of the Theories I have tested personally (Biology & Genetics) had built in expectations of variance. So new data might contradict the most probable prediction of the theory, it might just coincide with a less probable prediction. Statistics helps determine the probability that the new data is contradictory of the theory. I will agree that usefulness is a positive trait of theories and that between two equally accurate scientific theories the more useful is preferred.

I also must point out that Actors are not credible on defining Facts

A fact (derived from the Latin Factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiabilty.

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

Facts are True. Things that are claimed to be facts are often not. The error is in the claim.

Based on this I maintain that in terms of accuracy Fact > Scientific Theory. When considering Facts and Theories of the same magnitude, the usefulness in prediction is roughly equivalent. However most Facts that are known  are much less magnitude than the Theories we are comparing them to.

As for this dipping into philosophy:
We are discussing Science in the Religion subforum. That sounds like fertile ground for Philosophy.

[darkrobe]

I wasnt saying the dip into philosophy was bad. I actually was amused cause i figured we had to get there eventually. 

I guess in comparison to what i do, which is more on the engineering side like hydraulics and simulation etc, the theories and laws that govern problems have long been developed and its simply a matter of being able to manipulate the theory to allow solution of a problem. For the most part, im dealing with "laws" of nature, which in reality are just theories that have not and cannot be disproven but have been used successfully for so many years they are just taken as being true. i assume that in biology and genetics, such universal "laws" have not had time to develop to the same extent. im not sure what the equivalent in genetics would be to say the first "law" of thermodynamics. in the scheme of human history, genetics is a relatively young science.

regardless, there is as much "truth" in the theory that energy cannot be created or destroyed, as in the factual statement, my walls are beige. in a way i could actually argue that such a factual statement actually does not hold as much truth as the theory, because when i say my walls are beige, what is meant is that my eyes perceive the light that is coming from the walls to be beige. is the wall emittting beige light? or is the wall not beige at all but every color other than beige, and thus simply reflecting beigeness towards my eyes. you could come and verify that my wall is indeed beige, thus cementing it as a fact. but we would be no closer to the truth of the color of my wall.

there, that is my philosophical addition to this argument. 

but in general i agree with it being a matter of magnitude. a theory that is so well respected that it is basically a law, like the the first law of thermodynamics, is just as "true" (perhaps more so) as any verifiable fact. but in many cases theories are not so well developed and tested, in which case facts can be considered the greater of the two, although not necessarily the more useful.

[OldTrees]

My opinion that the wall is beige would have no effect on whether it was in Fact beige. This is the primary difference between the observed data and the interpretation of the data. Only the first is a Fact. The second is at best knowledge and usually a very educated opinion.

I think I have not succeeded in communicating what a Fact is. Let me try a different way.

A Theory is an explanatory belief that attempts to state a Fact. If the Theory is 100% (no rounding) accurate then the Theory is a True Belief and holds as much accuracy as the Fact. If the Theory is partially inaccurate then it is not a True Belief and thus does not hold as much accuracy as the relevant Fact. Since Facts, unlike Theories as a category cannot be inaccurate the category of Facts is more accurate than the category of Theories. Relations between categories do not imply the same relation occurs between every Theory/Relevant Fact pair. However a Theory cannot ever be more accurate than the Fact it attempts to state.

Sidenote: In biology and genetics I have observed 3 types of claims. First there are the claims of __ tends to happen. Akin to Entropy tends to increase. Second there are claims of __ usually happens this way but can happen other ways under other influences. Finally there are descriptive interpretations of data.

[russianspy1234]

A Theory is an explanatory belief that attempts to state a Fact.

No.  A theory is an explanatory belief that can be used to explain phenomenon or make hypothesis, which may or may not be Facts.

Saying Fact > Theory is like saying Tree > Rain Forest.  A rain forest is a collection of trees, as well as soil in which trees strive, an environment in which trees an grow, animals that eat fruits and help spread seeds around so that new trees can be found, etc.

[johannhowitzer]

As usual, russianspy, you're attempting to disagree with someone and failing.  Your definition of theory and OT's definition are both correct, and not mutually exclusive.  In fact so far you haven't actually disagreed with anything I've said, though you appear to think you have.

As for the whole Fact > Theory thing, I think all OT was saying is that facts are by definition true, while theories may or may not be true.

[russianspy1234]

As usual, russianspy, you're attempting to disagree with someone and failing.  Your definition of theory and OT's definition are both correct, and not mutually exclusive.  In fact so far you haven't actually disagreed with anything I've said, though you appear to think you have.

As for the whole Fact > Theory thing, I think all OT was saying is that facts are by definition true, while theories may or may not be true.

A theory is a collection of facts and logical statements that tie them together.  in order to prove  theory false, you either have to prove one of the facts contained therein false, or prove logic false.  but the thing is, scientific theories dont get proven false.  sometimes they are found to have bounds in which they apply, and sometimes a better theory is found that explains more, but they are rarely, if ever, outright shown to be false because of just how much scientific rigor has to go into it for it to even be considered a scientific theory.

in other words: three related facts > fact

[johannhowitzer]

in order to prove  theory false, you either have to prove one of the facts contained therein false, or prove logic false.

I agree with this in principle, but you're waffling on the definition of "fact" again - if something can be proven false, it was never fact to begin with.  Facts are reality, nothing more and nothing less.  Your sentence above should say, "prove one of the observations flawed."

...but the thing is, scientific theories dont get proven false.

...but they are rarely, if ever, outright shown to be false...

OK, why don't you get your ideas straight and then come back?  You're even doubletalking yourself now.

[russianspy1234]

in order to prove  theory false, you either have to prove one of the facts contained therein false, or prove logic false.

I agree with this in principle, but you're waffling on the definition of "fact" again - if something can be proven false, it was never fact to begin with.  Facts are reality, nothing more and nothing less.  Your sentence above should say, "prove one of the observations flawed."

...but the thing is, scientific theories dont get proven false.

...but they are rarely, if ever, outright shown to be false...

OK, why don't you get your ideas straight and then come back?  You're even doubletalking yourself now.

i added that because while i cant think of a recent example, i dont know for sure that one does not exist.

yep, i found a couple, nothing more recent than 1700s though, and our methods of vetting a theory have gotten more and more rigorous, due to it being easier to share research.