Theory != Guess

[Knyro]

I've noticed that most people see the word "theory" as little more than a guess at the truth. Like how people say "but evolution is just a theory" or when that chowderhead British Mythbusters narrator says "that's the theory" when the Mythbusters have no idea what's going to happen.

The word these people are looking for is "hypothesis". A hypothesis is basically an an educated guess to explain physical phenomena. As the hypothesis holds up to scientific testing, newly discovered facts and scrutiny the more it becomes accepted as a theory.

A theory is very much grounded in facts despite popular belief and will always be called a theory even if it is ever proven true beyond a shadow of a doubt. People think that only scientific "laws" are proven fact. Laws aren't proven at all, they are simply obvious observable facts. Take the Law of Gravity, an obvious observable force of attraction. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees with it these days, anyone who does can jump off a skyscraper and see what happens. The "Law of if I Chop off Your Head With an Axe You Will Die" is just as valid.

Theories will never "graduate" to become laws, there are only strong and weak theories. So next time you see the word theory remember it does not mean guess, hypothesis means guess.

 

[proximiti99]

Wow, you conjured this now?

 

[The_Pumpkin_King]

Cool...

 

[VioAdmin]

I've noticed that most people see the word "theory" as little more than a guess at the truth. Like how people say "but evolution is just a theory" or when that chowderhead British Mythbusters narrator says "that's the theory" when the Mythbusters have no idea what's going to happen.

The word these people are looking for is "hypothesis". A hypothesis is basically an an educated guess to explain physical phenomena. As the hypothesis holds up to scientific testing, newly discovered facts and scrutiny the more it becomes accepted as a theory.

A theory is very much grounded in facts despite popular belief and will always be called a theory even if it is ever proven true beyond a shadow of a doubt. People think that only scientific "laws" are proven fact. Laws aren't proven at all, they are simply obvious observable facts. Take the Law of Gravity, an obvious observable force of attraction. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees with it these days, anyone who does can jump off a skyscraper and see what happens. The "Law of if I Chop off Your Head With an Axe You Will Die" is just as valid.

Theories will never "graduate" to become laws, there are only strong and weak theories. So next time you see the word theory remember it does not mean guess, hypothesis means guess.

What ever the case, if you break down all theories, they have to answer 1 thing...are they true or not, 1 or 0.

YES, OR NO.

So in a way, you could say they are the same as guess because the outcome of a guess(if not proven) is also in the air, we don't know if it is true, false. Yes or No, 1 or 0. Yay or NAY.

It doesn't matter what "facts" support a theory, it is KNOWN as a theory because really a theory is a "an educated guess" with supporting layers that have not all been converted to the statement of: TRUE.

Also, in Science a lot of and I do mean a lot of theories were once known as scientific fact, then a few hundred years later, they were disapproved by fellow scientists with their own THEORIES that were later judged to being true by some elites(seriously @_@). This is going on today, you might think even the *theory of gravity* is a fact but 300 years from now, someone will come-up with his/her own *THEORY once again to disapprove the prior.

A great example here is the BIG BANG THEORY. They are hardcore scientist who believe this is what really happened, they believe it as a scientific fact, but on the other side of the town, they are also scientists who disapprove(with their own "facts" to back it up) completely so, the battle never ends...

o_o Hmm, I am going too deep? Or not deep enough?

 

[Knyro]

Wow, you conjured this now?

Clearly the purpose of this thread is lost on you. What I've stated isn't anything groundbreaking and can be found in the preface of any Physics textbook, in fact I'd wager a good bit of the MyBB forumites know this already. It was simply meant to clarify a misunderstanding about the word theory that I see is prevalent especially in the PD section. It's meant for the physics n00bs. I'd try to understand the purpose of threads before making glib comments in future if I were you

 

[Knyro]

What ever the case, if you break down all theories, they have to answer 1 thing...are they true or not, 1 or 0.

YES, OR NO.

So in a way, you could say they are the same as guess because the outcome of a guess(if not proven) is also in the air, we don't know if it is true, false. Yes or No, 1 or 0. Yay or NAY.

It doesn't matter what "facts" support a theory, it is KNOWN as a theory because really a theory is a "an educated guess" with supporting layers that have not all been converted to the statement of: TRUE.

Also, in Science a lot of and I do mean a lot of theories were once known as scientific fact, then a few hundred years later, they were disapproved by fellow scientists with their own THEORIES that were later judged to being true by some elites(seriously @_@). This is going on today, you might think even the *theory of gravity* is a fact but 300 years from now, someone will come-up with his/her own *THEORY once again to disapprove the prior.

A great example here is the BIG BANG THEORY. They are hardcore scientist who believe this is what really happened, they believe it as a scientific fact, but on the other side of the town, they are also scientists who disapprove(with their own "facts" to back it up) completely so, the battle never ends...

o_o Hmm, I am going too deep? Or not deep enough?

Yet another one missing the point of this thread. I was trying to clarify what a theory is DEFINED as, I was not saying that theories are true. I acknowledged this by stating the existence of weak and strong theories, implying that some are probably a better shot at the truth than others. We may never know "the truth". My post was just to highlight the fact that theories are not a "thumbsuck". It is the scientific method however to accept current theories as, "true" until proven otherwise. By the way the theory of Gravity and the Law of Gravity are two completely different things. The Law of Gravity merely points out that objects attract each other while a theory of gravity would try to explain why this is.

It doesn't matter what "facts" support a theory, it is KNOWN as a theory because really a theory is a "an educated guess" with supporting layers that have not all been converted to the statement of: TRUE.

Didn't I just say that even if it is ever PROVEN TRUE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that it would still be known as a theory?

o_o Hmm, I am going too deep? Or not deep enough?

I'd say you're hovering somewhere just above the surface

 

[proximiti99]

Lol was just surprised at the time you posted not the actual post.

 

[Knyro]

Lol was just surprised at the time you posted not the actual post.

I find the early morning to be the best time for this kind of stuff

 

[dudesweet]

Rightly said, hypotheses still need to be educated postulations...and often enough they are mere posturing, lacking the education (in a considered as opposed to schooled sense).

 

[VioAdmin]

Yet another one missing the point of this thread. I was trying to clarify what a theory is DEFINED as, I was not saying that theories are true. I acknowledged this by stating the existence of weak and strong theories, implying that some are probably a better shot at the truth than others. We may never know "the truth". My post was just to highlight the fact that theories are not a "thumbsuck". It is the scientific method however to accept current theories as, "true" until proven otherwise. By the way the theory of Gravity and the Law of Gravity are two completely different things. The Law of Gravity merely points out that objects attract each other while a theory of gravity would try to explain why this is.

Didn't I just say that even if it is ever PROVEN TRUE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that it would still be known as a theory?

I'd say you're hovering somewhere just above the surface

Yes, I don't necessary disagree with what you are saying, I was just pointing out that at the end of the day, A THEORY IS A GUESS(hypothesis) because the outcome for both is really never CONSTANT(no matter the evidence).

A scientific LAW is also just another form of a guess or an "educated" supportive-statement...because in the scientific world you might argue nothing is fact because these "laws" are always changing.

I guess we are both just stating the obvious!

 

[K3NS31]

Yes, I don't necessary disagree with what you are saying, I was just pointing out that at the end of the day, A THEORY IS A GUESS(hypothesis) because the outcome for both is really never CONSTANT(no matter the evidence).

A scientific LAW is also just another form of a guess or an "educated" supportive-statement...because in the scientific world you might argue nothing is fact because these "laws" are always changing.

I guess we are both just stating the obvious!

Guess we have our first volunteer to test the "always changing" Law of Gravity. My only question is, will you be using a parachute?

 

[dudesweet]

Not a physicist myself, but I am of the understanding that Newton's second law is at odds with the law of relativity. They can't both be right at the same time surely?But they are both laws.

 

[Archer]

Yes, I don't necessary disagree with what you are saying, I was just pointing out that at the end of the day, A THEORY IS A GUESS(hypothesis) because the outcome for both is really never CONSTANT(no matter the evidence).

A scientific LAW is also just another form of a guess or an "educated" supportive-statement...because in the scientific world you might argue nothing is fact because these "laws" are always changing.

I guess we are both just stating the obvious!

Uhhh.... No. What you are essentially saying is that (for example) F=ma is a guess and is not substantiated by vast amount of real world tests.

Not a physicist myself, but I am of the understanding that Newton's second law is at odds with the law of relativity. They can't both be right at the same time surely?But they are both laws.

Only at near light speeds... So for your average earthly calculations, Newtons second law stands

 

[K3NS31]

Not a physicist myself, but I am of the understanding that Newton's second law is at odds with the law of relativity. They can't both be right at the same time surely?But they are both laws.

Actually, they are both right at the same time, for now. As long as you use the right law for the right situation, it's fine. (see above)

 

[stormchaser]

Theory:you got to make predictions that agree with observations.These theories are not written in stone,if u can come out with any that satisfies the basics, then we abandon the old theory and take up your new one.

 

[UnUnOctium]

Technically, they're both the same (i.e. uncertain knowledge) where a theory usually has a higher probability of being true and a guess denotes lower probability (i.e. complete guess = probability of 0.5)

 

[smokey]

Clearly the purpose of this thread is lost on you. What I've stated isn't anything groundbreaking and can be found in the preface of any Physics textbook, in fact I'd wager a good bit of the MyBB forumites know this already. It was simply meant to clarify a misunderstanding about the word theory that I see is prevalent especially in the PD section. It's meant for the physics n00bs. I'd try to understand the purpose of threads before making glib comments in future if I were you

This might be a silly question, bu why post it here then? I mean most people who visit this section should know the difference between the two...

 

[Knyro]

This might be a silly question, but why post it here then?

I originally considered posting it in the PD section but I saw that this thread is more about scientific definition than anything philosophical, so I decided against it and just used the PD section as an example.

I mean most people who visit this section should know the difference between the two...

That may be true, but there are still many that don't, so in that regard the thread served its educational purpose, even in this section. Maybe the views here will filter into the PD section where relevant.

Technically, they're both the same (i.e. uncertain knowledge) where a theory usually has a higher probability of being true and a guess denotes lower probability (i.e. complete guess = probability of 0.5)

Probability has nothing to do with the distinction between theories and guesses. When the existence of black holes was originally postulated most physicists scoffed at the idea. The probability of such a thing existing was minute, yet lo and behold there they are.

A complete guess isn't necessarily 0.5. A player's chances at three card Monte with an honest dealer is 0.33333..... The chances of winning the lotto with a complete guess is 1 in 13 983 816.
Your chances of guessing correctly that a rolling die will not land with the "1" dot facing up is 0.833333....

The distinction between the two is correlation with reality. If there is a box on the floor and you are asked to identify the animal in it, you could guess. You may or may not be correct. If however you notice duck prints near the box and hear quacking coming from inside the box you can formulate the educated guess i.e. hypothesis that there is a duck in the box. Your hypothesis may or may not be correct. You then lift the box and see a duck foot, your hypothesis correlates with reality, it is henceforth known as a theory, it has left the realm of a guess. You see a duck wing, your theory still correlates with reality, you see complete duck, the theory still correlates with reality.

Now you want to see if you are 100% correct. You map the ducks DNA by determining its genome sequence. It is the DNA of a duck. Note that even in this case where the theory is true beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is still known as a theory, even though it is no longer completely uncertain knowledge. It is for this reason that a theory, completely proven or not, cannot be equated to a guess.

Theory:you got to make predictions that agree with observations.These theories are not written in stone,if u can come out with any that satisfies the basics, then we abandon the old theory and take up your new one.

Not really, you only abandon the old theory if the new one explains the phenomena the old one did more accurately and and explains a wider range of phenomena too.

The aim of science is to repeat this cycle until a theory is found that can accurately explain everything about everything. Then we will know "the truth".

 

[UnUnOctium]

I originally considered posting it in the PD section but I saw that this thread is more about scientific definition than anything philosophical, so I decided against it and just used the PD section as an example.



That may be true, but there are still many that don't, so in that regard the thread served its educational purpose, even in this section. Maybe the views here will filter into the PD section where relevant.



Probability has nothing to do with the distinction between theories and guesses. When the existence of black holes was originally postulated most physicists scoffed at the idea. The probability of such a thing existing was minute, yet lo and behold there they are.

A complete guess isn't necessarily 0.5. A player's chances at three card Monte with an honest dealer is 0.33333..... The chances of winning the lotto with a complete guess is 1 in 13 983 816.
Your chances of guessing correctly that a rolling die will not land with the "1" dot facing up is 0.833333....

The distinction between the two is correlation with reality. If there is a box on the floor and you are asked to identify the animal in it, you could guess. You may or may not be correct. If however you notice duck prints near the box and hear quacking coming from inside the box you can formulate the educated guess i.e. hypothesis that there is a duck in the box. Your hypothesis may or may not be correct. You then lift the box and see a duck foot, your hypothesis correlates with reality, it is henceforth known as a theory, it has left the realm of a guess. You see a duck wing, your theory still correlates with reality, you see complete duck, the theory still correlates with reality.

Now you want to see if you are 100% correct. You map the ducks DNA by determining its genome sequence. It is the DNA of a duck. Note that even in this case where the theory is true beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is still known as a theory, even though it is no longer completely uncertain knowledge. It is for this reason that a theory, completely proven or not, cannot be equated to a guess.



Not really, you only abandon the old theory if the new one explains the phenomena the old one did more accurately and and explains a wider range of phenomena too.

The aim of science is to repeat this cycle until a theory is found that can accurately explain everything about everything. Then we will know "the truth".

Think hypothesis testing and then you'll see that ultimately it boils down to bernoulli random variables.

From there you can then see that a guess and a theory are ultimately the same thing, just that a theory usually has a much higher probability of being true because it has more data/thought in it (called research) than a guess (usually thought on by one person). Theory = collective guess.

 

[Slootvreter]

Someone read a Dawkins book.