In Science, It Is Never "Just a Theory"
By Jon Therkildsen, MSc MBA from University of Århus (2004)
THIS ARTICLE WILL ADDRESS AND ANSWER THE FOLLOWING:
WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD?
WHAT IS SCIENCE?
WHAT IS A SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS?
WHAT IS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY?
WHAT IS A SCIENTIFIC THEOREM?
WHAT IS A SCIENTIFIC LAW?
WHAT IS SCIENTIFIC PROOF?
WHAT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT?
WHAT IS FALSIFICATION?
There is a discrepancy between how the word “theory” is used in science and our everyday talk. And it often confuses. Nonsensical expressions like; “It is just a theory” frustrates because it fundamentally misunderstands what a theory is - at least in scientific terms.
WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD?
A “scientific theory” is the finest a scholar can hope for when she develops a model describing something in our world. A scientific theory, unverified, is not a theory. It is either a hypothesis or a crackpot idea. Support it, back it with data, and ultimately verify it, and you will get the praise - but not before.
The life cycle of a scientific theory is as follows:
It all starts with an observation in nature that lacks a satisfying explanation.
An explanation is proposed in the form of what we call a testable hypothesis.
Data and experiments are conducted, aiming to falsify the hypothesis.
When falsification has failed, and there is an ample supply of evidence behind this, the hypothesis becomes a well-supported theory that describes, predicts, and explains the observation from point 1.
The theory is continuously and constantly challenged by different ways of testing it - by tireless and repeated attempts to falsify it and perhaps by new and contradicting observations.
Other competitive hypotheses are proposed and go through the same life cycle as above.
Enough conflicting data has accumulated, and another theory has arrived which describes the observations better than our first theory. And the theory is, therefore, now finally falsified and thus no longer accepted.
A scientific Theory starts its life with a guess, which we then aim to educate, substantiate, and falsify before we promote it to a Theory.
The takeaway here is that as long as a theory has no better hypothesis challenging it to explain the observations better, the theory stands. However, once there is, the theory falls.
In time, as it usually is, more data will accumulate, and the observation will be better understood and substantiated. Eventually, it will show that the first theory is either inadequate - and so needs tweaks and updates - or that it is flat-out wrong. In science, a theory that is proven inadequate, but still helps to describe natural phenomena, is better than no theory describing nothing. Often there will be periods where a theory is still accepted, even if it is known to be inadequate or holds some fundamentally error. Some theories can be incorrect, but still useful. These situations are often described as “scientific paradigms” (see Thomas Kuhn), where one paradigm will replace another once the amount of data-anomaly is so predominant that it makes the original theory unfruitful - or when a new theory is proven superior and merely takes over.
A falsified theory remains a theory. It is just now falsified, as opposed to well-supported.
WHAT IS SCIENCE?
Science and the scientific method is a continually improving and ever-changing voyage towards knowledge and betterment.
Its inherent structure understands that nothing is perfect, except observations.
When observations differ or are no longer described thoroughly, the theories or laws used, need to be replaced or tweaked.
Famous examples are how we know "Newton's Laws of Motion" are universally incorrect, however, still very useful, and so very much used. We also know the "Theory of General Relativity" lack in its ability to describe gravity among subatomic mechanics, and so we are all waiting for a better and more correct theory to arrive. Candidates are "String Theory" or "Quantum Gravity". The main reason they have not taken the crown yet, is….. you guessed it, they lack enough supporting evidence from point 3 above.
WHAT IS A SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS?
A suggested testable solution for an unexplained phenomenon that does not fit into any currently accepted theory.
To qualify, the suggestion has to be proposed in a way that makes it testable and falsifiable.
WHAT IS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY?
An explanation for some phenomenon, based on a testable body of evidence that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiments.
Sometimes referred to as a “grownup hypothesis,” because it is born from a thoroughly tested and confirmed (not yet falsified) hypothesizes.
A theory is the best we can hope for in science. There is nothing above a “well-supported theory” in science (and the expression; “just a theory” is, therefore, an oxymoron). A falsified theory retains its classification as a scientific theory (as it is the fair earned result of the scientific method); however, then it is known as a “falsified theory.”
WHAT IS A SCIENTIFIC THEOREM?
A logical derived consequence of, usually mathematical, axioms.
It is born from mathematical constructs, set off of fundamental axioms (which are a set of statements that are taken to be true, but aren’t necessarily). The “Pythagorean theorem,” for example, is a build upon axioms of 2-dimensional geometry. Theorems are only valid within whatever their system of axioms define - and those may or may not be an accurate representation of reality. In layman terms; we can say a “theorem” is a correct and verified logical consequence of a set of assumptions. The strength of a theorem is not judged by how valid its axioms are, because the theorem serves the axioms - and not if their constructs have been substantiated. What defines the strength of a theorem is its mathematics.
WHAT IS A SCIENTIFIC LAW?
A description of an observed and validated phenomenon of nature.
Like the "Laws of Thermodynamics" or the "Law of Universal Gravitation." A law holds no explanations of the observed phenomenon; it only describes. Neither of those explains what thermodynamics or gravity is. Explanations, we most find in scientific theories.
WHAT IS A SCIENTIFIC MODEL?
A conceptual representation of a system of ideas, events or processes.
A scientific model seeks to understand, identify and predict patterns in our reality by drawing on the knowledge from our scientific theories, theorems, and laws. Famous examples are the Big Bang model, the Bohr atomic model, and climate forecasts.
WHAT IS SCIENTIFIC PROOF?
“Proof” is sufficient evidence supporting a hypothesis or a theory.
Strictly speaking, science does not have “proofs.” It has evidence, and at varying degrees. It is why some theories are considered stronger than others.
Proof, epistemically, is only found in mathematical theorems. Natural science describes nature, and nature is defined by evidence and evidence alone. Evidence accumulates, enrich, and perhaps even change over time, and therefore, the concept of “proof” is not applicable on a very fundamental level of the scientific method. Or rather, if the expression is used, it is as a substitute for supporting ample evidence.
WHAT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT?
Not strictly applicable in natural science. Facts cannot exist outside of abstract mathematics. Yet, if used in the heat of the moment by a scientist, it can refer to a theory that has an exceptionally strong body of evidence behind it or when describing a confirmed and repeated observation in nature (apples do fall down).
WHAT IS scientific FALSIFICATION?
Scientific Falsification can be summed up in the notion of proving something wrong rather than right. Falsification defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis. Verification, as opposition, does not define testability in the same practical manner.
It is an essential concept to the Scientific Method. For something - an idea or hypothesis - to be worthy of attention, it must be formulated in a way that allows for falsification. The reason is, simply put, that verification as a method of learning, does not offer any practical path to knowledge. (See Karl Popper and his work on the scientific method).
To prove something wrong is always possible - at least in attempt. To prove something right, can be nearly impossible - even in attempt.
“The verification of ideas may be the most treacherous trap in science, as counter-examples are over-looked, alternate hypotheses brushed aside, and existing paradigms manicured. The successful advance of science and the proper use of experimentation depend upon rigorous attempts to falsify hypotheses.” - Dayton, P.K., & Oliver, J.S. (1980).
Imagine this hypothesis: There is a teapot orbiting Jupiter! (paraphrasing a thought example by Bertrand Russell).
To verify this, we must find it. It would be practically impossible, as the space around Jupiter is immense. We will never learn anything, until verified.
To falsify it, we must find a reason why this is unlikely or impossible. Prove that no teapot-maker has even been there, and we already have some learning-progress.
Imagine this hypothesis: All swans are white!
To verify this, we must find all the swans. It is practically impossible, as swans are everywhere - and perhaps in places, we do not know.
To falsify it, we must find one non-white swan. Practically, anyone can do this. Ergo, we have learning-progress.
In our attempt to solve the swan-hypothesis, we will lean once we have found all the swans (which is practically not viable, as we can’t know when this is), or once we find just one none-white swan. The only viable path to learning, no matter if we try to verify or falsify, is through falsification.
These expressions are very close to each other and are, in a sense, a battle of semantics, but the difference is succinct. And this disparity proves vital when evaluating ideas as scientific or beyond the realm of science. Religious dogmas, for example, are not fit for scientific probing. Any falsification can always be discarded with the notion that a deity works in mysterious ways. Religion cannot, at its core, be falsified. Such ideas are not qualified for the scientific method. However, they can be verified, because all we have to do is to find this deity.
Falsification is the way we learn, and avoid spiraling into areas unlearnable. Any idea must be formulated in a way that allows for attempted falsification. And if falsification fails, despite vigorous attempts, we have achieved “knowledge and betterment.” And in the end, this is what science is all about.
Photos via Google