Alex Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello all,
>
> As many of you know, I’ve been struggling to
> understand the differences between fact and

> theory, and a scientific theory and a
> non-scientific theory.
>
> Well, to my delight and thanks to Bernard
> (specifically but not exclusively – sorry,
> Bernard, but I can’t let you have all the credit
> ), I have finally caught on to the difference
> between a scientific theory and a non-scientific
> theory.
>
> In Sue's Scientists refuse to debate evolution vs.
> ID thread, I wrote:
> ----------
> Hello Bernard,
> You write: "But of course, he (and I) are trying
> to tell you what the scientific definition of
> theory is."
> This is for me yet another twist to deal with.
> I am not trying to be difficult, Bernard - I am
> genuinely struggling to understand your pov.
> So, would it be correct for me to interpret your
> statement as saying: A theory in Science is not
> the same as, say for example, a theory that
> identifies Montague John Druitt as Jack the
> Ripper?
>
> p.s. I picked on MJD as JtR because it is a
> theory that does not involve Science.
> ----------
>
> Bernard has replied simply: Correct.

> All I have to do now is get to understand the
> difference between a fact and a theory.
> Now, I thought I was making progress on this -
> then I read Stephen’s comment: A scientific theory
> does not become a fact. Ever.
> At which point I very nearly gave up…
> Then I remembered somewhen reading that a Roman
> poet (or some such) had mooted (I think that’s the
> word I want) the idea of Evolution centuries ago.
> And I think I’m right in saying Darwin’s father
> (Erasmus?) believed in Evolution.
> Then, surely, Evolution (which is now a fact) must
> have at some time in the past been a scientific
> theory.
> So, isn’t this an example or case of a theory
> becoming a fact?

I don't think it does. What a theory does is take facts on the ground, let's say fossils and DNA records, and make statements as consistent as possible with these facts. That's how the theory of evolution was formed, and that's why it has changed over the years with new discoveries and statements. Thus, the theory of evolution itself is not a fact but rather the best statement of what certain facts mean... and it will likely change again as scientists, thinkers, and observers cull new facts or reassess what we have.

(On edit) Now, when it comes to Creationism and scientists who wish to bring science in as a way to allow God and maybe the Bible a place in scientific theory, there's a huge problem because of the way that Creationists and Biblical literalists look to scientific authority to buttress their religious claims regarding evolution. If they can cite a Harvard professor or a Princeton grad who might be promoting ID or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in their convoluted attempts to bake religion and science in the same cake, then fundies think that they have a right to stand up in the "scientific" debate and argue from authority. This is where theory and facts get blurred and all mixed up, and so do the minds of many people... not good.

Sue

Sue



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2005 06:58AM by Sue.