"Just a theory"

If you want to rile up a scientist, tell them that their understanding of how the world works is “just a theory.”

Remember, in scientific usage a theory is the strongest statement of confidence in explaining the natural world. The most powerful theories tie together apparently unrelated observations.

Evolutionary theory, including the hypothesis of common descent of all living things, is supported by observations as different as paleontological data—the sequence of fossils preserved in the sedimentary rock record; data from biogeography—the modern and fossil distribution of organisms world-wide; data from molecular biology--the close match between human and other primate DNA, data from comparative anatomy—the structural similarities between the skeletal systems of vertebrates from fish to mammals, data from developmental embryology—the discovery of genes common to all vertebrate groups and the role they play in development; among others.

In the sense of having broad support across many different scientific disciplines, evolutionary theory is much more strongly supported than gravitational theory.

Cartoon credit: http://wever.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/

Science & "not-science": telling the difference

The test of whether a proposed explanation is scientific or not is….a test. In the jargon of the scientific method, a proposed explanation must be falsifiable, that is, amenable to being supported or rejected through repeated experiments and retain its explanatory power in the face of new observations or interpretations.

Falsifiability is another way of asking whether an explanation is subject to change. Has the explanation changed with advances in understanding? Science is self-correcting through ongoing testing and re-evaluation.

Secondly, consider the source. Is the explanation from a reliable source? Science is what reputable scientists do. Just as we would not consult an electrician for a toothache, we would not consult religious texts for scientific explanations.

And third, consider, Does the explanation tie together previously seemingly unrelated observations? The best theories do this--Big Bang theory in astronomy, Plate tectonic theory in geology, and Evolutionary theory in biology.

Cartoon is from http://stepsandleaps.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/the-scientific-method.jpg

Science & Religion: Viva la difference!

Religious belief or faith is an example of a non-scientific way of understanding the universe.

The Apostle Paul defined faith as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1, New International Version). Faith and religious belief, while essential elements of what makes us human, describe an area outside of scientific inquiry.

The faithful are exhorted to having faith like a rock, unmoving, unchanging, solid; all important qualities in a belief system, but qualities that are counterproductive to scientific inquiry.

Our scientific understanding of the universe—where it came from, how it evolves—continues to change with new observations, new data. Our philosophical understanding of our place in the universe, why we are here, what our purpose is, is the purview of philosophy and religion.

Science and religion are different ways of understanding the universe, both important but occupying separate realms.

Photo credit: http://www.cuttingedge.org/NEWS/earth7.jpg

When a "theory" isn't a theory

Many non-scientists use the words“hypothesis” and “theory” interchangeably (if they use ‘hypothesis” at all) and as synonyms for “idea.”

To a scientist, hypotheses are much more than an idea, much more than an “educated guess”; they are possible explanations based on numerous and repeatable observations (data). In the hierarchy of the scientific method, a theory is an even stronger statement than hypothesis.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the top scientific society in the United States, defines “theory” as “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Hypotheses and theories may begin as a bright idea, but they are so much more.

*(http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml accessed 3-25-10)

photo credit: http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-dreamstime-download-free-stock-images-and-photos-image1940874

The fact about facts

Scientists do not often speak in terms of “facts” because they live the adage, “the more you know, the more you know you don’t know.” Instead of speaking in simple, declarative sentences scientists are more likely to tag caveats onto their statements along the lines of, “this is the best explanation we have with the data available to us at this time”; a style of communication that both the layperson and the news reporter find highly unsatisfying.

Caveats appended to scientific research tend to get dropped in the translation into seconds-long sound bytes and the popular print and digital media. Even textbooks sacrifice technical detail for grade-level-appropriate content and breadth of coverage.

Compounding the confusion between “facts” and “non-facts” is the discrepancy between the scientists’ use of the words “hypothesis” and “theory”— More next time.

Cartoon credit: thadguy.com

Science & Change

In its day, the pre-Copernican interpretation that the sun and other planets revolved around the Earth was the prevailing theory of planetary motion. The fact that the pre-Copernican explanation is not accepted today points to another fundamental characteristic of scientific theories—they are subject to change. We now know that the Sun, not the Earth, is the center of our solar system, and our modern theories of planetary motion reflect this newer understanding.


The fact that theories change as the result of new information coming to light is evidence of the scientific nature of these earlier explanations. So-called “theories” that do not change in light of new data or understanding are not scientific, are not part of a scientific way of understanding the universe, and are not a part of scientific inquiry.

Photo credit: http://helensguidetothegalaxy.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/001-solar_system-my-fantasy.jpg

A definition of "Science"

So just what is science?

The dictionary explains that the word comes from the Latin “scientia” meaning “knowledge”, but there are different kinds of knowledge and different ways of accumulating knowledge. Science is the branch of knowledge built on observations of the natural world systematically arranged to reveal patterns. Scientists seek to discover and document these patterns and ultimately understand their underlying causes.

The purpose of science is to understand, explain, and to predict natural phenomena, it is not the purpose of science to judge, rank, or otherwise assign value to the phenomena—that’s the role of other ways of understanding the world, the role of philosophy, the arts, and religion.

Science is best suited to answer the “who, what, where” sorts of questions; the other paths of inquiry are better suited to answer questions related to the ultimate purpose of things.

Photo credit: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/images/us101/scientists.jpg

Nature of science, 1

Sixty-six percent of adults in a USA Today/Gallup Poll* responded with “definitely” or “probably true” to the statement that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years”.

Of course, this explanation is not taught in science classes because it is a conclusion that is not based on science but a religious text. The pervasiveness of this erroneous viewpoint points to a fundamental confusion in the minds of many people about what science is and how it works, the areas of human experience that science can and cannot address, and a perceived conflict between the findings of science and personally held beliefs.

So just what is science and what does it do? Continued tomorrow...

*http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm

photo credit: http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MCG/FPF631~Adam-and-Eve-Posters.jpg

When a "theory" isn't a theory

Many non-scientists use the words“hypothesis” and “theory” interchangeably (if they use ‘hypothesis” at all) and as synonyms for “idea.”

To a scientist, hypotheses are much more than an idea, much more than an “educated guess”; they are possible explanations based on numerous and repeatable observations (data). In the hierarchy of the scientific method, a theory is an even stronger statement than hypothesis.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the top scientific society in the United States, defines “theory” as “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Hypotheses and theories may begin as a bright idea, but they are so much more.

*(http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml accessed 3-25-10)

photo credit: http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-dreamstime-download-free-stock-images-and-photos-image1940874

Nature of Science, 2

So just what is science?

The dictionary explains that the word comes from the Latin “scientia” meaning “knowledge”, but there are different kinds of knowledge and different ways of accumulating knowledge. Science is the branch of knowledge built on observations of the natural world systematically arranged to reveal patterns. Scientists seek to discover and document these patterns and ultimately understand their underlying causes.

The purpose of science is to understand, explain, and to predict natural phenomena, it is not the purpose of science to judge, rank, or otherwise assign value to the phenomena—that’s the role of other ways of understanding the world, the role of philosophy, the arts, and religion.

Science is best suited to answer the “who, what, where” sorts of questions; the other paths of inquiry are better suited to answer questions related to the ultimate purpose of things.

Photo credit: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/images/us101/scientists.jpg