Comments on: Fact vs. Theory

By: mark

mark — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:31:20 +0000

Who cares what scientists say? I think most Americans have learned these terms by watching Gilligan’s Island:

Professor: I’ve got a theory–Gilligan is stealing coconuts because he’s a sub-moronic twit.

Mr. Howell: There oughta be a law against stealing coconuts from rich people!

Ginger: Hey, Skipper, check out my hypothesis!

Skipper: Little Buddy, the fact is I am not gay!

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:55:28 +0000

Good model. Maybe some day it will be a theory, and with a couple of margaritas in the right company, maybe it will be an idea!

(sorry for the mixed allegories!)

By: tony

tony — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:43:22 +0000

proof of sloppy.... think not thing!

By: tony

tony — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:41:31 +0000

Greg

Not disagreeing – merely commenting on the social use of those terms versus the technical use. People are intrinsically sloppy (i just thing we’re built that way, ‘cos real world processes rely on sloppy to succeed)

regarding the term ‘law’ versus ‘rule’: In a few words, I think this is the visible effect of an ongoing transition from a dogmatic ‘perfection is attainable’ scientific worldview to a much looser and less hubristic worldview (that happened to coincide, in part, with QM and ‘uncertainty’ & c).

That and the fact that people who learn from TV generally have a much poorer grasp of nuanced language than those more formally schooled.

Just sayin’ 😉

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:47:21 +0000

Tony: Yea, but those are different kinds of laws. But here’s a question for you: The “laws” of science are mostly old, nineteenth century or even older. Later, in the early 20th century, there are a few “laws” but “rule” is staring to come into play more. Now, people don’t really define scientific laws.

Is that because the laws were all discovered early or is that because of a change in approach in how science works?

2,000 words, justify your answer, include references.

By: MartinDH

MartinDH — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:18:06 +0000

I would have thought (in reverse order):
4. Facts
3. Laws (tying two or more sets of facts together in a relationship).
2. Hypotheses (initial explanation of how the laws/facts tie together).
1. Theories (tested, unfalsified hypotheses that predict further tests which might provide more facts).

By: tony

tony — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:09:30 +0000

My theory is that most lay people equate hypothesis with wild ass guess, and think that facts are immutable (when, in fact, they are subject to interpretation according to hypotheses, known laws and theories). They somehow also have the impression that laws are somehow fixed and unchanging - despite their own non scientific evidence to the contrary! (Do we still have statutes demanding tithe to the crown, and that we burn witches?)

By: Valis

Valis — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 12:29:54 +0000

Reminds me of a survey I saw in Analog magazine some decades ago. They asked people to rank a list of things from most dangerous to least dangerous. Nuclear power and flying in planes was ranked most dangerous, while driving a car and smoking was ranked least dangerous, while the reality is actually the complete opposite.

By: Dan J

Dan J — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:40:56 +0000

In theory, anyway.

LOL!

Yes, it’s tough for some people to get a mental grip on a Theory of Everything including a Law of Gravity supported by hypotheses and facts… The nomenclature isn’t second nature to the general public. How many times have we all heard, “It’s only a theory!”?

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:20:08 +0000

You guys are hanging around with a bunch of sloppy thinkiers. Hey, my wife is a HS biology teacher, and she is totally on top of this. Her students don’t get out without getting this. I’ve always been careful in my teaching.

There probably is some cleaning up that needs to be done among the edumicators. But I’m not entirely sure that the general ignorance of the masses is totally attributable to the educators. In theory, anyway.