Talk:FactandTheoryComparison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Comparison of versions of Fact and Theory section

I have assigned symbols to the sections to keep them clear.

  • FTC.1 is current fact and theory text proposal
  • FTS.1 was deleted shorter fact and theory text proposal
  • FTP.1 was previous fact and theory text
  • CON.1 was previous fact and theory text from Creation-evolution controversy article
  • CON.2 is current fact and theory text from Creation-evolution controversy article

[edit] Version FTC.1 text proposal

Further information: Scientific Theory
See also: Theory vs. Fact

Some critics of evolution calim that it is merely a theory. This criticism in fact makes two claims: that evolution is a theory, and not a fact, and that theories are less established than facts. In other words, laypeople usually use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion," and the word "fact" to refer to parts of the world, or claims about the world, that are real or true regardless of what people think.

In scientific terminology however, a theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and tested through controlled experiments involving empirical observation. In this scientific sense, "facts" are parts of theories. Fact is not merely something obtained by observation, because there is no certainty as to what that "something that has been observed" is or means. In science, for an observation to be considered a fact it must be "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent"[1] through consistent observation or controlled study. Indeed, "facts" are not merely phenomena that can be observed, they are phenomena that are deemed worthy of notice. It is "theory" that guides observations and our understanding of what we observe. In other words, for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship.

Moreover, evolution itself is both a fact and a theory. When "evolution" is used to describe a fact, it refers to the observations that populations of one species of organism do, over time, change into new, or several new, species. In this sense, evolution occurs whenever a new strain of bacterium evolves that is resistant to antibodies that had been lethal to prior strains. Another clear case of evolution as fact involves the hawthorn fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Different populations of hawthorn fly feed on different fruits. A new population spontaneously emerged in North America in the 19th century some time after apples, a non-native species, were introduced. The apple feeding population normally feeds only on apples and not on the historically preferred fruit of hawthorns. Likewise the current hawthorn feeding population does not normally feed on apples. A current area of scientific research is the investigation of whether or not the apple feeding race may further evolve into a new species. Some evidence, such as the fact that six out of thirleen alozyme loci are different, that hawthorn flies mature later in the season, and take longer to mature, than apple flies, and that there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6%hybridization rate) suggests that this is indeed ocurring.[1] (see Berlocher and Bush 1982, Berlocher and Feder 2002, Bush 1969, McPheron et. al. 1988, Prokopy et. al. 1988, Smith 1988)

When "evolution" is used to describe a theory, it refers to an explanation for why and a model of how evolution occurs. An example of evolution as theory is the modern synthesis of Darwin and Wallace's theory of natural selection and Mendel's principles of genetics. This theory has three major aspects:

  1. Common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor or ancestral gene pool.
  2. Manifestation of novel traits in a lineage.
  3. Mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish.

When people provide evidence for evolution, in some cases they are providing evidence that evolution occurs; in other cases they are providing evidence that the modern synthesis is the best explanation yet as to why and how evolution occurs. Heritable variation, natural selection, and response to selection (e.g. in domesticated plants and animals) are "facts", and the generalization or extrapolation beyond these phenomena, and the explanation for them, is the "theory of evolution".[2]

Using the scientific meanings of the concepts "fact" and "theory," it is common to state that "evolution is both a fact and a theory". This is true for gravity as well:

Gravity Evolution
Things falling is an observation of the pull of bodies towards each other. Fruit flies changing generation to generation is an observation of generational organism change.
Bodies pulling towards each other is called gravity. Organisms changing generation to generation is called evolution.
Gravity is a "fact". Evolution is a "fact".
The "facts" of gravity require an explanation. The "facts" of evolution require an explanation.
Aristotle, Galileo, and Newton created explanations of the "fact" of gravity. These are now obsolete explanations. Lamarckism, Transmutationism and Orthogenesis were created as explanations of the "fact" of evolution. These are now obsolete explanations.
Einstein's explanation is currently the most accepted explanation of the "fact" of gravity Darwin's explanation is currently the most accepted explanation of the "fact" of evolution
Einstein's explanation of the "fact" of gravity is called the Theory of Gravity Darwin's explanation of the "fact" of evolution is called the Theory of Evolution
Gravity is a "fact" and a "theory." Evolution is a "fact" and a "theory."

Exploring this issue, the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."[1]

[edit] Version FTS.1 text proposal

Further information: Scientific Theory
Main article: Evolution as theory and fact

Scientists use many specialized terms, frequently incorporating terminology that may have different meanings to the lay-person. In defining "fact" and "theory", scientists ascribe to them very distinct meanings:

"Fact" "Theory"
A "fact" in science is an observation. A "theory" in science is an explanation for observations.

Using the scientific meanings of the words "fact" and "theory," it is common to state that "evolution is both a fact and a theory". As confusing and contradictory as this sounds, it is also true for gravity as well:

Gravity Evolution
Things falling is an observation of the pull of bodies towards each other. Fruit flies changing generation to generation is an observation of generational organism change.
Bodies pulling towards each other is called gravity. Organisms changing generation to generation is called evolution.
Gravity is a "fact". Evolution is a "fact".
The "facts" of gravity require an explanation. The "facts" of evolution require an explanation.
Aristotle, Galileo, and Newton created explanations of the "fact" of gravity. These are now obsolete explanations. Lamarckism, Transmutationism and Orthogenesis were created as explanations of the "fact" of evolution. These are now obsolete explanations.
Einstein's explanation is currently the most accepted explanation of the "fact" of gravity Darwin's explanation is currently the most accepted explanation of the "fact" of evolution
Einstein's explanation of the "fact" of gravity is called the Theory of Gravity Darwin's explanation of the "fact" of evolution is called the Theory of Evolution
Gravity is a "fact" and a "theory." Evolution is a "fact" and a "theory."

Exploring this issue, the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."[1]

[edit] Version FTP.1 text proposal

Further information: Scientific Theory
See also: Theory vs. Fact

The paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."[1]

The modern synthesis, like its Mendelian and Darwinian antecedents, is a scientific theory. A theory is an attempt to identify and describe relationships between phenomena or things, and generates falsifiable predictions which can be tested through controlled experiments and empirical observation. Speculative or conjectural explanations tend to be called hypotheses, and well tested explanations, theories. Fact tends to mean a datum, an observation, i.e., a fact is obtained by a fairly direct observation. However, a fact does not mean absolute certainty; in science, fact can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."[1] A theory is obtained by inference from a body of facts. A related concept is a scientific law. It is common to encounter reference to the "law of natural selection" or the "laws of evolution." For example, see the article on physical law. Fact and theory denote the epistemological status of knowledge: how the knowledge was obtained, what sort of knowledge it is.

In this scientific sense, "facts" are what theories attempt to explain. So, for scientists, "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship; for example, it is a "fact" that apples have consistently fallen to the ground when they were dropped and the "theory" which explains this is the current theory of gravitation. In the same way, heritable variation, natural selection, and response to selection (e.g. in domesticated plants and animals) are "facts", and the generalization or extrapolation beyond these phenomena, and the explanation for them, is the "theory of evolution".[3] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filll (talk • contribs) 17:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Version CON.1 Text proposal

Info icon This article or section may be confusing or unclear for some readers.
Please improve the article or discuss this issue on the talk page. This article has been tagged since December 2006.
Main articles: Theory and Fact

The argument that evolution is a theory, not a fact, has often been made against the exclusive teaching of evolution; however, this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific terms and concepts. [4] [5][6] Responding to this argument, paleontologist and biologist Stephen Jay Gould said:

"Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome.... In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."[7]

Various levels of incredulity about scientific conclusions have been a constant component of creationist discourse. In particular, creationists are wary of scientific arguments involving events that happened in the distant past.[8] Although some amount of inference characterizes evolution research, as it does all scientific research concerning the past, the inference proceeds from observed facts. According to Ernst Mayr, these inferences have "enormous certainty" due to agreement of multiple lines of evidence, confirmation of predictions, and the absence of any rational alternative. He has called the distinction between these inferences and direct observations "misleading."[9]

Critiques based on the distinction between theory and fact are often leveled against unifying concepts within scientific disciplines, such as uniformitarianism, Occam's Razor/parsimony, and the Copernican principle, that are claimed to be the result of a bias within science toward philosophical naturalism, which is equated by creationists to atheism.[10] In countering this claim, philosophers of science use the term methodological naturalism to refer to the long standing convention in science of the scientific method which makes the methodological assumption that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes, without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and so considers supernatural explanations for such events to be outside science. Creationists claim that supernatural explanations should not be excluded and that scientific work is paradigmatically close-minded.[11]

Because modern science tries to rely on the minimization of a priori assumptions, error, and subjectivity, as well as on avoidance of Baconian idols, it remains neutral on subjective subjects such as religion or morality.[12] Mainstream proponents accuse the creationists of conflating the two in a form of pseudoscience.[13]

[edit] Version CON.2 text proposal

See also: Theory and Fact
Main article: Evolution as theory and fact

The argument that evolution is a theory, not a fact, has often been made against the exclusive teaching of evolution.[14] [15][16] However, a large part of the difficulty is actually a linguistic problem and some confusion.

Scientists use many specialized terms, frequently incorporating terminology that may have different meanings to the lay-person. In defining "fact" and "theory", scientists ascribe to them very distinct meanings:

"Fact" "Theory"
A "fact" in science is an observation. A "theory" in science is an explanation for observations.

Using the scientific meanings of the words "fact" and "theory," it is common to state that "evolution is both a fact and a theory". As confusing and contradictory as this sounds, it is also true for gravity as well:

Gravity Evolution
Things falling is an observation of the pull of bodies towards each other. Fruit flies changing generation to generation is an observation of generational organism change.
Bodies pulling towards each other is called gravity. Organisms changing generation to generation is called evolution.
Gravity is a "fact". Evolution is a "fact".
The "facts" of gravity require an explanation. The "facts" of evolution require an explanation.
Aristotle, Galileo, and Newton created explanations of the "fact" of gravity. These are now obsolete explanations. Lamarckism, Transmutationism and Orthogenesis were created as explanations of the "fact" of evolution. These are now obsolete explanations.
Einstein's explanation is currently the most accepted explanation of the "fact" of gravity Darwin's explanation is currently the most accepted explanation of the "fact" of evolution
Einstein's explanation of the "fact" of gravity is called the Theory of Gravity Darwin's explanation of the "fact" of evolution is called the Theory of Evolution
Gravity is a "fact" and a "theory." Evolution is a "fact" and a "theory."

Exploring this issue, the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."[1]

[edit] Philosophical arguments

Critiques such as those based on the distinction between theory and fact are often leveled against unifying concepts within scientific disciplines. For example, uniformitarianism, Occam's Razor/parsimony, and the Copernican principle are claimed to be the result of a bias within science toward philosophical naturalism, which is equated by creationists to atheism.[17] In countering this claim, philosophers of science use the term methodological naturalism to refer to the long standing convention in science of the scientific method which makes the methodological assumption that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes, without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and so considers supernatural explanations for such events to be outside science. Creationists claim that supernatural explanations should not be excluded and that scientific work is paradigmatically close-minded.[18]

Because modern science tries to rely on the minimization of a priori assumptions, error, and subjectivity, as well as on avoidance of Baconian idols, it remains neutral on subjective subjects such as religion or morality.[19] Mainstream proponents accuse the creationists of conflating the two in a form of pseudoscience.[20]

[edit] Readability reports

From the readability site [2]: Interpreting the Results

  • Writing greater than 30% easier to read than the Internet is ideal.
  • Writing between 10-30% would be considered for high school graduate or higher.
  • Writing less than 10% easier than the Internet generally is meant for college graduate or higher.
  • Writing that is more difficult to read than the Internet should be avoided regardless of audience.

[edit] FTC.1 Readability

  • Number of words analyzed: 569
  • Readability: 5 % more difficult to read than than the average writing on the Internet
  • Uncommon words found: these should be replaced with more often used synonyms to improve the readability

Alozyme, Ancestor, Ancestors, Ancestral, Animals, Antibodies, Apelike, Apple, Apples, Assent, Bacterium, Berlocher, Calim, Certainty, Concepts, Confirmed, Conjecture, Consistent, Criticism, Darwin, Darwins, Deemed, Descent, Describe, Documented, Domesticated, Einsteins, Emerged, Empirical, Evolution, Evolve, Evolved, Evolves, Exist, Experiments, Explain, Explanation, Exploring, Extrapolation, Falsifiable, Feder, Feeding, Flies, Fly, Fruit, Fruits, Gene, Generalization, Generated, Genetics, Gould, Gravitation, Gravity, Guides, Hawthorn, Hawthorns, Heritable, Hierarchy, Historically, Hybridization, Hypotheses, Increasing, Interbreeding, Interpret, Introduced, Involves, Involving, Jay, Laypeople, Lethal, Likewise, Lineage, Loci, Manifestation, Mature, Mcpheron, Meanings, Mechanism, Mechanisms, Mendels, Merely, Midair, Moreover, Newtons, Nonnative, Normally, Observation, Observations, Observe, Observed, Occurs, Ocurring, Opposition, Organism, Organisms, Paleontologist, Pending, Perish, Persist, Perverse, Phenomena, Plants, Pomonella, Populations, Preferred, Prokopy, Proposed, Provisional, Race, Reciprocal, Refer, Replaced, Researchers, Resistant, Rhagoletis, Rival, Rungs, Scientific, Scientists, Signify, Species, Speculation, Spontaneously, Strain, Strains, Structures, Study, Suggests, Suspend, Synthesis, Terminology, Tested, Theories, Theory, Thirleen, Traits, Variation, Wallaces, Whenever, Withhold, Worthy

[edit] Version FTS.1 readability

  • Number of words analyzed: 133
  • Readability: 10 % more difficult to read than than the average writing on the Internet
  • Uncommon words found: these should be replaced with more often used synonyms to improve the readability

Ancestors, Apelike, Apples, Ascribe, Certainty, Darwins, Defining, Distinct, Einsteins, Evolution, Evolved, Explain, Exploring, Gould, Gravitation, Hierarchy, Incorporating, Increasing, Interpret, Jay, Layperson, Meanings, Mechanism, Midair, Newtons, Paleontologist, Pending, Proposed, Replaced, Rival, Rungs, Scientists, Specialized, Structures, Suspend, Terminology, Theories, Theory,

[edit] Without Gould quote

  • Number of words analyzed: 52
  • Readability: 8 % more difficult to read than than the average writing on the Internet
  • Uncommon words found: these should be replaced with more often used synonyms to improve the readability

Ascribe, Confusing, Contradictory, Defining, Distinct, Evolution, Gravity, Incorporating, Layperson, Meanings, Scientific, Scientists, Sounds, Specialized, Terminology, Theory,

[edit] Gould quote alone

  • Number of words analyzed: 81
  • Readability: 11 % more difficult to read than than the average writing on the Internet
  • Uncommon words found: these should be replaced with more often used synonyms to improve the readability

Ancestors, Apelike, Apples, Certainty, Darwins, Einsteins, Evolution, Evolved, Explain, Exploring, Gould, Gravitation, Hierarchy, Increasing, Interpret, Jay, Mechanism, Midair, Newtons, Paleontologist, Pending, Proposed, Replaced, Rival, Rungs, Scientists, Structures, Suspend, Theories, Theory,

[edit] Version FTP.1 readability

  • Number of words analyzed: 273
  • Readability: 4 % more difficult to read than than the average writing on the Internet
  • Uncommon words found: these should be replaced with more often used synonyms to improve the readability

Absolute, Ancestors, Animals, Antecedents, Apelike, Apples, Assent, Certainty, Confirmed, Conjectural, Consistently, Darwinian, Darwins, Datum, Denote, Describe, Domesticated, Dropped, Einsteins, Empirical, Epistemological, Evolution, Evolved, Exist, Experiments, Explain, Explanation, Explanations, Extrapolation, Fairly, Falsifiable, Generalization, Generates, Gould, Gravitation, Heritable, Hierarchy, Hypotheses, Increasing, Inference, Interpret, Jay, Mechanism, Mendelian, Midair, Newtons, Observation, Opposition, Paleontologist, Pending, Perverse, Phenomena, Plants, Predictions, Proposed, Provisional, Reciprocal, Relationships, Replaced, Rival, Rungs, Scientific, Scientists, Speculative, Status, Structures, Suspend, Synthesis, Tend, Tends, Tested, Theories, Theory, Variation, Withhold,

[edit] Version CON.1 readability

  • Number of words analyzed: 334
  • Readability: 12 % more difficult to read than than the average writing on the Internet
  • Uncommon words found: these should be replaced with more often used synonyms to improve the readability

Absence, Accuse, Alternative, Apples, Argument, Arguments, Assent, Assuming, Assumption, Assumptions, Atheism, Avoidance, Baconian, Bias, Biologist, Certainty, Characterizes, Classrooms, Closeminded, Component, Concepts, Concerning, Conclusions, Confirmation, Confirmed, Conflating, Considers, Constant, Convention, Copernican, Countering, Creationist, Creationists, Critiques, Disciplines, Discourse, Distant, Distinction, Einsteins, Enormous, Equal, Equated, Ernst, Evolution, Excluded, Explain, Explained, Explanations, Fundamental, Gould, Gravitation, Hierarchy, Idols, Increasing, Incredulity, Inference, Inferences, Interpret, Involving, Jay, Leveled, Mainstream, Mayr, Merit, Method, Methodological, Midair, Minimization, Misleading, Misunderstanding, Morality, Naturalism, Neutral, Newtons, Nonexistence, Observable, Observations, Observed, Occams, Paleontologist, Paradigmatically, Pending, Perverse, Philosophers, Philosophical, Physics, Possibility, Predictions, Principle, Priori, Proceeds, Proponents, Provisional, Pseudoscience, Rational, Razorparsimony, Refer, Religion, Rely, Replaced, Represents, Responding, Rival, Rungs, Scientific, Scientists, Structures, Subjective, Subjectivity, Subjects, Supernatural, Suppose, Suspend, Theories, Theory, Toward, Tries, Uniformitarianism, Unifying, Wary, Withhold,

[edit] Version CON.2 Readability

  • Number of words analyzed: 303
  • Readability: 13 % more difficult to read than than the average writing on the Internet
  • Uncommon words found: these should be replaced with more often used synonyms to improve the readability

Accuse, Ancestors, Apelike, Apples, Arguments, Assuming, Assumption, Assumptions, Atheism, Avoidance, Baconian, Bias, Certainty, Closeminded, Concepts, Conflating, Considers, Convention, Copernican, Countering, Creationists, Critiques, Darwins, Disciplines, Distinction, Einsteins, Equated, Evolution, Evolved, Excluded, Explain, Explained, Explanations, Exploring, Gould, Gravitation, Hierarchy, Idols, Increasing, Interpret, Jay, Leveled, Mainstream, Mechanism, Method, Methodological, Midair, Minimization, Morality, Naturalism, Neutral, Newtons, Nonexistence, Observable, Occams, Paleontologist, Paradigmatically, Pending, Philosophers, Philosophical, Principle, Priori, Proponents, Proposed, Pseudoscience, Razorparsimony, Refer, Religion, Rely, Replaced, Rival, Rungs, Scientific, Scientists, Structures, Subjective, Subjectivity, Subjects, Supernatural, Suspend, Theories, Theory, Toward, Tries, Uniformitarianism, Unifying,

[edit] Comments

The Gould quote itself is quite complicated. The short version is considerably shorter than the other versions. The current CON.2 version replaces the introduction with a hopefully gently and more understandable and accessible introduction, but retains the philosophy of science discussion. There are multiple problems with the version FTC.1 as I explain in detail on Talk:Evolution. There have been multiple complains about CON.1 and FTP.1 for months. They are not particularly accurate and have been deemed to be confusing. CON.2 replaces the introduction to CON.1 with an accessible introduction like FTS.1.--Filll 18:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


Well, I'm not a big fan of readability studies. Reading the acrticle and experience in writing and education tell me which ones are written well. For my money I'm very much in favour of something like CON.2. Someone reading it may actually come away understanding what the article is about. I dislike CON.1 passionately. CON.1 should be avoided at all costs. It is horrendously turgid. It basically says "let's make this intentionally obtuse and have a laugh at all those silly creationists who won't understand what this means." Candy 19:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I was sort of surprised at how unuseful the readability scores were. I remember years ago having used writers work bench (wwb) and it being a lot more useful than this. Maybe I can find wwb on the internet and use that. The main value of the readability here was the word count I think. I have my own biases of course, but then I was involved so it is not fair for me to say too much. --Filll 19:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just my personal opinion:

  • FTC.1 Too discursive, needs extensive copy-editing, too bogged down in semantic quibbles rather than addressing the main argument. I also don't feel that it's appropriate to list specific examples of observed evolution in this particular section.
  • FTS.1 Again, too bogged down with semantics, despite its short length. Gives the impression that scientists are adopting Humpty-Dumpty's approach to language, particularly with the word "ascribe". The worst of the five.
  • FTP.1 Very much better than the preceding two. Doesn't place "scientific" and "lay" language in as direct conflict, just clarifies the technical meanings of the terms. However, the absence of the gravity/evolution comparison is a point against it; this sort of thing is very effective in getting points over to a non-technical audience.
  • CON.1 This addresses the actual controversy very well, especially with its introduction of some philosophical material. However, the lack of an explicit definition of "theory" and "fact" (apart from the Gould quote) and the gravity box is, again, a negative point.
  • CON.2 Rather too short on the main issue rather than the philosophy. Again, I think a more explicit definition of the words would help.

Choosing between the five as they stand, I'd pick FTP.1. My ideal solution would be to combine the main text of FTP.1 with the gravity/evolution comparison box and the "Philosophical arguments" section of CON.2. Tevildo 21:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


I'm afraid I don't like any of them that much. I put a couple of comments on the evolution talk page. I don't really like the box. My modification would be something a bit more succint like this below. — Axel147 20:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Axel147 version

Some critics of evolution claim that it is merely a theory. This criticism makes two claims: that evolution is a theory and therefore not a fact, and that theories are less established than facts (and less well supported than other beliefs). In other words, laypeople often use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion".

In scientific terminology however, a theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) that makes predictions that can be tested through controlled experiments. Evolution is described as a theory on account of its explanatory and predictive power.

In addition, scientists commonly apply to the word "fact" to evolution. Facts are direct observations or hypotheses that are highly substantiated with evidence. According to Stephen Jay Gould a fact must be "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent"[1] Facts should not therefore be regarded in opposition to theories but alternative ways of classifying hypotheses. Evolution has both explanatory and predictive power and has been extensively corroborated by empirical observation: it is correctly described as both theory and fact.

I have to say that I do like quite a bit in the Axel147 version. Not all of it, but some of it definitely resonates. That is the reason to step back and consider this carefully if we can; to get as much information and ideas as we can.--Filll 20:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have to decide on goals

In this "fact and theory" section, as in the other sections of this article, I think one has to step back and decide what are the goals:

  • Should this section be simple to understand, or pedantic and asbtuse?
  • Should this section exhibit how learned the authors are, or how willing they are to communicate to the average reader?
  • Should this section repeat the same failed arguments as before
  • Should this section remained unchanged no matter what as a matter of tradition?
  • Should the words of Gould be enshrined like the words of a god, unassailable and unquestionable?
  • Should evolution scientists divorce themselves from the rest of science and the standards and language of the rest of science?
  • Should this section grow longer and longer to include all the text that has been created on this issue over the last several years?
  • Who is this section for?
    • academics in evolutionary biology?
    • other academics?
    • the average reader who wants to learn the various issues in the controversy?
    • to give succinct clear arguments for people to use to defend themselves against creationists?
    • to persuade people who are more or less undecided on the issue?
    • to change the minds of creationists?
    • to stop the arguments over this "fact and theory" issue which are basically a matter of confusion and misunderstandings?

I personally would argue that this section should be short, clear and simple to understand, meant to communicate to the average reader. I think tradition is not helpful on this issue. I think Gould was a smart guy, but let's face it, he was not some sort of genius whose every utterance was worthy of being worshipped from now until the end of time. This section should be useful to those trying to defend themselves against creationist attacks, and to educate those who want to learn about the issues. One will never convince "true believers" and the irrational and deranged and deluded, but one might sway the undecided if one is clear and avoid double talk. Just screaming "EVOLUTION IS A THEORY AND A FACT", with no explanation, over and over is worth than useless. It is handing victory to the creationists. Is this the true goal of this section?--Filll 18:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the section should communicate the points as clearly as possibly - I don't think anybody is in disagreement about that. I think everyone is also in agreement that evolution is both fact and theory and that the words mean different things.
I think the phrase 'In defining "fact" and "theory", scientists ascribe to them very distinct meanings' is correct. Theory doesn't mean the same thing as fact. But it's misleading because it might suggest they are mutually exclusive: that a hypothesis has to be either a fact or theory. Evolution, gravity etc. are both. There is no contradiction here and that is what we are trying to point out.
If as you say above parts of my version resonate, can you be more positive and say which parts you like. — Axel147 18:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some examination of Axel147's proposal

Some comments: Some critics of evolution claim that it is merely a theory. This criticism makes two claims: that evolution is a theory and therefore not a fact, and that theories are less established than facts (and less well supported than other beliefs). In other words, laypeople often use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion".
Although I think it is good to mention this conventional interpretation, I am not sure I agree with the wording.
In scientific terminology however, a theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) that makes predictions that can be tested through controlled experiments.
I do not agree completely with this. For example, there are huge fields of observational science where controlled experiments are not possible. I prefer to describe a theory as an explanation or attempted explanation of evidence/data/observations/experimental results etc
Evolution is described as a theory on account of its explanatory and predictive power.
I do not like the wording, "on account of". It also does not make the "evolution as fact and theory" statement clear at all.
In addition, scientists commonly apply to the word "fact" to evolution.
Yes they do, and in two senses of the word "fact": "fact" as datum, and fact in the conventional layperson meaning of the word "fact". However, this statement does not make this distinction clear at all.
Facts are direct observations or hypotheses that are highly substantiated with evidence.
This makes the vague statement that I referred to above. But it is likely to be confusing because it does not clearly state the situation. It just sounds like double talk, unless it is properly explained
According to Stephen Jay Gould a fact must be "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent"[1]
Yes, Gould does say this, and that is why I have a problem with Gould's little article. Gould is using the layperson meaning of the word "fact" which is not helpful since a person venturing into the scientific literature outside of evolution will encounter "fact" in a scientific sense. I believe he is referring to the scientific meaning of the word "theory" described as a layperson meaning of the word "fact", which to laypeople is essentially the same as "truth".
Facts should not therefore be regarded in opposition to theories but alternative ways of classifying hypotheses.
This phrasing comes up over and over in this sort of discussion and I have no idea what it means. I think it is just confusing and possibly foggy thinking.
Evolution has both explanatory and predictive power and has been extensively corroborated by empirical observation: it is correctly described as both theory and fact.
This for the reasons I just outlined above, will just invite the creationists to descend on you and tear you a new one. It is like waving a red flag in front of a bull--Filll 15:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
At least in my opinion, this is not a compromise at all, but a restatement of the previous confusing material, while removing a few paragraphs of "philosophy of science" discussion. If the goal is to use this to answer the creationists arguments, it does not do the job. Not even close. Just as Gould's article does not without careful explanation of what he is saying or trying to say. All it does is inflame. However, if your goal is to inflame, then it is not too bad. I think evolutionary biologists might actually like to inflame sometimes (as do I) so this might be your goal and I might be misunderstanding the situation. However, given their current apparent political power, I do not think this is a wise or advisable course of action. However, if you want to pick a fight with these people, be my guest. I would prefer to do my best to defend against them now before they come after the rest of science, any more than they already have.

--Filll 19:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


I agree that Gould's quotes can be misleading (esp. if used out of context) which is why I removed one of them from my version. I retained his assertion '[a fact must be]] confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent' because I think this applies to all definitions of fact. Although "theory" is often used slightly differently by scientists and laypeople I don't really think the same can be said for "fact". Scientists and laypeople alike would agree "the Earth is not flat" is a fact. There is no dispute here. It is a fact not because I can observe it directly, but because of the overwhelming evidence in support of it. Dawkins for example frequently says evolution is a fact. He means exactly the same thing: there is overwhelming evidence in support of it. — Axel147 21:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think a lot of thought went into Gould's article, unfortunately. I do not think Gould had anticipated that this phrase and this article would be so well known and such a focus of scrutiny by all sides for so many years, otherwise he might have written it more carefully, and vetted it through different kinds of scientists. After all, Gould was a paleontologist. To some, paleontology is not even much of a science, after all. But obviously, from looking in the literature, statements about how "evolution is a theory" or "evolution is a fact" or "evolution is a fact and a theory" or similar statements are quite common. I compiled a list of about 15-20 references with statements like this about evolution, which you can find at Evolution as theory and fact. I have worked in science for decades, although not in biology or evolution, and in other fields of science, there is a very sharp distinction between a "fact" and a "theory". These are quite separate. However, scientists will sometimes lapse into common parlance and use the word "theory" in a standard layperson's sense. This is even more common with the word "fact"; scientists will not always be careful when using the word, and will often use the word "fact" in the sense of something "true". In the case of the statement:
  • the world is not flat

This statement is a statement from the field known as geodesy. A large fraction (although not all) of the public "knows" or "believes" that this statement is true, or correct, or has been taught that this statement is true so they will claim that the statement is a fact, using the word "fact" in this case as synonymous with something true, or something correct. A scientist speaking as a layperson might also claim the same thing. However, if the scientist puts on his "scientist" hat and examines this statement carefully in a scientific light, the situation is far more complicated. The figure of the planet earth is actually flattened rotationally by about 1 part in 300, and is more an approximate oblate spheroid. However, there are lateral hetereogeneities so it is closer to some sort of distorted ellipsoidal shape. One can make geodesic measurements that describe the shape of the earth, and in most of science, these measurements (with error bars), are what are called "facts". If the statement is a summary of the measurements, I might classify the statement as a "fact" in that sense. The assertion that the earth has a particular shape I might also classify as a hypothesis if the data had not yet been examined and analyzed to verify the correctness of the hypothesis. Once it was esablished that the shape of the earth, probably accompanied with other statements about the minimal energy state of a rotating body taking into account the continuum and fluid mechanical properties of the earth, this statement might form part of a "theory", in a scientific sense. The statement could also be a prediction based on the theory, and the degree to which the evidence support or do not support it could be ascertained, in using abduction, deduction and induction etc. If your prediction fits the data very well, then you might give your provisional assent to the theory, as in the Gould quote. You might claim it is a reasonably accurate theory, or a reasonably accurate prediction based on a theory. You might claim that the prediction is correct, or born out, or least true within certain limits. The scientist might even use the layperson's language to describe the statement as a fact, but by that he would mean it was true, or correct, or so well-verified that he would accept it as true. So I could call the statement a fact, I could call it a theory, or part of a theory, I could call it a hypothesis, I could call it a "scientific" fact since it might represent data or observation or evidence, and I could call it a prediction, and I could call it a fact using layperson's language and meaning of the word fact. So although you claim there is no dispute, it depends on a lot of things to claim there is no dispute. It can be a much more involved statement than what you are assuming.

The problem with claiming that the meaning of the word "fact" does not include the scientific meaning of "observations or data" is that it is at odds with many of the claims in the scientific literature, and it disagrees with many of the quotes that I have compiled from publications in evolution. And many of the quotes make no sense if you do not take this meaning into account and only use the public layperson meaning.

I also do not know what you mean by not being able to observe it directly. There are of course many ways that you can observe the flatness of the earth directly, depending on your definition of "observe" and "directly" and what you mean by "flatness." However, if you mean just a restricted class of observations, I might give provisional assent to that claim of yours. Not only Dawkins but many others if you look at the 15-20 excerpts I compiled will claim evolution is a fact, meaning it is true almost beyond question. This however, will not help because other quotes, including part of the Gould quote, will use evolution in the "data" or "observation" sense. And also if you go up against a creationist, and all you do is say "well it is a fact because Gould and I claim it is beyond question" you will get your butt handed to you. All you have done is gratuitously assert something which they will gratuitously dismiss by the rules of logic. And you will add to the confusion, because of course you are ignoring another meaning of the word "fact" which surfaces in many quotes and references, and in the rest of science as well.

I guess in summary if this is how you want to play it, then I start to have a deeper understanding of why there is such a deep problem with this issue and with creationists, because rather than address it head on, there is some tendency to want to use confusion and double talk and proof by fiat and personal claim that just leaves evolutionary scientists open to massive criticism and ridicule. What else would one expect from creationists? They are out for blood, and if you defend yourselves so poorly, of course they will take advantage of it. Oh well...--Filll 23:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I myself am writing this as a chemist and I think you're making a slight meal of the this difference between scientific use and layman's usage. But let me accept there is a distinction and continue. You say 'The problem with claiming that the meaning of the word "fact" does not include the scientific meaning of "observations or data"...' but I'd defined facts as 'direct observations or hypotheses that are highly substantiated with evidence' . This is intended to include both meanings and does not exclude the 'scientific' one. You may think this sounds like doublespeak please but it is not intended as such. So please could you answer this question so we can make progress: do you think evolution is a fact in layman's usage of word fact, scientific usage of the word fact or both? — Axel147 00:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My opinion of evolution as a fact

After pondering this for a bit, I suspect that I have to be far more careful and far more explicit with more references. I do not seem to be making much progress with my arguments and what I am writing does not seem clear enough to get my point across. Let me make a short note however.
In my personal opinion:
  • evolution has been observed:
  • directly in the laboratory (with fruit flies and maybe other species)
  • slightly less directly in the field (with tilipia, nylon eating bacteria and many other species)
  • slightly less directly still in the fossil record
So given my understanding and what I read in many dictionaries about the definition of the word "fact" in science, and from these and many other observations of a process called evolution, evolution is a scientific fact, or "fact" in the scientific sense.
Also, from the American Heritage dictionary:
Fact has a long history of usage in the sense “allegation of fact,” as in “This tract was distributed to thousands of American teachers, but the facts and the reasoning are wrong” (Albert Shanker). This practice has led to the introduction of the phrases true facts and real facts, as in The true facts of the case may never be known. These usages may occasion qualms among critics who insist that facts can only be true, but the usages are often useful for emphasis.[3] So from this, to some the word "fact" has a sense more closely akin to what I would call a "theory" in science, or even a "hypothesis". So I could also be persuaded that the model we call "The NeoDarwinist Theory of Evolution" is at least a hypothesis with substantial support, and probably so much supporting evidence that it would be something far stronger than a hypothesis. I would put it in the category more of a "scientific theory" or even approaching a "scientific law."
Also if we examine the other meanings of the word "fact" from the American Heritage dictionary (just taken as an example; of course we could get many more alternate definitions and shades of meaning from looking at more dictionaries and philsophy of science papers and books etc):
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
2.1. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
2.2. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
2.3. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.
I believe that in this list, the common layperson meaning is close to definitions 2.1, 2.2 or 2.3 in the list above. I do think that the observations of evolution I described above do fit the definitions of the word "fact" 2.1, 2.2 or 2.3 listed above. I also think that the theory of evolution is very firmly established. It is at least as firmly established as the theory of gravity. However, I would not claim that the theory of gravity is a fact in the sense of unquestionable truth. I think that the theory of gravity will be questioned and eventually replaced by a more accurate theory that explains more of the evidence available. And I believe that is also true of the "theory of evolution". Such is the nature of scientific theory.
Another related meaning of the word "fact" is presented by Gould:
In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”
This could encompass the conventional scientific meaning of the word "fact" of observation or measurement, since there can still be some small uncertainty even when something is observed or believed to have been observed, or measured. And there are error bars on most measurements of course. However, in a close reading of the original text of Gould, I do believe that Gould was referring in this quote to the "theory of evolution" being so well-established that it could be regarded as a "fact", where the word "fact" is being used in the sense of 2.1, 2.2 or 2.3 above. I do not think Gould is referring to error bars or mistaken observations. Here is the context:
Moreover, “fact” does not mean “absolute certainty.” The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”
I would also agree with that view which I ascribe to Gould. I do believe that the theory of evolution is very well established, and so well established that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. Which is to me essentially what is meant by a very well established theory that is well supported by solid evidence.
So in summary, I believe that something called evolution (either the direct observation of a process we call evolution or the theory that we call evolution i.e., the "NeoDarwinist Theory of Evolution"):
  • is a scientific "fact"
  • is a very well established theory that approaches one or more of the layperson's definitions of the word "fact"
  • is so well established that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent, which Gould calls a "fact".
To give more information I have to ponder this more carefully and get many more references. I am astounded at how hard people are fighting me on this issue. I guess people just repeat this stuff without thinking about it or investigating it.--Filll 16:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

As a non-scientist, I think the difficulties with this approach may arise from a confusion between "the theory of evolution" and "evolution". There are, as I see it, two separate propositions that we need to establish (or, at least, clarify).

  • "Evolution is a fact." In other words, allele frequencies do change with time, or whatever less technical definition is appropriate.
  • "The theory of evolution is valid." In other words, the diversity of life we see today can be explained by the natural processes of descent with modification from a common ancestor over a period of billions of years.

Trying to combine these into one statement along the lines of "Evolution is a fact and a theory" seems to be the cause of the problem. Both propositions may be established to the "peverse to withold assent" level, but they're still _separate_, and I think it's wrong to make statements like "The theory of evolution is a fact" without exposing ourselves to charges of dogmatism or abusing the language. Evolution is a fact, by any popular or scientific definition of the word; the theory of evolution is as well-established as any other scientific theory; but no scientific theory makes claims to the absolute truth of mathematics, and stating "Theory X is a fact" sounds as though we are making that claim. The final version needs to make clear the distinction between the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution, rather than trying to eliminate it. Tevildo 03:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a very good observation Tevildo. In fact, a few hours back I also came to the same realization as you can see here. I have to accept part of the blame because I emphasized that "fact" has two meanings that are being confused, and "theory" has two meanings that are being confused, but I did not emphasize that "evolution" also has two meanings that are being confused. So the statement that "evolution is a fact and a theory" can be parsed and interpreted several different ways, and it is sort of a fun phrase. However, to someone who is not aware of these multiple layers of meaning, it just sounds like nonsense. And of course, it is treated like nonsense by the detractors. And evolution scientists avoid exlaining this carefully at their peril.--Filll 03:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/a/c/Talk%7EFactandTheoryComparison_6b52.html"