Talk:Misunderstandings about evolution/TheoryvFact

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Evolution Talk:desire for better Fact v. Theory

[edit] Fact vs. Theory complexity

I read through most of the archives on Fact vs. Theory (personally, it would make a great article on this inane discussion). Then I kept referring back to the section in Evolution article regarding the point. Every time I read the statement 'The paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "evolution is a theory. It is also a fact,'" I keep thinking about the 2004 election, and the way John Kerry tried to use nuance to describe his stance on issues. Science is, by nature, highly nuanced. And unfortunately, the world at large is not. Would it not make more sense to start the conversation by simply stating, "Evolution is a fact." The discussion of what makes theory in science really a fact is difficult to follow, and I'm a pretty smart guy. If you're a brainwashed creationist, you're going to say, "see these guys just doublespeak." And I'm going to have to agree. Not with creationism, but with the doublespeak. Can a wordsmith or two amongst us make a summary sentence or two to lead into the subarticle on Fact vs. Theory? Just my opinion, but it could make the article just ever so slightly better.OrangeMarlin 23:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as an outsider, I think that Gould just confused the issue. I would have rathered he helped to make clear concrete definitions. This just provides fodder for the rabid anti-science hordes.--Filll 00:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we're the only two who care? So, can we make change, or will it cause a holy war?  :) OrangeMarlin 18:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It is possible we can suggest something a bit clearer. I might try it here first on the talk page. If no one says anything then we can try it in the article. People might still object, but at least we can give them a chance to comment.--Filll 18:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the material to Talk:Evolution/FactvsTheory to rewrite it. It is coming slowly. I think I can make it far clearer, and shorter.--Filll 20:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I made some wordsmithing to help it make sense. Still sounds like a couple of politicians debating whether the sky is blue.  :) OrangeMarlin 23:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes I am still editing it. The problem is that Gould, and possibly others, started this entire "fact" and "theory" thing that makes it completely confusing. Either we ignore this, which is a bit difficult since I think it is all through the field and the debate with creationists, or we try to make it clear. My thought is to
  • explain clearly what fact and theory are in science
  • use gravity as a noncontroversial example
  • claim that the entire discussion is also true for evolution and show how evolution is both "fact" and theory"
  • after all that, show the Gould quote which is fairly famous I think
  • possibly discuss hypotheses and laws after that--Filll 23:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


Ok I have taken a first rewrite of it. It is longer than I wanted. Some of that material we can chuck I suspect. Or move it to the creationism vs. evolution controversy article. Or make a separate article out of it, as you suggest. That is not the worst idea, frankly. Have at it and see if you can make it better. --Filll 00:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I went back to the location, and all of my edits are gone. Maybe they weren't so good? OrangeMarlin 00:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
They are? I didn't change them. We did write overtop of each other a little so that might have caused problems and some edit conflicts. But it should be ok now.--Filll 13:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I have edited it a bit more. I think it is still too long but it is at least clearer than what we have now. Maybe it could be made a separate article, and a short summary be published here. And also at the Creation-evolution controversy page. --Filll 13:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

SUGGESTION: I wonder if placing the case for gravity being a fact and a theory, in a blue box with divisions, side by side with the parallel case for evolution being a fact and a theory, would be helpful?--Filll 13:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I hold my breath waiting for your edit 8=) Candy 14:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty of nested hypotheses, but I thought most of the laws (Dollo's, Cope's, etc) had mostly fallen out of favor?GetAgrippa 17:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes I think that in both gravity and in evolution, the field is littered with a large number of discarded hypotheses, theories, speculations, conjectures, laws, etc. I try to make this clear by describing 3 discarded theories of gravity, and 3 discarded theories of evolution. Of course I could list far more, but that would be more appropriate for the history of science. All I want to do is to make this "fact and theory" controversy a bit more clear. Please take a look at what I have written at Talk:Evolution/FactvsTheory and give me your feedback. --Filll 17:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potential infoboxes for fact vs. theory

Some rough draft versions of infobox type tables on this subject are available for your inspection at Talk:Evolution/FactvsTheory.--Filll 16:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dec. 17 before New Fact vs. Theory inclusion

[edit] Distinctions between theory and fact

Further information: Scientific Theory
See also: Theory vs. Fact
Main article: Evolution as theory and 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".[2]

[edit] November 20, before Filll involvement

[edit] Distinctions between theory and fact

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

Stephen Jay Gould explained 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."[3]

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."[4] A theory is obtained by inference from a body of facts. 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 an apple will fall to the ground if it becomes dislodged from a branch 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".[5]

[edit] Controversy article Theory v. Fact section Dec 15

[edit] Theory vs. fact

 All or part of this article may be confusing or unclear.
Please help clarify the article. Suggestions may be on the talk page. (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. [6] [7][8] 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."[9]

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.[10] 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."[11]

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.[12] 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.[13]

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.[14] Mainstream proponents accuse the creationists of conflating the two in a form of pseudoscience.[15]

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ a b Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994
  2. ^ Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
  3. ^ Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994
  4. ^ Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994
  5. ^ Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
  6. ^ Selman v. Cobb County School District. US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (2005).
  7. ^ Evolution is a Fact and a Theory Talk. Origins
  8. ^ Bill Moyers et al, 2004. "Now with Bill Moyers." PBS. Accessed 2006-01-29. Interview with Richard Dawkins
  9. ^ Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994
  10. ^ Stephanie Simon. "Their Own Version of a Big Bang." Los Angeles Times. February 11, 2006.
  11. ^ Mayr, Ernst (2002), What Evolution Is, Basic Books; Reprint edition, ISBN 0465044263
  12. ^ Johnson, Phillip E. (1998). Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Natrualism in Science, Law & Education. Intervarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-1929-0. 
  13. ^ Johnson, Phillip E. (1998). Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Natrualism in Science, Law & Education. Intervarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-1929-0. 
  14. ^ Einstein, Albert (November 9, 1930). "Religion and Science". New York Times Magazine: 1-4. 
  15. ^ Dawkins, Richard (January/February 1997). "Is Science a Religion?". Humanist.