Scientific theory

{{Philosophyscience}} {{Sources needed}}
{{hatnote|Not to be confused with [[conspiracy theory]], the '''furthest''' approximation to the truth.}}

A '''scientific theory''' is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be ''tested.''<ref>[https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-theory Scientific theory], Encyclopedia Britannica</ref>

Usually, theories (in the scientific sense) are large bodies of work that are a composite of the products of many contributors over time and are substantiated by vast bodies of converging evidence. They unify and synchronize the scientific community's view and approach to a particular scientific field. For example, [[biology]] has the [[Theory of Evolution]] and [[cell theory]], [[geology]] has [[Plate tectonics|plate tectonic theory]], and [[cosmology]] has the [[Big Bang]]. The development of theories is a key element of the [[scientific method]] as they are used to make predictions about the world; if these predictions fail, the theory is revised. Theories are the main goal in [[science]] and no explanation can achieve a higher "rank" (contrary to the belief that "theories" become "laws" or "facts" over time). 

"Theory" is a Jekyll-and-Hyde term that means different things and thus is often used in arguments based on [[equivocation]] where two different meanings of a word are used. While in everyday speech ''anything'' that attempts to provide an explanation for a cause can be dubbed a "theory", a [[science|scientific]] theory has a much more specific meaning. Scientific theory is far more than just a casual conjecture or some Joe's guesswork. A theory in this context is a ''well-substantiated explanatory framework'' for a series of facts and observations that is ''testable'' and can be used to ''predict future observations''.

==Common misconceptions about theories==
==="Just" a theory===
[[File:If Evolution Is A Theory Then Religion Is An Opinion.jpg|thumb|right|Good point, gas station.]]
{{cquote|Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.|||Isaac Asimov<ref>Remarks made to the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), 1980</ref>}}
[[Creationist]] and [[Intelligent design]] proponents often like to describe the [[theory of evolution]] as ''just'' a theory.<ref group=note> A <i>Game Theory</i>! Thanks for watching!</ref> This relies on [[equivocation| equivocating]] the common usage of the term "theory" (meaning "idea" or "guess" &mdash; more literally speaking, "[[hypothesis]]" or "conjecture") with the scientific meaning. Theories are the single highest level of scientific achievement and nothing is ''just'' a theory &mdash; that would be like saying [[Bill Gates]] is ''just'' a multibillionaire. Additionally, one might say that the notion of evolution is "just a theory" in the same way that [[cell theory]] and [[gravity]] (fundamental principles of biology and [[physics]], respectively) are "just theories".

This argument played out with hilarious ramifications in the 2008 decision of the [[Florida]] State Board of Education to teach evolution as a "scientific theory".<ref>
[https://www.wired.com/2008/02/evolution-wins/ Evolution Wins as Creationists (Accidentally) Switch Sides in Florida]
</ref>
Apparently, the creationists on the Florida SBOE saw this as a "compromise" &mdash; making evolution a "scientific theory" at law, they thought, would weaken the position of evolution. After all, then it would be "just a theory", right?<ref group=note>The Discovery Institute [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/02/florida_state_board_of_educati_1.html is pissed off] about this.</ref> Wrong! This "compromise" actually puts evolution on the exactly right footing &mdash; at the highest tier of science &mdash; and ensures that students can learn what the term "scientific theory" really means, hopefully eventually drawing the sting of confusion with the colloquial meaning.<ref group=note>
[http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/the-continued-c-1.html Panda's Thumb], along with all of science, is pretty happy though.
</ref>

Other variations of this argument exist.  For example, [[anti-vaxxers]] might describe the science of [[vaccines]] as "vaccine theory."  [[Homophobes]] and [[transphobes]] sometimes refer to the existence of queer people as "gender theory" to make it sound uncertain whether queer people exist.  

To quickly counter this argument, one can say, "Gravity is just a theory too" or "Creation is just a myth", and opponents will have to turn to some other argument.  However, comparing evolution to gravity will commonly lead creationists to respond with [[special pleading]].

Sometimes this argument is inverted, taking advantage of the ''scientific'' definition for "theory" and claiming that conspiracy theories are fact based on this ambiguity.

===Theories and laws===
Another common misconception is that a theory is the step you go through while on your way to a [[Scientific law|law of science]]. Scientific laws and theories are two very different things and, despite what it may seem, one ''never'' becomes the other. Scientific laws are factual observations usually derived from [[mathematical]] modeling; they merely distill [[empirical]] results into concise verbal or mathematical statements that express a fundamental principle of science &mdash; for example, gravity attracts, force equals mass times acceleration and so on. Theories are the causal explanations behind what creates these laws and observations of nature. So one way to think of it is: the ''law'' of gravity is that objects at 1G fall at 9.8m/s/s in a vacuum, while the ''theory'' of gravity is that anything with mass has a gravitational pull based on how much mass it has.

Theories also combine laws into a framework that is greater than the sum of its parts. In [[genetics]], many different laws describe how [[gene]]s interact in different combinations to influence heredity &mdash; work done principally by [[Gregor Mendel]]. Genetic theory combines these laws into a unified framework that can be used as an explanation and to make predictions. Evolutionary theory then combines genetic theory, the theory of [[natural selection]] and other theories with the various laws with which they are associated into a complex framework that forms the basis of much research in the field of biology.

Even ''superb'' theories, or laws, can be superseded by more successful ones. For instance, [[Newton]]'s "law" of gravitation is superb at predicting the path of a spacecraft among the outer [[planet]]s of the [[Solar System]], but it breaks down when large masses are involved, such as that of the [[Sun]]. The precession of the aphelion of Mercury can only be explained by [[Einstein]]'s [[general relativity]], which is a refinement of Newton's law taking into account the slight bending of [[spacetime]] near the Sun.

===Falsified theories===
{{main|Falsifiability}}
Clearly, if a theory has been falsified, it no longer fulfills the definitions at the start of the article. It may well still be a "theory" in the sense of the common usage, but in scientific terms, it has become a ''superseded'' theory. For example, [[geocentrism]] was a theory, as was the concept of four elements (earth, fire, wind, and [[water]]) and [[Lamarck]]ian evolution, which turned out to be less than accurate. These have been disproved conclusively enough (although some will beg to differ).

Because of the ability for good theories to make predictions, even if they are shown to be false (or more specifically, inaccurate in certain conditions), they can still be used to make predictions that are useful approximations. Newtonian mechanics may well be total nonsense in the light of 20<sup>th</sup> century physics pioneered by Einstein, but no one uses special relativity to work out the momentum of an [[automobile]]. And while [[quantum mechanics]] may, in principle, be completely replaced by something else, nothing is going to change the fact that the Schrödinger Equation predicts the spectroscopic features of the [[hydrogen]] [[atom]] ''perfectly''. Even some of the more "silly" theories of old may have some use because of how they work, the classic example being that of a [[flat Earth]]. While everyone who isn't a [[crank]] knows that the Earth isn't flat, someone building a shed in their garden doesn't need to allow for the curvature of the [[Earth]].

===Developing theories===
Science's understanding of the [[Universe]] is indeed subject to change &mdash; otherwise it would be incapable of making any use of new technology and would be pointless. While people often say that this means all current scientific knowledge is "wrong", this is far from the right way of describing it. If a theory produces good results, it is ''right'', but when it doesn't, it's best described as ''inaccurate''. Theories will usually evolve from a less accurate to a more accurate version of [[reality]]. One of the major misconceptions is that when theories change, the change is massive and total. When discussing the "Relativity of Wrong",<ref>[http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm Isaac Asimov &mdash; The Relativity of Wrong]</ref> Isaac Asimov quipped that someone "living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." But this is clearly not the case, and applies as much to the microscopic, nuanced worlds of atomic theory and theoretical physics as it does to more obvious examples such as the shape of the Earth.

Many people believe that Einstein came along and made all of Newton's theories redundant (some will also say that quantum theory usurped relativity and that [[string theory]] in turn usurped quantum theory and so on). This is not the case, as even the largest changes to our understanding are relatively small. Theories are changed by small steps and new ones will usually consist of the old one with a bit added. For example, one can formally show that Newton's laws are an approximation to special relativity that applies when velocities are small compared to the [[speed of light]]. A "[[Theory of Everything]]" that combines quantum mechanics and gravity will still resemble quantum mechanics. The Schrödinger Equation, Hartree-Fock theory, spin dynamics, particle-wave duality, and other fundamental components of quantum mechanics will all still be there, as useful and accurate as ever.

===Is there a difference between theory and hypothesis?===
One common misconception is that scientific theories are ''derived from'' hypotheses that have met with confirming experimental evidence — in the sense that there is a "hierarchy of science" starting with the hypothesis, which is promoted to theory, and eventually becomes natural law.<ref group=note>While this might ''seem'' a decent (and even practical) model at first, the fact is that it's not just ''misleading'', but ''open to abuse'' — forming the [[Equivocation|equivocal]] basis for the fallacious "[[Just a theory]]!" gambit.</ref>

This is in fact '''wrong''', as theories are ''completely separate'' from hypotheses — a hypothesis does not "become" a theory, and if experimental evidence contradicts a theory it isn't somehow downgraded into a hypothesis.<ref group=note>The one caveat being that — in the specific case of ''competitive comparison'' between theory and hypothesis — it is indeed correct to understand a ''valid theory'' as "[[Epistemology|epistemologically]] superior" to a ''valid hypothesis'' ({{wpl|Ceteris paribus}}). Outside of this context, however, conflating "theory" with "hypothesis" at all is unhelpful and confusing at best.</ref>

In other words, you can't "trump" a scientific theory (e.g. {{wpl|Germ_theory_of_disease|the germ theory of disease}}) with reference to a hypothesis (e.g. "[[Goddidit]]"), proven or not.

So, what's so special about a theory? Forgetting the standard colloquial misnomer,<ref group=note>...that "theory" means something like "guess".</ref> a scientific '''theory''':
*Is a fully working model
*Is supported not just by evidence, but by ''the preponderance'' of evidence
*Is [[Scientific_consensus|accepted as being valid]]
*Makes accurate, testable predictions
*Is [[Falsifiability|falsifiable]] from observation

A '''hypothesis''', however, being a different animal altogether, tends to be much less comprehensive. Akin to a back-of-the-envelope calculation, a hypothesis is basically a guess or conjecture about how something ''might'' work.

A so-called ''working'' hypothesis is something with good enough supporting evidence that an individual will accept it as true for the sake of furthering their research.

Note that the term "working" denotes that this is the hypothesis you are currently ''working under'' — as in, "testing out" in the most basic sense — '''not''' that the hypothesis itself "works" (per se).

Take the following example: if you suddenly feel a vibration in your pocket, your ''working hypothesis'' likely is: that it's your phone receiving a text or a call.

By reaching into your pocket to check your phone — an act ''motivated entirely'' by your working hypothesis (which is: "it's your phone vibrating") — you '''test''' said working hypothesis ''against observation''.

If, for example, you were to discover (to your surprise) that your phone ''wasn't even on you'', your working hypothesis would then have been ''[[Falsification|falsified]]''. Whatever it was that vibrated,<ref group=note>Read: it was your scumbag, wolf-crying, thigh-vibrating brain! Bamboozled again...</ref> it sure couldn't have been a phone that ''wasn't even on you'' at the time.

Another example of a working hypothesis is: you're lounging at home, when suddenly — you feel a hunger pang. So, you walk to the kitchen and open the fridge. 

But ''why'' the kitchen? Well, because it's your ''working hypothesis'' that "if there's food in your house, the kitchen is the best place to start looking". And just like before — either your working hypothesis is ''confirmed'' (by the presence of food in your fridge — where you ''hypothesised'' it would be), or the working hypothesis is ''falsified'' (if it turns out the fridge was physically devoid of edibles). In the latter case, spinning a new working hypothesis is warranted — "maybe there's food in the cupboard?". And so on.

Importantly, a hypothesis is a ''testable'' statement, and — '''unlike a theory''' — it can (and might well) be proven "right" or "wrong" without this warranting an iota of change to established science.

So what's the connection between theory and hypothesis? Well, it is the constant spinning of multiple ''testable hypotheses'' that can lead the way forward to the organizing of rigorous scientific [[experiment]]ation, and many of the involved factors — ideas, concepts, experiments, evidence and so on — work together to form the soil which scientific theories may one day ''emerge'' from, using the [[scientific method]].

==See also==
*[[Theorum]]

==External links==
* {{wpa|Theory}}
* {{wpa|Five Ws}}
* [http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html Introduction to the Scientific Method], an important site
* [https://archive.is/B2MQl ISCID.org] William A. Dembski on providing details about the mechanism of ID
* [http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/print.php?id=17-06-060-i The Measure of Design] Touchstone magazine, July/August 2004. Paul Nelson: "... the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design."
* [http://ncse.com/rncse/21/3-4/behe-responds-to-shanks-joplin Reply to Shanks and Joplin] Michael Behe, "Reply to Shanks and Joplin", ''Reports of the National Center for Science Education'', volume 21 number 3-4 (May-August 2001), page 15 ID "says nothing directly about how biological design was produced ... or other such questions"
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlqDu2cDT0A Just a Theory], SMBC Theater
* [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/if_you_want_a_g059271.html If You Want a Good Story, Look to Darwinian Evolution, Not Intelligent Design] by David Klinghoffer of the [[Discovery Institute]]

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[category:philosophy]]
[[category:philosophy of science]]
[[category:science]]

[[ru:Научная теория]]

Categories: philosophy, philosophy of science, science