Common Misconceptions of Scientific Terms

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Science
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Unfortunately, in today's world there is a lot of misconceptions about science-- mainly the terms being used. A lot of lay-people confuse the terms used in science which, in turn, make them come to wrong conclusions just be sheer mistaken terminology. Among the most common terms with mistaken identity are: Hypothesis, Theory and Fact. Generally, the average person puts Facts at the top, in terms of importance, while Theory and Hypothesis towards the bottom. Lay-people seem to think Theories are just guesses or something trivial like that. This couldn't be farther from the truth, in all aspects.

A Fact is nothing more than a confirmed observation. That's it. Facts are everywhere and since Facts are so common they aren't of great importance to scientists. Everyone has Facts. Facts help lead to Hypothesis'.

A Hypothesis is a testable guess towards a particular phenomenon. So if I were to say that person X is made of cream cheese because he/she is extremely white, then we can go ahead and test my Hypothesis to see if it were true or false. Hypothesis' help support Theories.

A Theory is an explanation of a group of Facts or phenomena. So when we have a bunch of Facts, experiments and data in relation to phenomena we look to understand and clarify the meaning behind them.

Now the next thing you're probably wondering about is the term Law and where it fits into all this.

Laws are generalized Facts because they are ubiquitous. So when an observed Fact happens all the time it becomes a generalization of reality, or Law of reality. Just like the Law of gravity or Law of conservation of energy.

All of these are important and each have their own specialty but in the hierarchy of science Theories are at the top. Yes, they are even above Laws because Theories explain Laws. For example: if you had a phenomenon like gravity happening all the time, labeling it the "Law of Gravity" doesn't help anyone understand what is happening and why it's happening (A la Newton). But if you had a Theory about gravity, then that helps explain what is happening and why (A la Einstein). Next in line would be Laws because they are the foundation to build off of since they can be relied upon for observation and experimentation. Then after that would be Hypothesis and lastly Fact. Remember Facts are everywhere and everyone has them so they aren't that important. Theories are the exact opposite.

So when you hear something like, "Oh that's just a Theory" saying that shouldn't and doesn't degrade it or downplay the idea in any way. If anything, labeling something a Theory automatically sky-rockets it up to the top of the hierarchy in terms of importance. Also, saying things like, "It's not a Theory, it's a proven Fact!" doesn't really help your position in trying to get your point across. I hope this helps people understand what the terms mean now. Thanks.

http://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio372/class/behavior/scimeth.gif

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,397 • Replies: 27

No top replies

@Kielicious,

Kielicious;63973 wrote:

A Fact is nothing more than a confirmed observation.

Does it require confirmation from another Perspective? From another Person?
Can there be 'facts' if you are alone on the island?
Is 'perception' not sufficient confirmation of existence? Perception/conception = Universe/existence. If something exists, is it not a 'fact' of existence? Is that sufficient definition for 'fact', that it 'exists' as perceived?

Quote:

Laws are generalized Facts because they are ubiquitous. So when an observed Fact happens all the time it becomes a generalization of reality, or Law of reality. Just like the Law of gravity or Law of conservation of energy.

Can 'laws' be 'local'? Can they be 'Universal'? Must they be? Can they be 'true' at all times? For just a moment?
I don't know where you get the notion that laws are some sort of 'generalization'. I think that is a misconception.

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are discriptions of patterns that exist, all at once, in the whole Tapestry... The four-dimensional space-time manifold displays all eternity at once." - 'Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman'

So, 'laws' are descriptions of existing patterns. Everything exists and can be seen as 'patterns', perhaps very local (only perceived by one Perspective, you Perhaps, but they still "exist, all at once, in the whole Tapestry... "
So laws are, basically, descriptions of anything and everything that exists.
Quite the matter of Perspective, no?
Odd, though, how 'laws' can be true one moment and refuted the next. Obviously they do not have to be true all the time to qualify as 'laws'.
Only 'big' patterns can be 'laws'? At what poine does that pattern become 'law' sized?
Is there a word for 'tentative law' (besides oxymoron)? All 'laws' are tentative as some have been once accepted and then refuted, logically, statistically, all 'laws' are tentative.
I think that patterns found relate to patterns sought, and means of observation. Lots of room for Perspective in these 'laws'.
Pragmatism have any factorship here? A 'law' is something that works for us 'most of the time'?

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

I find these videos by potholer54 on youtube very good on educating me about different scientific terms and practices. He does a very good job of addressing misconceptions and explaining why they are wrong.

YouTube - 10 - The Scientific Method Made Easy

0 Replies

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

Does it require confirmation from another Perspective?

Yes. Science leans towards objectivity not subjectivity.

nameless wrote:

Can 'laws' be 'local'? Can they be 'Universal'?

Scientific laws are principles taken to be universally applicable. Laws can be modified which is why its a generalization of reality and not 100% true. Nothing in science is 100% true. Laws are just facts taken to the extreme. If you dont like the term 'generalization' then you can change it to 'regularity' or something else you're more comfortable with.

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

Kielicious;64063 wrote:

Yes. Science leans towards objectivity not subjectivity.

It was that particular erroneous 'leaning', that fallacious attempt to live a fantasy (that has been a hobgoblin to science from the inception of such fantasy in western 'philosophy') that is now made obsolete by QM. There is no such thing possible as 'objectivity'.

Quote:

Scientific laws are principles taken to be universally applicable. Laws can be modified which is why its a generalization of reality and not 100% true.

If it is universally applicable the term 'law' as description can stand, but they are not being found to be such. The Universe is 'bigger' than that.
The term 'law' seems rather inappropriate when it is often found to be erroneous and not 'universal' at all.
Seems rather egotistical on some part, and/or obsolete linguistics. Perhaps there should be some word for a tentative and locally applicable 'law'? A 'law' only in a certain context?
I noticed that you also ignored my many good and insightful questions relating to your 'laws'. Thats ok, though. Others will read the questions and might use them for some food for thought.
I reject your notion of 'laws' as not being able to withstand the scrutiny that I have suggested and you have ignored. Another sacred cow...

Quote:

Nothing in science is 100% true.

Then it seems that the term 'law' is a bit premature and arrogant unless redefined as tentative and contextual, in which case the term 'law' is simply incorrect and obsolete and a better term/notion will be found.

Quote:

Laws are just facts taken to the extreme.

Where they do not, cannot hold. ('Facts' are also misnamed as they are tentative and contextual.) In a science of impossible certainty, such emotional and ignorant and obsolete terms as 'facts' and 'laws' need to give way to modern thought and understanding. As I see it, a 'law' is no more that some pattern that has been defined/described, as Feynman says. Since every 'pattern' can be defined/described the artificiality of calling the already defined patterns 'laws' and those that have not been 'officially recognised' as... 'opinions'? Hallucinations?

I say that it is a false discrimination and error to call one true and real pattern a 'law' and another true and real pattern, nothing (yet), and as it is not 'officially recognized', not a 'law'. I call that arbitrary and fallacious. Ego. "My observation is a law and yours is not!"
'Time' will tell.

The best burgers come from such sacred cows (and the carcases of the defenders)!

1 Reply

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

It was that particular erroneous 'leaning', that fallacious attempt to live a fantasy (that has been a hobgoblin to science from the inception of such fantasy in western 'philosophy') that is now made obsolete by QM. There is no such thing possible as 'objectivity'.

Obviously science isnt truely objective, its just as close as we can get. I already explained this but some are slower than others I guess. I dont know why you got your panties in a bunch. Maybe you should losen the wedgie?

As for the rest of your post you're just hung up on trivial semantics. Thats why I dont respond fully to your posts because its a whole lot of BS. And from the responses I've gotten its good to know I'm not the only one who sees this.

me wrote:

Nothing in science is 100% true.

Again, in case you missed it, nothing in science is proven to be true 100%

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

Kielicious;64087 wrote:

I dont know why you got your panties in a bunch. Maybe you should losen the wedgie?

Not up to the critical evamination, eh? What are you doing here?

Quote:

And from the responses I've gotten its good to know I'm not the only one who sees this.

A group of morons still does not equal more than moron.
Enjoy the ego strokes.
Glad you have the support of your daisy chain.
Since you have shown yourself not equal to critical examination of your words, I have no further need to converse with you. I will, however, continue to criticise crap when I see it, your's included. But we will not converse. It will benefit those who have a better hold on critical thought than you do. Consider yourself 'ignored'.

1 Reply

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

Not up to the critical evamination, eh? What are you doing here?

No I'm doing just fine. You're clearly the one upset.

nameless wrote:

Since you have shown yourself not equal to critical examination of your words, I have no further need to converse with you.

LoL you sure can dish it but you cant take it. Such hypocrisy, however I have shown myself to be equal of critical examination seeing how I endowed you with the power to change the wording into whatever you liked:

Me wrote:

If you dont like the term 'generalization' then you can change it to 'regularity' or something else you're more comfortable with.

Care to acknowledge your falsities?

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Nameless: I think what Kielicious is trying to communicate is that scientific terms and colloquial terms are not one and the same. 'Law' might well be a confusing term for something which is only suspected of having universal application, but science never assumes that anything can be 100% proven - just that new discoveries and bodies of theory can bring us incrementally closer to proof than before.

In this regard the scientific method is more Cartesian than most philosophy, but it does rely on there being a common reality which can be made ever more apparent through the scientific method.

This can seem contradictory. Science assumes there is a reality, but also stresses that it is important to make no assumptions about that reality. The terminological use of words like "law" or "theory" are therefore very different in regards to science than they are when used colloquially.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Sorry from a typical layman's perspective none of these are truly valid if any one of them is taken from previous theory as evidence.If any assumption is made then all the observations in the world wont give a valid theory credibility.Today's theory is tomorrows myth.Debate and scrutiny is the most important part of any theory because it removes the subjectivity. Pick up any scientific magazine and there are new theories on yesterdays accepted findings.
Science is a desire to find the truth but it is not infallible.Should i take the doctors advice today because tomorrow he might tell me it killing me.
Science wont accept certain evidence because it does not fit today's theories, theories can destroy advances in philosophical thought because it refuses to accept possibilities.Sorry to put my layman's oar in..xris

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

Today's theory is tomorrows myth.

OK, here's a challenge to you.

These terms tended to come about in the shake up between science-theology-philosophy which occured in the wake of popular acceptance of Gallileo's support for Copernican heliocentrism.

Given that, can you name a theory - as science defines it (a structure by which a wide variety of different facts is understood by scientific consensus, the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution) - which has been posited since Gallileo's time and is now considered to be nothing more than a myth by scientific consensus?

I doubt it can be done, frankly.

We can all name scientists who indulged in some sort of Frankenstein horror, or things which were once thought true that are now not, but do you know who exposed those frauds? Scientists, not laymen.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

OK, here's a challenge to you.

These terms tended to come about in the shake up between science-theology-philosophy which occured in the wake of popular acceptance of Gallileo's support for Copernican heliocentrism.

Given that, can you name a theory - as science defines it (a structure by which a wide variety of different facts is understood by scientific consensus, the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution) - which has been posited since Gallileo's time and is now considered to be nothing more than a myth by scientific consensus?

I doubt it can be done, frankly.

We can all name scientists who indulged in some sort of Frankenstein horror, or things which were once thought true that are now not, but do you know who exposed those frauds? Scientists, not laymen.

Of the top of my head magnets where considered bipolar and never monopole.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Irrelevent - not a theory.

If your claim is true - given that it is off the top of your head and not sourced - and this was widely believed by scientists, it would only make one of the facts or hypotheses making up the theory of magnetism false - not the theory itself.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

Irrelevent - not a theory.

If your claim is true - given that it is off the top of your head and not sourced - and this was widely believed by scientists, it would only make one of the facts or hypotheses making up the theory of magnetism false - not the theory itself.

What, the theory of magnetism is changing constantly and being revised.So you are saying even if the theory of magnetism is altered beyond its original hypothesis its not the theory that has changed?Why should i have to give a source?you tell me im wrong and why...

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

You are worng because you claimed that what was once considered theory is now considered myth.

Empty words.

The theory of magnetism, once compiled, was found to be largely true. Picayune points regarding certain implementations or aspects of the theory have been adjusted to account for subsequent discovery.

So rather than being a myth the theory in its original form has been shown to be a pretty good guess, and whilst we still are unlikely to have discovered everything there is to know about magnetism, the theory as currently understood is confidently thought to be closer to the truth than it was before.

To say "well this portion of the theory" has been adjusted and therefore the theory was a myth" is to misunderstand the whole concept of theory in regards to science, and to argue that the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

You are worng because you claimed that what was once considered theory is now considered myth.

Empty words.

The theory of magnetism, once compiled, was found to be largely true. Picayune points regarding certain implementations or aspects of the theory have been adjusted to account for subsequent discovery.

So rather than being a myth the theory in its original form has been shown to be a pretty good guess, and whilst we still are unlikely to have discovered everything there is to know about magnetism, the theory as currently understood is confidently thought to be closer to the truth than it was before.

To say "well this portion of the theory" has been adjusted and therefore the theory was a myth" is to misunderstand the whole concept of theory in regards to science, and to argue that the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater.

So how much of a theory has to be altered before it becomes a myth? The flat earth was a theory based on the available observable evidence for men of their time does it still stand valid now because of observable facts that have altered our view? We start by observing a reality that causes us to ponder, we then by deduction of facts we already know formalise a theory.Further observations change our theories till the original theory becomes a myth.How do you think any myth originated? by false theories of what men observed.Their ignorance of facts denied them the truth.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

The flat earth 'theory' was only ever a theory in the colloquial sense, not the scientific, and it was not seriously proposed to scientific consesus in the light of the changes to the character of science that occured in the renaissance.

As the first post in this thread tries to outline - terms like theory mean different things to scientists and those who might use it colloquially.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

The flat earth 'theory' was only ever a theory in the colloquial sense, not the scientific, and it was not seriously proposed to scientific consesus in the light of the changes to the character of science that occured in the renaissance.

As the first post in this thread tries to outline - terms like theory mean different things to scientists and those who might use it colloquially.

So we are changing the meaning of theory and who conceives a theory,we are all men of desire for knowledge its not an exclusive club for those privileged to have a formal education in the sciences.This elitist attitude leaves me with nasty taste in my mouth.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

I don't have any formal education in science either.

But I think it's fair that for the needs of a particular subject are met with exacting descriptions of what applicable terms mean in order to clarify.

Note that it is the colloquial use of the word theory that is vague - not the scientific one.

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

One 'mythological' theory that springs to mind is that of the luminous ether.

0 Replies

Common Misconceptions of Scientific Terms

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know