Read other letters about this article

• Monday, June 30, 2008 11:24 AM

  'Science Theory' Often IS 'Science Fact'

  Event Horizon: "Presenting 'science theory' as 'science fact' is just plain junk science and dishonest."

  The irony here is astounding, as this statement is plain junk science and dishonest.

  (Although in your case Event Horizon I suspect you are not being intentionally dishonest but are instead just completely ignorant in what you are talking about here.)

  A "science theory" very often is "science fact". Ever hear of, say, the Theory of Relativity? Or, say, Atomic Theory? Or, say, the Theory of Evolution? These are all examples of "science theory" also being "science fact".

  Event Horizon: "The complexities of 'global warming' would leave me to conclude at this time, that there are still 'grey areas' still to be resolved. And until they are, all the 'truths' of the issue still elude us."

  Sure - just as is the case with all scientific theories (and scientific facts, for that matter), including the Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, and the Theory of Evolution. That doesn't mean that we can't use them to make reliable and valid inferences and predictions, however - to the contrary that's exactly what scientific theory is useful for.

  Stephen Jay Gould addresses the point further in the context of debunking so-called "scientific creationism":

  In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" - part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? ...

  Well, 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 apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

  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 suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

  http://stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

  —Publicola Read Publicola's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel