lil help?

[kjt1981]

im writing an essay on a book for english, and am about to spout off for a paragraph or so about the nature of scientific truth. When i was in 6th form, around nine years ago, studying physics i have a vague recollection of our teacher saying that there is no such thing as scientific fact, only scientific theory. The fact is that some of these theories are held to be truer than others. ie: E=MC2 is only a theory, which is held to be true, and should never be presented as irrefutable fact?

Although I failed Physics, dropped out after a year.

would the argument that there is no such thing as scientific truth, only scientific theory, hold water in an english essay?

thanks in advance...

[MrDoom]

Science does not deal in 'truth'. Science deals in facts and definitions.

A fact is a verifiable agreement centered around a particular phenomena. A definition is an arbitrary shortcut in language and the symbology of the mind.

A theory is a factually proven model of integrated facts and definitions centered on a field of knowledge, which allows experimentation and further verification.

[kjt1981]

Sorry maybe im being dumb or missing the point, but il try to rephrase - when studying physics 9 years ago i have a vague recollection of being told only to ever refer to anything as theory, rather than fact or truth. As i am using this as the crux of one of my arguments in my essay i need this verifying. I have recent examples of scientists refuting theories proposed by both Newton and Einstien, and i am using these examples to back up my argument that there is no such thing as 'Fact', only 'theory', and that any scientific theory is refutable. Its just that some theories, for god reason, are more commonly held than others, but are still just theories?

im not too concerned about what fact is or isnt, or the nature of truth or anything like that. I just need to know, for the sake of a homework assignment, whether i would be able to use the argument that there is no such thing as scientific fact, only theory, and that any theory is refutable?

sorry again, its been a while since ive really tested my brain in this way, but your patience is appreciated!

[kjt1981]

^^^ just want to make sure im on solid ground, or whether i should just not bother at all and pursue a different line instead....

although i have been told that if i can back it up, i can get away with virtually anything in an English essay...

Also im sure i once caught the phrase "theoretically there is no such thing as fact"

as an argument, just for the sake of being a bit of a smart arse, would this hold up?

thanks anyway....

[Janus]

It really depends on what you mean exactly by theory and fact since the scientific definitions are a bit different from the average usage.


Originally posted by National Academy of Sciences
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. ... In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. ... In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences.


One needs to be aware of the different usage of the word "theory" as applied in Science/Physics, and in the typical pedestrian way. In physics, the word "theory" isn't used to associate an idea that isn't tested or unverified. It is simply to distinguish the dichotomy between theoretical work and experimental work. Therefore, a theory simply means a set of ideas formulated in mathematical form that has some degree of logical derivation.

This means that a theory doesn't "graduate" into a law or a principle. Even what we called "laws" in physics are part of a theoretical description based on this dichotomy. So names like "laws", "principles", and "theory" are actually irrelevant - they are just labels! Physicists tend to care very little about what things are called since they care more about the CONTENT of those labels. Unfortunately, this often leads to sloppiness in using such terms and people who don't know any better (and to whom labels are all they conclude from about the subject matter) latch on to those names and draw out their own deductions.

What you need to keep in mind is that various ideas in physics tend to have a specific range of parameters and conditions in which those ideas are VALID. We do not demote Newtonian physics from "laws" to "hypothesis" just because we have discovered where it doesn't work. It is a useless exercise since the label means nothing. The knowledge of what it is and where it works are the most important thing. When we know something works, we try to test it out and find out if there are any boundaries to the validity of that idea - it is a major many of us in this field are employed. When we find those, then we can say that such-and-such theory or idea are valid, but only within so-and-so conditions. Never was there a situation where we "upgrade" a theory into "fact". Such thing hasn't happen in physics, at least.