Evolution

I didn't even know science people were still discussing this but Rebekah brought it up in the other thread, so why not? Is evolution a fact?

admin: No, still taught as a theory. Did you see the Ham/Nye debate? They talked about evolution a lot.

Pinkie: I saw it, didn't learn anything from it though. Anyway, is there any scientific claim that you would call a fact?

admin: I f you touch the sun you'll burn up? Yes I'd agree with most observable science.

Pinkie: So you deny any science you can't observe? Such as, for example, mathematics?

Pinkie: "Still taught as theory."

Hmm.

Many people seem to think that science works via the following progression: Hypotheses -> Theories -> Facts.

That's not how science works. How it works is this: Facts -> Hypotheses -> Theories.

You can't get any higher, and better, than a theory. That is the height, the zenith, the apex, of scientific achievement. Facts are at the bottom.

Facts are the observations we make. They are without context. They are raw data. Often, they trivial, especially by themselves. Facts are boring and mundane and the obvious nature of most facts often causes people to take them for granted. Nevertheless, they are the fuel for science. Science takes facts as inputs, and produces theories as outputs.

Science, broadly speaking, is the never ceasing quest to explain facts, to try and determine why the facts are the way they are and not something else. To achieve these, we develop hypotheses. Hypotheses attempt to assign meaning to facts and to predict future observations. Through testing hypotheses either dye or gain in strength, eventually becoming theories.

And that's it. The theory is the end of the line. It doesn't get any better than that.

In short, the theory of evolution is based upon the facts of evolution.

drafterman: So you would agree that it is still taught as a fact then...

Pinkie: It was never not taught as fact. It was also never not taught as theory.

There are the facts of evolution (that evolution occurred).
There is the theory of evolution (why and how it occurs).

This has always been the case. Now, the number of facts has changed and the details of the theory have been modified in light of the facts. But it was always ever facts and theory. And that's how it has always ever been for all of science. Facts and theories.

drafterman: I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. You seem to be saying it has proof, but it is still a theory, it is not taught as a theory but it is technically one, correct?

Pinkie: I didn't say any about proof...

Let's go through some things again:

You said, "It's still a theory."

Yes it is "still" a theory. It will never stop being a theory. Everything in science is a theory and will always be a theory. You seem to think this is a point of criticism, that it should be dismissed because it's a theory. Everything in science is a theory. Again, Everything in science is a theory. You can't get any higher or better than that.

You said, "It is not taught as a theory."

I never said that. It is taught as a theory because that's what it is. A theory. Everything in science is a theory. Everything in science is taught as a theory.

Now, onto facts.

Theories explain facts. You *start* with facts (observations). You then develop theories to explain those facts. The facts are taught along with the theories that explain them.

It is a FACT that we evolved. So we teach that.
We have a theory that explains that fact. We teach that too.

drafterman: That's interesting. Okay, thank you. That makes sense.

drafterman: You said that facts are observations.
You also said that after facts and before theory comes hypothesis.

Since we haven't actually seen one animal turn into another, surely your "fact" that we evolved is actually a hypothesis - one attempt at explaining the observed fossil record?

nzlockie: 1. The theory of evolution does not say that any individual animal involves into another. Evolution is something that happens to populations of organisms over time, and there is no discrete line before which a population of organisms is one species and, after which, it is another.

2. The process by which hypotheses become theories is, admittedly, somewhat subjective. It depends on: testing; lack of falsification; explanatory power; acceptance; predictive ability;

3. Direct observations isn't a requirement for something to be accepted as a fact. In fact, not much of modern science can be "actually seen." We can't see most subatomic particles, we can't witness the entire lifetime of a star, we have yet to find the messenger particle for gravity, and a whole host of other things. If we were limited by that which can only directly be seen, then we'd be living in the dark ages still, drilling holes in heads to balance out your humours.

4. Again, facts do not become hypotheses or theories. The statement that something is a theory and not a fact, or that a fact is actual a hypothesis is nonsensical and belies a fundamental lack of understanding of the scientific process. Facts are facts. They don't become anything else. We use facts to develop hypotheses which (potentially) develop into theories. But the facts of the case stay facts.

drafterman: We're on the same page in terms of what a fact is.
Although I think you'd agree that when we can actually observe the entire process of an event happening, (something dropping, something causing a measurable response etc) these "facts" are stronger than events we CAN'T observe - right?
Seeing the beginning, middle and end has to be better than seeing two parts and deducing the third, right?

In fact, wouldn't you say that deducing the third is a hypothesis?

I was always taught that the hypothesis was a question, and the theory was an explanation, eg:
FACT: fish swim slower sometimes than others.
HYPOTHESIS: does the temperature of the water contribute to this fact?
(Experiment)
(Conclusion)
THEORY: the temperature of the water affects the speed at which fish swim.

I fully admit though that my childhood education may have been wrong so I'm keen to hear what the proper terms are.

Off topic but are you saying that there is no such thing as a species? I don't think you are, I've just reread your part about the discrete lines over and over again and that's the only conclusion I can draw.

nzlockie: "We're on the same page in terms of what a fact is."

So long as you imply that facts can become hypotheses, we aren't

"Although I think you'd agree that when we can actually observe the entierty of an event happening, (something dropping, something causing a measurable response etc) these "facts" are stronger than events we CAN'T observe - right?
Seeing the beginning, middle and end has to be better than seeing two parts and deducing the third, right?"

Not at all. Facts dont have "strengths," they simply are.

"In fact, wouldn't you say that deducing the third is a hypothesis?

I was always taught that the hypothesis was a question, and the theory was an explanation, eg:
FACT: fish swim slower sometimes than others.
HYPOTHESIS: does the temperature of the water contribute to this fact?
(Experiment)
(Conclusion)
THEORY: the temperature of the water affects the speed at which fish swim.

I fully admit though that my childhood education may have been wrong so I'm keen to hear what the proper terms are."

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation, an "educated guess." It is, and must be, a testable positive statement.

"Off topic but are you saying that there is no such thing as a species? I don't think you are, I've just reread your part about the discrete lines over and over again and that's the only conclusion I can draw."

The term "species" is something we invented to describe the world using discrete labels. Reality does not conform to these labels so, no, species as we describe them don't strictly exist. The term has utility, so we use it as necessary.

It's technically still a "theory," because there is no scientific evidence that can't be refuted. Close, though. As long as Creationists find a way to refute the evidence, it's still a theory (as much as I don't like it.)

drafterman: We're totally on the same page regarding facts. Promise. I don't where I implied that facts turn into something else, but if I did, that was a mis-communication on my part.

Facts are facts and although Hypothesis and Theory are built on them, they don't actually change them.

Facts can and are contested though. When I was talking about the relative strength, I mispoke. I guess I was referring to "carries more weight" and I concede that it's not a scientific term at all. The fact is still just a fact, but I'd submit that a theory based on facts that are NEVER contested would be stronger than one based on facts that ARE contested.

Your explanation of a hypothesis is good thanks. If Evolution couldn't be tested, does that make it a Hypothesis? For example, Intelligent Design would be a hypothesis - right?

Thanks for the clarification on the Species thing too.

nzlockie: Hypotheses must be testable, otherwise they can't be theories and the point of proposing hypotheses is to find new theories.

nzlockie: Fun fact: we have seen animals evolve in to others, or rather adapt to their environment. Most of the large-scale changes have been observed only in creatures that reproduce quickly, like bacteria (more generations = more time to mutate), but the same mechanism on a smaller scale has also been observed in animals.

DTinfinity: So you don't believe science has any facts?