If by "theory" evolution is meant to be scientific fact, why is the string hypothesis called a theory?

Question

Surely to talk about string theory undermines the whole concept of theory as it applies to evolution...

Answer 1

Basically the issue here is the amount of ground covered by the term "theory". At the one end Evolution is a very well established idea with no  real dissenters within the scientific community. String theory on the other hand is largely unprovable with empirical evidence and support within the scientific community is divided.

The answer here is to either promote evolutionary theory to "law" or demote string theory to the status of hypothesis. Perhaps a new status needs to be established somewhere between theory and hypothesis.

However, I do not think you can call anything in science fact. Ideas are only ever a good until the next idea comes along and replaces it. Even ideas so well established that they are called "laws" are not immune from such paradigm shifts.

Answer 2

You need to acquaint yourself with what is meant, in scientific terms, by theory, it is not the same as in common usage

Evolution is an observed fact. There are several theories of how this fact happens. The most successful of these is natural selection, but the details of the theory are being refined all the time by the self-correcting process of science.

A good analogy is gravity. No sane person would dismiss gravity as only a theory - it is a fact that you can test by jumping off a cliff. But there is healthy debate - theories - as to how exactly gravity works.

Answer 3

That unfortunately is a part of the problem.  You are correct that is is a string 'hypothesis' because as yet there is no way to perform an experiment to prove or disprove it...

Actually, it can't even be called a hypothesis.  Sorry, brain freeze there.

You see, in common nomenclature, words like 'theory' and 'hypothesis' get bandied around entirely too much and the meaning is lost.  Just like the difference between the scientific definition of 'organic' and the marketing definition of 'organic'.  They both mean completely different things.

So, when you hear the term 'theory' or 'hypothesis', you should always look at it in context.  The proper scientific term for (ahem) string theory would be better served with 'string idea'.

***OOPS,  EDIT!***

Now, string hypothesis is still mildly acceptable (yup, making sure to research my own answer) because it can be expressed mathematically.  The fact that there currently are no predictive models or tests that may be performed does not take away from it being a hypothesis because there may be a test or model derived at a later time.

As for most popular media, it's tough selling a term like 'string hypothesis'.  This is why many television programs will shorten it by (inaccurately) calling it a theory.

Sorry for the change in direction, I just want to make sure my answer is as correct as I can get it.

Cheers!

Answer 4

Geocentrism, the  Steady State universe, and Phlogiston are all theories too. Being a theory doesn't mean that it is an *accepted* theory. A theory is a set of a small number of simple postulates, and all of the logical conclusions that can be derived from them. If these logical conclusions correctly predict the outcomes of experiments, then the theory is accepted. If not, it is thrown out, but it doesn't stop being a theory. Calling string theory a theory doesn't mean that it is accepted; all it means that it is a deductive logical model that attempts to explain natural phenomena, which it is.

The Theory of Evolution is not the same thing as the fact that evolution occurred. Theories never grow up to become facts, because facts are observations, not deductive logical models that explain observations.

Answer 5

It's not, it's called a hypothesis. You said so yourself.

Answer 6

Evolution is a scientific theory, and string theory is a mathematical theory (like number theory), not a scientific one. The latter has not even satisfied the minimum definition of a hypothesis, IMO. The words are confusing and often abused, especially when there is an agenda that benefits from the confusion.

"Theory" in general use just means a guess, usually an educated one. In science it refers to a very general hypothesis about the way observable things behave that has resulted in specific predictions not already covered by prior theories which have subsequently been verified experimentally. Also, unlike common use, a theory in science *never* graduates into a fact by being "proved", regardless of how much is learned. It's simply a categorically different sort of proposition. Facts are specific observables (like "my swan is white") while theories are generalizations of whole classes of observables (like "all swans are white").

Answer 7

string theory being about vibrations throughout the universe.

No, actually, if you look at it differently, you will see that String theory has more than average chance of coexisting with evolutionary theory.

String theory is incomplete though. It is missing vitals, at the heart of it, which would allow them both to fully exist together. It probably won't be called string theory, either, once the vitals are inserted.

It has to do with manifestation of matter through vibrations. Which is linked to biological life and how it can evolve through stimulus. Stimulus is basically events in creation. Vibration being behind stimulus. An example, could be sunlight becoming more radiant and powerful, and in turn plantlife responds by growing larger. Sunlight is vibrations or frequencies, not just photons.

Answer 8

The theory of evolution is just that; a theory.  There's still no evidence that Darwin didn't just make it all up to pass the time of day.  The religious explanations are very unlikely.  Scientology, a theory for which there may even be proof, is ridiculed so nobody believes that either.  No, it's all quite insane.