Why do people act like theories are facts?

Question

Why do people act like theories are facts?

Answer 1

Here is my science textbook's definition of theory:

If repeated experiments or tests using models support a particular hypothesis or a group of related hypotheses, it becomes a scientific theory.  In other words, a scientific theory is a verified, highly reliable, and widely accepted scientific hypothesis.  To scientists, theories are not to be taken lightly.  They are not guesses, speculations, or suggestions.  Instead, theories are useful explanation of processes or natural phenomena that have a high degree of certainty because they are supported by extensive evidence.  A scientific theory is the closest thing to the "truth" or "absolute" proof that science can provide.

Nonscientists often use the word theory incorrectly when they mean to refer to a scientific hypothesis...which is pretty much the opposite of the scientific meaning of the word.

Answer 2

Since you're a "doctor", I'm sure you realize that scientific theories are not the same as layman theories.   A layman person's "theory" is more like a scientific hypothesis, whereas a scientific theory is the best explanation of scientific evidence.

Theories aren't facts, but they're the best explanations available supported by the scientific evidence.  Some theories are better supported than others, of course (i.e. AGW is a much better theory than galactic cosmic ray warming).

Answer 3

a theory is considered proven when anyone who conducts an experiment on the theory gets the same results.

that's why anthropogenic global warming is not a theory but a hypothesis.

global warming  however is a theory because anyone who checks temperatures over the past 11,000 years or so will see a warming trend over all, but at a widely variable rate & with some reverses during some shorter time periods.

there is no PROVEN theory yet as to what causes these warming periods. we only know that they appear to be cyclical & much shorter than the cold periods interspersed with them.

it could be said that these warming periods such as the current one are anomalys & ice ages are the norm.

Answer 4

You don't know what a theory is, do you.  

Oh, you do?  Then why do you lie?

Answer 5

People always favor what they want to be true.  Reasonable people know terrorist flew planes into the world trade center, but there are people who believe it was a conspiracy by the Israels and the US government that did it.  Proof is elusive and if you don't have to confront facts, or believe those that have them, you can believe what you want.  

There are many theories that can never become fact because the proof is elusive or unobtainable.  Global warming theory will not be proven because it would take too large and experiment to accomplish(and too many years).  But people want to believe or not believe so they make up their own facts to prove it one way or the other.  So lets do all theories the same way, vote on them,  If they are really important or you want to spent massive amounts of money on them only let scientist vote.

Answer 6

Theories are only proposed to possibly explain the observations.

Theories are NOT facts!

When theories pass all tests time after time, without any flaws, that theory may eventually be elevated to a law.

This doesn't automatically mean that a law may not be revised in the future if contrary evidence to that law, through future advancements in knowledge and technology, shows a flaw in that science.

The  law will simply be revised to explain the new information.

EXAMPLE:

We accept that elements combine with other elements to form molecules of different characteristics, even though  we still can not view the individual molecules, or atoms which create them.

The current science works quite well to explain how this behavior works.

I do have to laugh at a couple of the so-called 'Scientists', and  'Top Contributers' who show that they have no knowledge of science, but are willing to promote their mis-guided beliefs.

Answer 7

When a theory has accumulated enough data to prove it, it's called a fact.

Anthropogenic global warming passes that test, with ease.

Answer 8

The applicable defintion in Websters-Meriam Online is as follows:

A plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.

Okay?

Answer 9

It is a psychological ploy.  If you present theories as fact, people will accept them as fact.

Answer 10

Why do people act like theories are nothing more than opinions or conjecture?

The problem is, people outside of the scientific world often don't properly understand the terminology.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry1...

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.

Answer 11

that is nasty, why would people want to facts like that...  Gross perv!

Answer 12

In regards to AGW, the AGW proponents have to pretend the theory is fact. Because they have yet to have any actual studies verify their theory. They rely on models which are also shown to be wrong time and time again. But with models, they wait till they are proven wrong, then rerun them and once again pronounce their great "feat". Notice recently how they are saying we are entering a cold spell, but warming will continue in 15 years or so? This is so they can enact their taxes and other controls without having to prove anything. They will simply state that we must not wait for the new warming and have to act now (even though their models are always wrong).

Answer 13

I don't know, why do you think that your personal "anthropogenic global warming isn't happening" theory is fact?

It's not like you have an overwhelming quantity of evidence (have you ever shared any evidence with us?).

Answer 14

No,  why are people asking crazy questions without checking out the experiment first. for some of you its thinking theory, but for me it comes to me naturally. if it did'nt, people up where I live would'nt save on money by listening to me. after listening to me and me telling how to check it out found that even their own relatives in business have been lieing to them and costing them more money. now they live a little better, thanks to my thoughts, even though i dont know where it comes from.. so theory yourself blue if you like, because others and i know better.

Answer 15

Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-New York) leases a Cadillac DeVille for $774 a month with taxpayer money.

In defense of his taxpayer-funded Cadillac, Rangel says, "The car isn't just a vehicle for getting around; it's an important part of doing my job, and my constituents appreciate it."

But why not question the mindset of a congressmen who complains about oil companies but drive around in gas-guzzling automobiles.

Such members of Congress should be doing more to lessen America's dependence on foreign oil -- and those congressmen who do otherwise are being "hypocritical."

Answer 16

Yes, theories are based on facts.  But that does not make the theory a fact.  In many cases in science there are competing theories to explain the same set of facts.  In fact there can be two, three or more theories all based on the same set of facts.  

One of the problems is that most people do not understand the distinction between correlation and causation.  They take a set of statistics that correlate and say that proves their case but that is not necessarily true.  

Let me give you an analogy.  There is a group of people that think that the assassinations of Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy are part of a more than one centuty conspiracy.  Here is a list of correlating facts that they use to "prove" their point:

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.

John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.

Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.

John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.

The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters.

Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.

Both wives lost children while living in the White House.

Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.

Both Presidents were shot in the head.

Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.

Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln.

Both were assassinated by Southerners.

Both successors were named Johnson.

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.

Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.

John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839.

Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.

Both assassins were known by their three names.

Both names are comprised of fifteen letters.

Lincoln was shot at the theater named "Ford's".

Kennedy was shot in a car called "Lincoln - made by Ford Motor Co".

Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse.

Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.

Both John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald were assassinated before their trials.

Now that is an amazing list of fascinating facts that appear to have some relationship to each other.  But I think most people would say that the chance of common causation for the two is probably not realistic.

There can be quite a long list of facts and statistics that appear to maybe be linked but the case for causation is often times hard to make.

In the case of global warming there is at least one competing theory that sun cycles are the cause of global warming and global cooling that also can be matched up with the facts.

Answer 17

I dunno.  Why do some people pretend to be knights or doctors?

At least you were told the difference between theory and hypothesis, you should  be grateful people take the time to try to teach you anything.

Answer 18

I will put in my two cents, you will get a lot of different definitions of theory, and that is a fact.

Answer 19

There are many many things that began as "theories," but which have so much evidence to support them that that they are now "facts".  Some examples are

The existance of molecules.

That the plague is spread through fleas.

That heavier objects don't fall faster than lighter ones.

And there are "facts" that have been debunked and are now "theories", such as

That a sperm contains a miniature human, who then just grows in the womb.

That the sun orbits the earth.

That some races of human beings are inherently and innately inferior to others.

How much evidence turns a theory into a fact?   A whole lot, but there is no magic number.    How much evidence does it take to debunk a theory?   Same answer.  Did man land on the moon?  My neighbor thinks not - so no matter what happens, maybe not everyone will agree on whats a theory and whats a fact.

Pretty soon, this whole line of reasoning begins to devolve into the question "how do we know anything at all"?"

So why do people act like theories are facts?   Because some theories are true.    Because some theories have LOTS of evidence to support them and very little to contradict them.  

Note that I am saying NOTHING about global warming here - since the question wasn't about global warming.  It was about how we know things and the difference between "theories" and "facts".

At least, that's my take.

Answer 20

Theories are proven  facts.  People miscontrue the word "theory" with the word "hypothesis".  

A hypothesis is a guess; a theory is a proven fact.

Answer 21

There has been a lot of misinformation on this thread, especially by Bob and nixdad.

Contrary to what Bob and others think, theories CANNOT be "proven as fact" and a theory can never become law, regardless of how much data supports it, because there is always doubt or some uncertainty that could falsify the theory. There is no "magic amount of data" that can "prove" a theory, because a theory cannot be "proven". Data does not and cannot "prove" a theory, it can only support it, and if Bob was in fact a scientist, then he would know that.

There is some evidence that supports the theory of AGW, but none that actually shows that CO2 causes warming in the real world, which is a huge hitch. Lots of speculation and conjecture, though.

Edit:

Ken,

Conjecture--an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

Do you think our information is complete in the subject of what drives climate climate? Or any theory for that matter?