Dave's Universe: Your theory, my theory

Great video! Very important topic about which people need to be informed. The one thing I would have to critique is how you went about differentiating "law" from "theory." I think IVY MERRIOT from MONTANA said it pretty well by stating "... I believe you've flipped 'law' and 'theory' [not in the sense of their meaning, but in the sense of their substantiation and 'umph']. Theory is lower level to law, not the other way around.” When you said "When a law is applied in a broad and general way over a variety of phenomena, it transforms into a theory", you almost made it seem like theories are *composed* of laws (like stacking lincoln logs to build a tiny cabin), or at the very least, that theories are solely *informed* and *justified* by laws. (By all means, our theories should certainly take our laws into intimate account, but that’s not to say that our laws comfortably support every aspect of our theories. You need more than just previously discovered laws to validate something as complex as a theory, i.e., a lot of additional evidence that is specific to the theory itself.) In addition, your use of the word “transforms” made it seem like laws can be cranked through some machine to be remolded into theories, thus making it sound like the epistemological nature of laws carries over and dictates the epistemological nature of theories, thus making it sound like we should be just as certain about theories as we are about laws, as if we should regard theories simply as reformed bundles of laws.

After carefully collecting a pile of observations, we can either use them to formulate a theory *or* we can use them to formulate a law. To say that we can formulate a law and then “transform” it into a theory is a bit misleading, as you make it sound like laws are the sole precursor form of theories by doing so. Perhaps, instead, you could have worded it as “When *a series of well-substantiated observations* is applied in a broad and general way over a variety of phenomena *in accordance with previously discovered laws*, *we can formulate* a theory. Overall, I bet we ultimately agree on the same foundation of what these terms really mean and how we should use them, it's just I might have worded it a little differently :)


-
JOHN HEININGER SR from AUSTRALIA (NSW) said:

"Evolution is a 'historical theory' not a scientific one. It amounts to nothing more than a particular 'interpretation' of unobserved distant past historical events. None of which can be repeated and tested for verification by the scientific method using experimentation and observation." You are just plainly wrong. Sure, evolution (like much of astronomy and cosmology) isn’t quite as readily or directly verifiable in the sort of laboratory-based way as other scientific theories, but that is absolutely *not* the sole condition for calling something “scientific.” The reason why evolution is scientific is because it, in fact, *can* be cranked through that scientific machine; it can be verified, falsified, tested, and explored because, unlike some isolated historical event, there *are* things that can be studied in the here and now that are *extremely and intimately* relevant to evolution (e.g., paleontology, cellular biology, microbiology, genetics, genomics, comparative anatomy, biogeography, etc.). And we don’t just try to mash these areas of study together to simply come up with a *plausible* historical narrative of evolution. Rather, the careful and rigorous exploration of these areas of study reveals to us, explicitly, how biological systems change over time and thus directly reveals and dictates to us the extremely *probable* (not just *plausible*) nature of biological evolution; we just have to go through the middle man of these areas of study. The observations and results we achieve from these areas of study don’t just casually suggest the truth of evolution; they overwhelmingly support and violently point toward evolution. You severely underestimate just how much the evidence really *is* on our side.

“Unlike the theory of gravity or relativity, no scientist has ever observed any form of life evolving into something different, either in nature or in any world laboratory.” We shouldn’t expect to see one species evolve into a drastically different kind of species in that kind of time frame (i.e., the history of modern science). No one has ever seen a Big Bang-like event either, but we still have tremendous support in favor of the general Big Bang model. And just to add, while we haven’t *directly* seen or measured any sort of large-scale evolution event in nature or in the lab, we most definitely *have* observed numerous small-scale evolutionary events under controlled conditions. We don’t need to directly witness these kinds of large-scale evolution events in order to have an any incredibly keen and overwhelmingly justified understanding of evolution, it’s mechanics, and it’s predictions. And just for the record, we do.

“All forms of life act to preserve themselves as such, be it bacteria or bats. In short, bacteria in, bacteria out. Moreover, every scientific observation ever made affirms that there are reproductive limits and boundaries for every form of life, to the point were even sub-species cannot ultimately reproduce. Thus preventing any ongoing evolutionary continuum.” What an incredibly superficial, artificial, uninformed, and childishly ignorant description of the available evidence for evolution. You sound like that moron, Ray Comfort (maybe creationism is an Australian thing, idk??).

“Meaning, the Darwinian evolutionary continuum has no ‘verifiable’ empirical scientific basis. Indeed, there is no ‘verifiable’ scientific answer for any of the ‘essential’ stages of the evolutionary continuum, be it the origin of life, the DNA double helix, the vastly complex coding, consciousness, conscience, or a multitude of other attributes.” Again, you are just plain wrong. We certainly do have an enormous empirical scientific basis that supports evolution. Sure, we don’t have direct scientific evidence for *all* of these stages of the evolutionary continuum, but the fact of the matter is, with the level of overall evidence that we *do* have, we really don’t need to. You’re making mountains out of molehills. Also, the origin of life is simply not part of the theory of evolution, in just the same way that the origin of the universe in totality is not the Big Bang theory. Evolution is about speciation and organism/environment interactions, not the origin of life. And the DNA double helix? It naturally forms that shape as a matter of chemistry and physics. Your point? And what *about* consciousness and conscience? What’s so confounding about those two things that somehow makes evolution moot?

“Furthermore, natural selection has no overall perspective and absolutely no predictive power. And thus hasn't the foggiest notion of where anything, or everything, is evolving to, or even why. Making it impossible to orchestrate overall biological events to produce a superbly integrated workable whole.” Yes, it certainly doesn’t have any sort of overall perspective, predictive power, or foresight. So the heck what? It doesn’t need to have those things in order for natural selection to work, and thus, for evolution to work. You’re more and more coming off as someone who is wildly misinformed about a topic you think you know a lot about. And by stating that it has no “predictive power,” are you actually trying to ignorantly assert that the theory of evolution is fundamentally not forecastable or predictable or that natural selection as a process isn’t predictable (at least in some part) by scientists? Because, if so, you would be horribly wrong again.

“The origin of factors essential to the evolutionary continuum is thus entirely based on ‘subjective’ presuppositions, interpretations, assumptions, inferences, conjecture and speculation as to what ‘supposedly’ happened in the ‘unobserved’ past. And what the historical data ‘supposedly’ represents. With no possible way of ever empirically verifying that events happened one way, and not another way, or even whether the evolutionary continuum happened at all. So, it doesn't matter how many subjective ‘interpretations’ or ‘explanations’ you have to support Darwinian historical theory. Nor whether you are utterly convinced that your particular opinion or ‘explanations’ best fit the historical data. These will never be anything more than mere ‘explanations’ based on unverifiable assumptions.” Again, wrong, wrong, and wrong again. I reiterate: the observations and results we achieve from these different areas of science relevant to evolution don’t just casually suggest the truth of evolution; they overwhelmingly support and violently point toward evolution. Again, ***you severely underestimate just how much the evidence really *is* on our side.*** Evolution is *is* verifiable. And data *is* sufficiently explicit.

“As creationist scientists have repeatedly demonstrated, there are ‘alternative interpretations’ of the same historical data.” Just how have these creationist “scientists” really demonstrated anything of the sort? Really? Because a vast majority of the scientific community begs to differ (even that they’ve presented any sort of *plausible* alternative interpretation). I’ve heard many, many of these sort of “alternative interpretations” and trust me, none of them are good.

“Which is why evolutionists can't close.” Nope. Pretty sure we closed a while ago. It’s just that you people keep talking nonsense.

“This is precisely why the creation vs evolution debate has been going on for over 150 years, and could well go on for another 150 years.” Noooo. It’s because people like you keep plugging your ears and coming up with pathetic excuse after pathetic excuse for not accepting the justified and well-supported conclusions of an overwhelming majority of the scientific community. You refuse to educate yourself and to approach the topic in an objective way (perhaps, in the name of holding on to some palatable, comforting, ingrown religious notion). The debate has been going on for 150 because of you, not us.

“Which is why the Nobel Committee does not regard ‘historical theories’ relating to unobserved and unrepeatable past events as being science of the prize worthy kind. Neither does millions of others. Sorry about that!” Really? Could you point me to a source so I can better understand what you’re saying? I mean, sure, nobody has ever received a Noble Prize for “proving evolution,” but many, many Nobel Prizes have been awarded to discoveries in biology and genetics that are incredibly relevant to evolution. And I guarantee that a vast, vast majority of the members of the Nobel Committee (if not all) believe and are convinced by the evidence in support of biological evolution.


-
RON SIEWERT from MASSACHUSETTS: Thanks for the backup, bro. Well said.

I often use the word theory incorrect. Thanks for this.

Another idea for a video would be proper pronounciation of all those weird astronomy names, like Betelgeuse, Perseids, etc.

Well done sir! And thank for the Evolution passage. As you no doubt know you'll never convince people who's whole world view revolves around the belief there is something even better coming next even when they have no evidence of that! However your explanations were clear and concise, a great video series! KUTGW!

Dave, from the comments to your article it appears that you have made a good choice for an article! I agree with you about getting on board with the theory of evolution. Unfortunately, religion gets in the way.

It is possible, and happens quite often, that scientific words have different meanings than the same word used in literature of in common conversation.. I gave up hoping people would use "theory" in a scientific manner.

When excited about one's ideas, using the word, "theory" gives the idea a borader sense of applicability, which is what people are honestly trying to express. "It is my hypothesis" sounds too formal (and in common language, people don't really know what a hypothesis is either).

As a science teacher, I ask my students to use scientific words correctly when they are speaking of science. So, I agree with the comment that when one takes the word "theory" out of a scientific discussion and then acts like it is just a theory, they are just being inaccurate.

One other thing--Occam's razor is not a law in the scientific sense. I don't recall it having ever been put through a hypothesis-experiment process and found to be empirically, broadly applicable.

As Barbosa the pirate says, "Its a guideline.."

Also, Dave, though I appreciate your efforts, I believe you've flipped "law" and "theory." Theory is lower level to law, not the other way around.

JOHN HEININGER SR -- Man you really need to inform yourself on how science really works, cuz you don't have a clue...Please do all of us a favor and read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory before you go spouting your obvious ignorant observations...Read that link in depth and then maybe you can put forth a reasoned and intelligent thought.

Excellent.

It is very annoying to see "theory" misused so often when the correct term should be "hypothesis" (or even "idea"). N.B., Nov 2012 Astromony page 34: "The Nice model is planetary scientists best theory of the early solar system's evolution." It's a hypothesis, not a theory. Why don't the Editors edit?
Clear skies, Miles

Wrong! Most of us have more than 'caught up'. Evolution is a "historical theory" not a scientific one. It amounts to nothing more than a particular "interpretation" of unobserved distant past historical events. None of which can be repeated and tested for verification by the scientific method using experimentation and observation.

Unlike the theory of gravity or relativity, no scientist has ever observed any form of life evolving into something different, either in nature or in any world laboratory. All forms of life act to preserve themselves as such, be it bacteria or bats. In short, bacteria in, bacteria out. Moreover, every scientific observation ever made affirms that there are reproductive limits and boundaries for every form of life, to the point were even sub-species cannot ultimately reproduce. Thus preventing any ongoing evolutionary continuum.

Meaning, the Darwinian evolutionary continuum has no "verifiable" empirical scientific basis. Indeed, there is no "verifiable" scientific answer for any of the "essential" stages of the evolutionary continuum, be it the origin of life, the DNA double helix, the vastly complex coding, consciousness, conscience, or a multitude of other attributes. Furthermore, natural selection has no overall perspective and absolutely no predictive power. And thus hasn't the foggiest notion of where anything, or everything, is evolving to, or even why. Making it impossible to orchestrate overall biological events to produce a superbly integrated workable whole.

The origin of factors essential to the evolutionary continuum is thus entirely based on "subjective" presuppositions, interpretations, assumptions, inferences, conjecture and speculation as to what "supposedly" happened in the "unobserved" past. And what the historical data "supposedly" represents. With no possible way of ever empirically verifying that events happened one way, and not another way, or even whether the evolutionary continuum happened at all.

So, it doesn't matter how many subjective "interpretations" or "explanations" you have to support Darwinian historical theory. Nor whether you are utterly convinced that your particular opinion or "explanations" best fit the historical data. These will never be anything more than mere "explanations" based on unverifiable assumptions.

As creationist scientists have repeatedly demonstrated, there are "alternative interpretations" of the same historical data. Which is why evolutionists can't close. The reality is that evolutionists can never conclusively establish by either experimentation or observation that what they "suppose" to be true is actually true.
This is precisely why the creation vs evolution debate has been going on for over 150 years, and could well go on for another 150 years.

Which is why the Nobel Committee does not regard "historical theories" relating to unobserved and unrepeatable past events as being science of the prize worthy kind. Neither does millions of others. Sorry about that!

I don't agree with your sentence: "When a law is applied in a broad and general way over a variety of phenomena, it transforms into a theory". Although, the last sentence is correct : "theory means a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena in nature".
I am sorry to tell you but the first sentence doesn't agree with the second sentence.
As an example, think about Kepler's Laws and Newton's theory of gravitation.