I often hear or read that a theory (like the theory of Evolution) is only a theory. What is the difference between a theory and only a theory? For instance, is, I wonder, the Copernican theory that the earth revolves around the Sun instead of the other way round, only a theory? Or is germ theory, that disease is spread by germs rather than by witches, only a theory?
To my experience when most say “only a theory†I believe they are referring to a hypothesis. A theory requires a high level of substantiation(proof/evidence etc.) a hypothesis only requires plausibility.
Regards,
Incidentally, evolution is not just a “theory”.
That evolution occurs is a FACT. There are various theories as to why and how evolution happens (such as natural selection), but that it does happen is a fact.
So, to say X is only a theory is to say that it is not a fact? Can X be both a theory anda fact, then?
Is the theory X, then only a theory about why and how X happens, but does not say that X happens?
I always thought that a theory of X was an explanation of X. Is that wrong?
Then there cannot be an unsubstantiated theory, or an hypothesis that has been substantiated?
When the theory of relativity was first proposed, and not substantiated, was it then not a theory?
the theory is the assumsion made from repeatable analysis.
What about only a theory
“Only†may also be used to refer to a “tentative†theory. That is a Theory that is yet to be fully verified but would if true would well explain facts or phenomena. A tentative theory is in truth just a fancy hypothesis but possibly one that has a strong basis in all ready well substantiated theories. An actual theory as such requires standing up against the rigors of proper scientific method. What also makes a hypothesis (or tentative theory) a theory is the lack of an opposing theory. (but not opposing hypothesis if ya get my drift).
Regards,
Kennethamy,
one important distinction that one of my professors made, I find to be important here. Hence, I will share it with the rest of you. It is important to distinguish a theory according to the scientific profession and a theory of everyday speech. In everyday speech we label things theories which are not well established or founded, atleast so far. But in the scientific profession there are degrees of theories. Evolution, for example, is that highest form of theory a science can produce. No serious scientific biologist, according to my professor, doubts evolution to be true - the fact that it’s called a theory makes no difference in the the seriousness by which scientists take evolution to be. The best fitting definition of ‘theory’ I found applicable to the topic at hand was the first definition from a series according to dictionary.com:
theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Speaking of evolution, you may be interested to know that although serious scientists no longer argue about the existence of evolution, the drive or force of evolution is a hot topic. Many religious gurus this to be an opportunity to fit God in, statements like “well it’s God, who created evolution and does his bidding through evolution by changing things so that the fittest who survive are the fittest according to what God wants” and so on.
What’s your take?
— I doubt that those who denigrate evolution by calling it “just a theory” can come up with another theory that will explain more about why creatures change, etc. There is lot of evidence for evolution and it is supported by major findings in genetics, biology, paleontology, and a host of other sciences.
Not to be too conversational but –lol- I just realized who Kennethamy was referring to in the original post of this thread. Shame on me ;^)
I would agree with Kurt Weber that what I should have said was “The idea of natural selection†is “only†a theory. While many would argue against I am of the opinion that “evolution†as such is a fact.
That said the “only†used within the context of my other thread was to separate a well known/well respected theory from fact. I believe my loose-use of terms caused the confusion or Kennethamy is out to “get†me. Either way it is my understanding that most people regard “The Theory Of Evolution†to mean or at the least encompass Darwinism.
I believe this with myself as the example well illustrates the need for clarity & precision where it pertains to words & terminology. I was personally rushing an example into my post & I appreciate the issue being brought to my attention. (regardless of whether it was entirely intentional or not)
Regards,
I was not especially referring to you, although what you said was the occasion of my post. I was just wondering what people have in mind when they announce that something, usually evolution, is only a theory. I think that what they have in mind is that evolution is a speculation, without evidence for it. If that is what they mean, they are dead wrong. There is a great deal of evidence for the theory of evolution. As much as there is for the germ theory (that germs are the cause of disease) or for the Copernican theory of the heavens. So, evolution is certainly a theory, but it is, just as certainly, not only a theory.
I think evolution is true. So I think it is a fact. (To say that some proposition “is a fact” is usually to say that it is true.)
I agree that a “fact†is by necessity considered to be true. I believe the importance of the “Theory†tag is to keep forefront that the facts may be corresponding well to reality but that they may as yet be more related facts to discover. That’s a bit of a run on sentence but I am simply trying to illustrate how these types of terms keep the evolution of knowledge alive.
Regards,
The issue is not “theory.” It is “only.” What is the difference between a theory and only a theory?
I suppose the easiest way to answer your question would be this. I personally say “only a theory†when I want to infer “& nothing moreâ€. This is obviously the adverb use of the word. This would differentiate the particular theory in question from one that has been proven as a almost self evident fact. (the world is round vs. natural selection). The context in which I was using “only a theory†was to illustrate how much respect I have for scientific investigation. Some theories are very hard to prove due to the complexity of their nature. This however does not detract from their validity if you respect the process by which they were developed.
Regards,
[quote=“ASHORTT”]
I suppose the easiest way to answer your question would be this. I personally say “only a theory†when I want to infer “& nothing moreâ€. This is obviously the adverb use of the word. This would differentiate the particular theory in question from one that has been proven as a almost self evident fact. (the world is round vs. natural selection). The context in which I was using “only a theory†was to illustrate how much respect I have for scientific investigation. Some theories are very hard to prove due to the complexity of their nature. This however does not detract from their validity if you respect the process by which they were developed.
Do you mean by “only a theory, and nothing more,” that it is not something more than a theory? But what would that be?
Perhaps you mean, it is a theory which is devoid of, or has very little evidence. That is how I think it is used. Theories are particlarly susceptible to such a criticism, because, as I think I have pointed out, what makes a theory a theory, is its logical “distance” from the data it was constructed to explain. So, it seems to me that “theory” and, especialy, “theoretical” is a graded concept. Some theories are more theoretical than other. But no theory is something which can be “directly” known. Our belief that it is true must inferential, and the more inferential, the more theoretical. So, to the extent that a theory can be proved, it is proved by whether (1) it is the best explanation of all the data for which it was constructed to explain (whatever that may come toi) and, 2. It has been tested by infering new data from it, which can then, themselves, be verified. To the extent a theory (or explanation which is nearly the same) satisfied those two conditions, it is not only a theory, and to the extent it does meet conditions 1 and 2, to that extent we can call it not only a theory, but a fact as well.
Well it would still be relative to the individuals opinion of the theory; a shaman witch doctor might disagree with what logical explaination western society has come up with (no matter how well it correlates to known data) and dismiss it, as his own theory which would suggest that i was caused by spirits (and stuff). Only a theory is best related to people opinions of facts, as still people believe creationalism and not evolution. It would suggest that by the meaning theory is just one of many explainations people use as truths; even the germ theory could be dismissed as been merely manifested from the mind and simply imagined as the cause to the physiological problem, meaning that its the mind that creates the desease and not the germ i.e., something like, the rath of god (to the religious extreme or who ever).
Well it would still be relative to the individuals opinion of the theory; a shaman witch doctor might disagree with what logical explaination western society has come up with (no matter how well it correlates to known data) and dismiss it, as his own theory which would suggest that i was caused by spirits (and stuff). Only a theory is best related to people opinions of facts, as still people believe creationalism and not evolution. It would suggest that by the meaning theory is just one of many explainations people use as truths; even the germ theory could be dismissed as been merely manifested from the mind and simply imagined as the cause to the physiological problem, meaning that its the mind that creates the desease and not the germ i.e., something like, the rath of god (to the religious extreme or who ever).
Very interesting thread.
Usually when someone says, “Only a theory” to me I know they are full of shit.
In chess when we say “theory”, what we mean of course is “Absolute Truth.”
Indeed, the Copernican model, evolution, the Big Bang, and the First Cause (God) are “only theories” – in other words, “Absolute Truth.”
The adjective “only” is used, whether talking about theories or otherwise, to devalue the subject it describes. There may be various reasons to devalue, such as the cashier who when asked; “can’t you cut me a deal on this MP3 player?”, responds with “I’m only a cashier”. That person may be perfectly happy as a cashier and never wish to elevate his position. He still needs to devalue the customer’s notion of a cashier’s power within that sales organization. The same would work with theories. We the dubbed the idea of sub-atomic particles strings and their supposed behavior “String Theory”, but it has little to no evidence to suggest its truth. String Theory then deserves the “only” descriptor.