A Little Bit More
The purpose of this unit is to make it clear what a scientific “theory” is, by definition, not start an argument. Without a clear understanding of the terminology, no meaningful discussions about the scientific method can occur.
For most people, a theory is an idea, more or less well thought out, that someone has about a given event or process. In science, however, nothing gets labeled Theory until it has undergone a rigorous process of questioning via research from many different approaches and still holds up. Granted, this process isn’t perfect, humans aren’t perfect, but it does a pretty good job of helping scientists understand how the world functions.
There are many kinds of science, from astronomy to zoology – with botany, chemistry, and physics in between. But science, worldwide and in all its forms, adheres to a rigid set of standards for experimentation and conclusions, called the “scientific method”. Conclusions drawn by scientists who did not follow this method are regularly drawn into question by other scientists, and only those conclusions that have “passed the test” of the scientific method are accepted by the scientific community. So a scientific “theory” is quite different from a “guess” or “hunch”. It’s an idea that has been tried and tried again, but never disproved (at least not yet!). Cell theory, germ theory, evolution theory, and molecular theory are all so well supported by the facts as we know them, that they have become the cornerstones of modern science for today, but who knows about tomorrow?
It’s important to remember that scientific theories are never considered fact and are ALWAYS open to question and change if new scientific evidence says otherwise.
Public definition of Theory — an idea, speculation or plan as to how something might be done. Most of us have theories about all kinds of things in our lives but these are NOT scientific theories in any sense!
Scientific Hypothesis — An idea or hunch that is used to form an experiment to determine if it is valid. Scientists regularly use an hypothesis to begin a research project.
Scientific definition of Theory — overwhelming evidence in support of a general principle explaining the operation of certain phenomena or events that take place in the world as in the Theory of Evolution.
Scientific Law — implies exact formulation of principles operating in a sequence of events in nature, observed to occur with unvarying uniformity under the same conditions as in the Law of Gravity.
Activities
Germ Theory
Objectives: A look at one of our current theories
Materials: Internet access or library
This is NOT an attempt to initiate a debate about the theory of evolution, but it is an attempt for us all to be “on the same page” when we use the term “theory”. Take a look at the germ theory websites and see what it has to say and also take a look at the website that discusses hypotheses, laws, and theories
Germ Theory
Hypotheses, Laws, and Theories:
Key Concepts
Scientific Method/Approach
Questions
Do you have a question for a naturalist? Go ahead and ask!
It's easy -- just fill out this form, submit your question and you'll receive an answer shortly.
Posted by Margaret Gamayo on July 25, 2006 at 07:25 AM
Q: Why do you think it is the Cell "Theory" instead of the Cell "Law"?
A: Your question is a good one. I've found definitions for both that work for me and I hope they help clear it up for you too.
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They donít really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
The three main parts of the Cell Theory are:
1. All organisms are made up of one or more cells.
2. The cell is the fundamental unit of structure and function in living things.
3. All cells are essentially the same in chemical composition.
Posted by Art Aigner on April 22, 2005 at 12:37 PM
Q: I have heard many different opinions about "global warming". I also heard that the facts don't support the theory of global warming. Can you shed some light.
A: You sound like a person with an open mind and also one who wants accurate information, not hearsay - we all need to be careful where and how we obtain our information. There are lots of people saying one thing and another and this certainly confuses and complicates this whole issue.
To begin with, global warming is a fact (as much as any scientific information can be factural), not a theory! Scienctists have been making all kinds of measurements now for decades and can quickly and accurately show that our world is indeed warming. I don't think that a single reputable scientist disagrees on this - the data are very clear. However, there are many who disagree with WHY it is warming - is it caused by humans, is it a natural phenomena, or is it a combination of human and natural phenomena.
Most scientists, not all, believe that human actions have at least accelerated, if not caused, the warming we currently see. We do need to keep in mind that the world has warmed and cooled in the past long before it was being influenced by human activities so we can't automatically assume that current warming is human-induced and this is partly why it is so difficult to know what's going on this time. In obtaining our "facts" we must be wary of information that might be biased so information from an oil company, for example, would not be a reliable source for global warming information, in my opinion.
But, knowing that the world is indeed warming and also knowing that greenhouse gases that humans are spewing out at a phenomenal rate do help the earth retain heat, makes me quite suspicious of our role in this process. If we wait until all of the "facts" are in on global warming, it will probably be much too late to stop its effects. I personally am one who thinks we should act now to reduce what we know can accelerate, or at least contribute to, global warming while we still have time to make a difference.
None of us wants to think our activities are causing the earth to warm but if we don't face up to our responsibilities now, future limitations may be much, much more dire for everything living on this planet. Thanks for your question.