Redditor bravely takes a stand against EVILutionists (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
260 ups - 98 downs = 162 votes
139 comments submitted at 15:05:50 on Apr 13, 2014 by Lieutenant_Rans
Redditor bravely takes a stand against EVILutionists (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
260 ups - 98 downs = 162 votes
139 comments submitted at 15:05:50 on Apr 13, 2014 by Lieutenant_Rans
The number of people in that thread saying gravity is a theory and not a scientific law is making me want to cut my own head off.
They are highlighting the fact that just because the word theory pops up it does not mean that it is a widely disputed idea.
They are not saying gravity itself is a theory, we all know gravity definitely 100% exists, just that the "theory of gravity" is our best attempt to explain as to how it works.
Likewise the "theory of evolution" is an attempt to explain the observed facts that science has built up over the last couple hundred years.
It is an important distinction to make because a lot of creationists jump on "theory" as if its some huge weak link that "evolutionists" are worried about.
Edit: No, theories do not eventually become laws if they are proven. The word Theory in general every day usage has a different connotation than it does in the scientific field.
A massive part of modern Western medicine is built on Germ Theory, basically the notion that diseases are caused by microorganisms that are naked to the eye. We now sanitise medical equipment, our food etc. as a result of the theory... yet despite the undeniable fact that we now know these organisms really 100% exist and are really 100% responsible for various ailments its still "Germ Theory" not Germ Law.
A huge portion of modern society from politics to commerce and beyond is based on Game Theory, without it modern society would crumble yet despite this its not "Game law".
Scientists observe something, then draw up an idea of how they think what they observed works. Then they observe more things and start making predictions based on that theory. As time progresses the Theory becomes more and more accurate or it is invalidated by new evidence. Basically the longer one has been around and more extensively tested a theory is the more you should accept it as factual.
Evolution despite being a "theory" is about as factual as you are ever going to get and we already base our medicine, politics and economy on other Theories.
I've always been taught that theory means that there is still some doubt somewhere out there even if it's the slightest sliver. If it is truly 100 percent proven, then it is law. Like Newton's laws of motion. I have never heard anyone call it the theory of gravity. I've heard gravitational theories on how celestial bodies might interact, but I've only ever heard of it referred to as the law of gravity.
You were taught incorrectly, or perhaps are misremembering. There is Newton's law for gravitation, but the law does not explain the mechanism behind gravity, only the relationship between two masses and the gravitational force that attract them.
In general, laws describe relationships that occur under specific circumstances, but do not explanation the mechanism behind that relationship.
Theories explain the why of phenomena.
To use your example:
Newton's laws of motion describe the relationship between an object's mass, acceleration, time and velocity. These relationships breakdown if the object relatively large is travelling at a significant fraction of the speed of light.
These laws fall under the umbrella of classical mechanics, which are a theory, though the common name for it does not include the word 'theory'/
Maybe you miswrote it, but no theory explains "why something happens" fundamentally. Its all "how", "when", "where" and "what". Never "why".
^^edit: ^^+where
Depends on what you mean by "why", if it's about the intent then sure, otherwise that's actually the property that we use to decide which theory is better.
The Newton's theory of gravitation says that bodies accelerate downward because they are attracted by the Earth. It answers the "why?" question. We can't possibly observe this mechanism directly in any form or fashion, we can only observe the consequences: stuff falling down. The theory explains why.
If someone proposes to me an alternative theory that says that stuff falls down because the Earth attracts it, except for my body if I step out of the window right now, I would reject it because of its inadequacy in the "why" department, it provides a needlessly contrived explanation. Note that I would reject it without actually making this experiment.
I'd recommend David Deutch's "The Fabric of Reality", it does a very good job explaining the foundations of the scientific method, and is delightfully snarky at times. Just ignore that little part near the end when he goes a bit too open-minded re: some omega-mind speculation.
This is actually an interesting topic of debate in the philosophy of science. I'm of the opinion that Newton's theories can explain how an object falls down, when an object falls down, where an object falls down, and what objects fall down. It never explains why an object falls down. Same for broader gravitational theories covered under GR. What you're saying is that "its gravity" is the answer to the "why" question, but the actual question is "what is the theory you use to explain the object falling". Gravity is not an emergent phenomenon as far as we know, and can't thus explain "why" masses are attracted to each other.
And thanks for the book ref. I'll look into it when I have more time.
> What you're saying is that "its gravity" is the answer to the "why" question, but the actual question is "what is the theory you use to explain the object falling". Gravity is not an emergent phenomenon as far as we know, and can't thus explain "why" masses are attracted to each other.
Yes, sure. What I'm saying is that if you neglect the first kind of "why", in favour of "how/when/where/what", you actually lose the metaphysical foundation that allows you to prefer the Newton's theory of gravity to "God wills the bodies to accelerate according to the Newton's laws (but He wouldn't will you to fall if you step out of the window right now)".
"What is the theory you use to explain the object falling" and why are the most important questions really, are they not?
And it's not like it's some pointless philosophising, if everyone subscribed to the "shut up and calculate" position we wouldn't get any better theories. Because at this point getting a better theory requires conceiving it first, then actively going out in search of unexplained phenomena that it could explain. It's not like LHC was built after people got tired of their hadrons not behaving properly when they wash the dishes.
A lot of people are taught that but it's basically bullshit, especially in physics. The process by which an idea is labelled a theory or a law or any one of the numerous other terms we have is actually pretty informal and not insignificantly influenced by the very scientific criterion of "what sounds better."
Probably the biggest practical difference between theories and laws is that theories tend to be entire frameworks of ideas whereas laws are simple statements. Compare the theory of general relativity with the inverse square law for example. On the other hand, we are probably never going to start calling it the "law of general relativity" once some threshold of experimental evidence is passed. It's to bad you got down voted for an honest and extremely common misconception.
Nothing is 100% proven in science. It's all subject to change in light of new evidence.
Especially when talking about gravity...
A law does not give a mechanism for the system it just expresses the system as it is observed and are as such limited. Newton's law of gravitation does not apply in all cases, it breaks down for extremely dense matter, but it is a good approximation for most cases. It describes most interactions but that's all it does. It does not explain why most interactions follow this particular set of rules, just that from observation they do seem to adhere to these rules.
A theory on the other hand seeks to explain why a phenomena exists. As such there are many theory's on gravity that try to explain why exactly it is that gravity exists. Both posited law and theories are open for dispute and can be refined given new evidence or a better law/theory(Newton's law of gravity has been superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity which accounts for stuff like special relativity affecting the system)
TL;DR: Laws tell us what happens, theories examine what happens and try to tell how they happened.
Nothing is 100% proven. Infact, newtons laws of motion utterly fail at speeds close to the light speed and at very high energies. All the momentum, different reference frames and other shit muddle the newtons laws which you think is perfect.
There is no 100% proven law actually. We assume these well tested models don't fail until we see them fail. And it is an infinitely more reliable model than the "god snapped a finger and it came about" model.
Jesus, 33 Downvotes for this?
Come on SRD, you're better than this.
Me and subreddit drama have a very fickle history. I've made some pretty innocuous comments that have landed me at negative 200 karma. You'd think after 18 months I'd know better.
It's worth noting that science in general is based on inductive logic, that is it makes very strong cases for why reality is the way it is, but strictly speaking inductive logic is incapable of proving something beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's actually a strength, deductive logic does prove things, but is way more limited in scope.
Gravity is a theory. There is no law of Gravity. There's a law of gravitation, but that's not the same thing.
I trust the username.
Gross misunderstandings all around!
Gravity is a law. Gravatons are a theory.
Galvatron is a robot.
Don't you dare deny Megatron, heathen.
Wait, I thought gravity was a theory but there also existed a Law of Universal Gravitation. WHAT IS HAPPENING
The law exists, but its purpose is to describe the relationship between the two masses and their gravitational force. That's all it does. The theory of gravity does all the heavy listing.
Wordplay!
> gravatons
I chuckled.
they just want to make evolution look like a law too, can't blame them