Along the lines of Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs in the field of psychology, I've come up with a Hierarchy of Certainty in science. The certainty of being able to accurately and truthfully state something increases as more and more supporting evidence is discovered. Logical, right? The more support there is, the more likely it is to be accurate and factual. In other words, as more evidence supports an assertion, that assertion is more and more likely to be correct. In science, this IS science. However, if any evidence is discovered that refutes, or doesn't amply support an assertion, the assertion is changed until the statement one makes can support ALL the evidence. This is also science. A single supporting observation is nice, a million of them is virtually unassailable.
At each step along the way, the certainty of stating the situation as fact increases until you reach the top, when you can state with certainty. At the pinnacle of the Hierarchy of Certainty in science is the Scientific Theory. A person can - with all the power of SCIENCE! behind him or her - state a scientific theory as fact.
At each step along the way, the certainty of stating the situation as fact increases until you reach the top, when you can state with certainty. At the pinnacle of the Hierarchy of Certainty in science is the Scientific Theory. A person can - with all the power of SCIENCE! behind him or her - state a scientific theory as fact.
The development of a scientific theory follows this sort of path (Grossly simplified, I know.):
Someone has an idea and they form a hypothesis*. They then make a prediction, and create methods to analyze and test. If the hypothesis or prediction fails in the testing or the analysis proves either incorrect, the hypothesis and/or prediction gets refined to support the evidence and analysis. Or in the more egregious failures, hypotheses and predictions get completely tossed, and the process starts anew.
After rigorous testing, and the resulting measurable, repeatable and objective evidence is compiled, a scientific law* is formulated.
After one or more laws are established, a means of explaining the law(s) is formulated. THIS IS THE THEORY.
Someone has an idea and they form a hypothesis*. They then make a prediction, and create methods to analyze and test. If the hypothesis or prediction fails in the testing or the analysis proves either incorrect, the hypothesis and/or prediction gets refined to support the evidence and analysis. Or in the more egregious failures, hypotheses and predictions get completely tossed, and the process starts anew.
After rigorous testing, and the resulting measurable, repeatable and objective evidence is compiled, a scientific law* is formulated.
After one or more laws are established, a means of explaining the law(s) is formulated. THIS IS THE THEORY.
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
As a result, scientific theory sits at the top of the Hierarchy of Certainty, be it the Cell Theory, the Big Bang or the Evolution or any other. Statements along the lines of "I can't go along with evolution, it's just a theory, after all." are as ridiculous as stating "I just can't believe gravity works. It's just a theory." and stepping off the roof of a 10 story building and not expecting the inevitable. They're both scientific theories - equal in their assertions as can be made given all the evidence.
(Note there is a BIG difference in definition of a scientific theory and the word "theory" as a general-use thing.)
Despite a theory being at the top of the Hierarchy, it doesn't mean it cannot be assailed and or refined. It means that given all the knowledge of the topic, that is what best describes the circumstances. A number of theories have fallen by the wayside as more information was obtained that eventually superseded the theory such as the Geocentric Theory, the Flat Earth Theory or biological Spontaneous Generation.
Who knows, all our current theories might be tossed out as new scientific methods are created to test them. Though, the progression (as far as I know) is that they are getting more and more support as testing methods are created and made more sensitive.
Who knows, all our current theories might be tossed out as new scientific methods are created to test them. Though, the progression (as far as I know) is that they are getting more and more support as testing methods are created and made more sensitive.
*A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested.
**A scientific law is a distillation of the results of repeated observation.
**A scientific law is a distillation of the results of repeated observation.
RSS Feed