Can Theories Ever Become Facts?

  • Thread starter syano
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Theory
In summary, a theory can be considered to be a set of ideas that has some degree of logical derivation, and does not "graduate" into a law or principle.
  • #1
syano
82
0
Through reading many threads in this forum and many books I understand that a good theory makes many predictions that come true during experiments. And the more predictions a theory makes that experiments agree with the more sound that theory becomes. Yet one contradictory experiment of a theory can disprove it altogether.

My question is, will famous theories we talk about ever become factual?

Is it a theory that the moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the sun or is that a fact?

If the moon orbiting the Earth is a fact, then what would have to happen in order for the Theory of Relativity to become a fact?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I don't think any theory is ever 'a fact'. There is always some (perhaps infinitisemally small) chance in principle that an experiment will disprove it. The apple might fly upward one day, who is to say it can't.

For instance, perhaps nature has setup a timescale, such that after 13.8777777777 billion years, the laws of physics change.

Still, I think most people will say, well there is something objective and 'factual' at the heart of it.. Its just that we can never identically know for sure if it is b/c of human ignorance.

Newtonian physics, and other semi classical theories (like special and general relativity) have passed hundreds of thousands of experimental data points. We are nearly, but not quite, sure that they are indeed factual.

GR for instance, is probably correct at most scales, but even today, amongst active scientists there is some fiddling room at large extra galactic scales for some modifications. But if I was a betting man, I would put my money on the tried and true.
 
  • #3
'Facts' aren't; they're just shorthand for ... what? Over in the Philosophy of Science and Mathematics sub-forum you may find some discussion of this. In particular, the way we use the 'fact' isn't at all consistent ... taking Newton, apples, and falling, which of these are 'facts'?
- 'apples fall'
- 'an apple fell on Newton's head'
- 'Newton came to the realisation that gravity is universal while sitting under an apple tree and noticed the Moon in the sky'
- 'an apple fell from my apple tree last night'

It can seem incredibly pedantic to even pose some of these questions, let alone discuss them at great length and in all seriousness ... but some would say it goes to the heart of what science is really all about.
 
  • #4
"Theory" usually means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact, law, to theory to hypothesis to guess.

A guess could be the first attempt to explain some phenomenon, whilst a hypothesis could be a more elaborated guess, with the math done and some predictions formulated. A theory is supposed to have several predictions fulfilled. There is some consensus that it could be factual, however as remarked before, there is always a trace of doubt. Facts are the everyday data as we observe them, directly or indirectly. Theories are elaborate ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when explaining theories are refuted. Then we need other theories to explain them

Theories will probably never become as factual as Pythagoras law for instance although the universal law of Gravity seems to have it’s problems. There are most entertaining discussions about the status quo of Anthropogenic Global Warning, Evolution, the ice age, the weather forecast models. Fact, theory or hypothesis, what is correct theory, what is refuted?
 
  • #5
Andre, why don't you start a thread in Philosophy of Science and Mathematics? I think it's a great topic (and I've a lot to say about it!). Given the scope - physics, GR, maths (you mentioned Pythagoras), evolution, ... - a discussion here in General Physics would be out of place (IMVHO).
 
  • #6
I have posted this before in another string, but it requires repeating here. One needs to be aware of the different usage of the word "theory" as applied in Science/Physics, and in the typical pedestrian way. In physics, the word "theory" isn't used to associate an idea that isn't tested or unverified. It is simply to distinguish the dichotomy between theoretical work and experimental work. Therefore, a theory simply means a set of ideas formulated in mathematical form that has some degree of logical derivation.

This means that a theory doesn't "graduate" into a law or a principle. Even what we called "laws" in physics are part of a theoretical description based on this dichotomy. So names like "laws", "principles", and "theory" are actually irrelevant - they are just labels! Physicists tend to care very little about what things are called since they care more about the CONTENT of those labels. Unfortunately, this often leads to sloppiness in using such terms and people who don't know any better (and to whom labels are all they conclude from about the subject matter) latch on to those names and draw out their own deductions.

What you need to keep in mind is that various ideas in physics tend to have a specific range of parameters and conditions in which those ideas are VALID. We do not demote Newtonian physics from "laws" to "hypothesis" just because we have discovered where it doesn't work. It is a useless exercise since the label means nothing. The knowledge of what it is and where it works are the most important thing. When we know something works, we try to test it out and find out if there are any boundaries to the validity of that idea - it is a major many of us in this field are employed. When we find those, then we can say that such-and-such theory or idea are valid, but only within so-and-so conditions. Never was there a situation where we "upgrade" a theory into "fact". Such thing hasn't happen in physics, at least.

Zz.
 
  • #7
syano said:
My question is, will famous theories we talk about ever become factual?

Is it a theory that the moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the sun or is that a fact?

If the moon orbiting the Earth is a fact, then what would have to happen in order for the Theory of Relativity to become a fact?
Data is factual. Theories (explanations of data) are not.
 
  • #8
Thanks for the responses.

To triple check I am thinking of this correctly… If I am talking to someone else about something and if they ask if what I am saying is a fact, I can respond telling them only data is a fact. Even saying something like “Our planet orbits the Sun” is a theory. But saying “our planet orbited the sun last year” is a fact…. Correct?
 
  • #9
syano said:
Thanks for the responses.

To triple check I am thinking of this correctly… If I am talking to someone else about something and if they ask if what I am saying is a fact, I can respond telling them only data is a fact. Even saying something like “Our planet orbits the Sun” is a theory. But saying “our planet orbited the sun last year” is a fact…. Correct?

"Our planet orbits the sun because of gravity" is closer to the theory. "Our planet will contnue to orbit the sun" is a prediction of that theory. Our planet has orbited the sun is, as you point out, a fact.
 
  • #10
It seems to me that "facts" are "certainties" by human interpretation. Certainties, of any form, can only be expressed probalistically, so in a sense nothing is certain but a great deal can be considered 99.9% certain, or factual, but in some cases certainty can be 100%.

For example, you and I exist. I am 100% certain of my current existence, therefore I consider it a fact.
On the same token, I am certain that I will die someday. But, I am not 100% certain of that, instead perhaps 99.9% because who knows what might happen, medically and technologically within my lifespan. Even still, I am fairly certain that I will die at some point.

In short, the only certainty I perceive is the "now", and aspects of my past.
 

1. Can a theory ever become a fact?

It is important to understand that theories and facts serve different purposes in the scientific community. A theory is a well-supported explanation for a phenomenon, while a fact is an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed. Therefore, a theory cannot become a fact, but it can be supported by a large body of evidence and become widely accepted as the most plausible explanation.

2. How do theories and facts relate to each other?

Theories are built upon facts, as they are based on observations and experiments. However, theories are not just a collection of facts, but rather an explanation for those facts. As new evidence is discovered, theories may be modified or even replaced, but the underlying facts remain the same.

3. Can a fact disprove a theory?

No, a fact cannot disprove a theory. Facts and theories work together to help us understand the natural world. If a new fact is discovered that does not fit with a current theory, it may lead to the revision or rejection of that theory. However, the fact itself does not disprove the theory.

4. Are theories and facts final?

Science is an ongoing process, and our understanding of the world is constantly evolving. Therefore, theories and facts are not considered to be final. As new evidence is gathered and new technologies are developed, our theories and facts may change or be refined.

5. Can a theory be proven?

In science, theories are not proven in the same way that mathematical equations are proven. They are supported by evidence and can be tested and refined through experimentation. However, there is always the possibility that new evidence may arise that challenges the theory, so it can never be considered proven in the absolute sense.

Similar threads

  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
47
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
595
Replies
2
Views
837
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top