Why is the Cell Theory still a Theory?

So, in summary, the term "theory" in science refers to a well-substantiated and thoroughly tested explanation of a phenomenon, and it is not the same as our everyday use of the word. It is not considered a fact because science is always open to new evidence and theories can be revised or replaced with new information. However, it is still a strong and reliable explanation based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning.
  • #1
BioCore
Hey everyone,

I was reading a Biology text and it mentioned the Cell Theory, and at the same moment I thought of this question. Why do we still consider it a theory, if we have seen it occur many times by observing microscopes of differing abilities. Shouldn't we consider it a fact now that we have viewable proof? Or is Biology just different from some of the other sciences, or is there something I haven't been taught yet about this theory?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
The word theory in science means something quite different from the current lay meaning. In a lay context people use theory ("I have this theory ...") when they really mean "I have this wild-assed guess" (aka WAG). The word theory means something very, very strong in science. Quantum theory and Einstein's theories of relativity in physics and the theory of evolution and cell theory in biology are anything but WAGs.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Oh I see, well that clarifies it up quite well with me. I also like the word WAG (wild-assed guess) :) . Thanks for the information D H.
 
  • #4
I have this theory...
never mind.

Here is a definition of 'theory'

An explanation for some phenomenon that is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning.

So of course, it's not a WAG.
 
  • #5
According to National Academies of Science, a scientific theory is:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=2

"Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
 
  • #6
This and the meanings of some other words and statements, like model, or 'we believe', cause scientists a lot of unnecessary problems when they are communicating to folks outside science. By problems, specifically, I mean the lay person gets a completely wrong idea of what the science guy is communicating. And it is not really the fault of the layperson.
 
  • #7
There was a thread the other day with a very nice paper about exactly this language problem... can't find it though. Perhaps someone can post the link here (I promise I'll bookmark it right away)
 
  • #8
As it sounds from you discussion, the main problem is how scientists relate their findings. Then why don't we create an organization such as IUPAC, seeing as they have done a great job in making sure chemists can talk b/w each other perfectly. We could have an organization that takes care of delivering information to the masses in the correct manner.
 
  • #9
CompuChip said:
There was a thread the other day with a very nice paper about exactly this language problem... can't find it though. Perhaps someone can post the link here (I promise I'll bookmark it right away)

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-60/iss-1/8_1.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Part of the problem with understanding terminology or jargon is the language itself. English uses verbs as nouns, and their meanings get confused constantly. Like the word "action", can mean a thing or a process. We do this all the time, and don't make it clear which sense we are implying (the action or the thing the action produces).
 
  • #11
That is a valid point and it is true; I have noticed it myself. But then the English language itself is complex because people don't tend to try their best at English in school, especially people who think they plan on going into a field such a math or science - we all tend to try and get past the course without putting much effort into it.
 
  • #12
Phred101.2 said:
Part of the problem with understanding terminology or jargon is the language itself. English uses verbs as nouns, and their meanings get confused constantly. Like the word "action", can mean a thing or a process. We do this all the time, and don't make it clear which sense we are implying (the action or the thing the action produces).

Be careful not to confuse terminology WITH jargon. This is precisely the reason it is important to keep in mind the very exacting definitions required in science, and why we spend a lot of time making sure students understand the terminology as it differs from lay usage. Jargon is NOT "terminology", it's sloppy usage and shortcuts in language. It's something that folks working together will understand, but is not appropriate in formal writing, because it does lack clarity.
 
  • #13
I've used this particular linguistic tool myself, at university and in the computer industry.
I've built PC's, installed OSes of all flavours, on systems large and small, and I know what you mean about jargon, usually it's a fairly precise tool, until someone uses it out of it's context.
At it's worst, someone gets the wrong jargon confused with the right jargon. So maybe someone else ends up doing something time-wasting.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
i guess its still a theory because there is no absolute proof. uh...thats it, that's all. all this rant about blah blah still didnt answer his question. which was, why is it still a theory, and why do we not consider it an absolute fact? well, if it were absolute fact, I am sure they would call it that. so its still a theory because there must still be something that doesn't completely fit with the rest of the building blocks, so to speak. there are always exceptions to the rule, hence why nothing is absolute. is the absolute the fact that there are no absolutes.? hmmmmmm
 
  • #15
Jimmy, have you read any of the reactions in the thread (I can especially recommend the paper linked to by Moridin)? Because then you would have understood that scientists use the word "theory" to refer to a widely accepted and experimentally thoroughly tested model; unlike our everyday use of the word theory which you are using in your answer.
The point of a (scientific) theory is that there are no exceptions (if there are, you need a better theory that includes them naturally), though a theory might have a limited range of application (for example, Newtons theory of classical mechanics).
 

1. Why is the Cell Theory considered a theory and not a law?

The Cell Theory is considered a theory because it is based on a collection of well-tested hypotheses that explain a wide range of observations. Unlike scientific laws, which are usually concise and universally accepted, theories are constantly being refined and updated as new evidence is discovered.

2. What evidence supports the Cell Theory?

The Cell Theory is supported by a vast amount of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines, including biology, biochemistry, and genetics. This evidence includes observations of cells under microscopes, cellular structures and functions, and the similarities between cells in different organisms.

3. How has the Cell Theory evolved over time?

The Cell Theory has evolved significantly since it was first proposed in the 19th century. Originally, it stated that all living things are composed of cells. However, as technology advanced, scientists discovered that cells come from pre-existing cells and that they are the basic unit of structure and function in all living things.

4. What are the implications of the Cell Theory?

The Cell Theory has had a profound impact on the field of biology and our understanding of life. It has led to the development of new technologies and techniques for studying cells, such as microscopes and cell culture. It has also helped us understand the mechanisms of diseases and develop treatments.

5. Is the Cell Theory still relevant in modern science?

Yes, the Cell Theory is still relevant in modern science and is considered one of the fundamental principles of biology. It continues to guide research and discoveries in fields such as genetics, microbiology, and cell biology. While it has been refined and expanded upon, the basic principles of the Cell Theory still hold true today.

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
47
Views
4K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
779
Replies
99
Views
11K
  • Biology and Medical
2
Replies
39
Views
7K
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top