What is a Theory?
Summary
TLDRThis script clarifies misconceptions about scientific theories, emphasizing they are not mere guesses but well-structured, logically consistent frameworks that predict and explain phenomena. It distinguishes between theories and hypotheses, highlighting theories' ability to generate testable hypotheses and their broader applicability. The discussion also touches on the evolution of theories, noting that even well-validated ones can be superseded, and stresses the importance of understanding the term 'theory' in scientific context to avoid confusion.
Takeaways
- ๐ฌ Science theories are not mere guesses but well-validated explanations based on general principles.
- ๐ซ Ad hoc reasoning, which is inductive and often haphazard, is what theories aim to avoid.
- ๐ฎ Theories are predictive; they aim to forecast future events rather than just explain past occurrences.
- ๐ The example of the 2017 solar eclipse illustrates the difference between ad hoc explanations and scientific predictions.
- ๐ Scientific theories, like those of gravity, can predict events like eclipses, which ad hoc theories cannot.
- ๐ค Theories provide specific explanations for how and why phenomena occur, not just descriptions of what happened.
- ๐พ Operant conditioning theory, for example, explains behavior changes based on consequences, unlike ad hoc reasoning.
- ๐ Theories are general and abstract, applicable to various situations, unlike specific, one-off explanations.
- ๐ง Hypotheses are not guesses but testable statements generated by theories, aiming to be proven true.
- ๐ Theories are frameworks that guide researchers to the same conclusions about what is likely to happen in new situations.
- ๐ Even if a theory is well-validated, it doesn't guarantee it's correct, but it does provide a consistent understanding framework.
Q & A
What is the common misconception about the term 'theory' in science?
-The common misconception is that a 'theory' in science is just a guess about how something works, whereas in reality, it is a well-validated explanation based on a set of general principles.
What is the difference between a theory and ad hoc reasoning?
-Ad hoc reasoning involves making up explanations for observed phenomena, which is inductive in nature. A theory, on the other hand, aims to avoid ad hoc reasoning and instead provides a broader, more widely applicable explanation based on general principles.
Why do theories in science not aim to explain what has already happened?
-Theories in science aim to predict what will happen, not just explain what has already happened, as they are based on general principles that can be applied to future events.
What is an example given in the script to illustrate the difference between ad hoc reasoning and a scientific theory?
-The example of the 2017 solar eclipse is given, where flat earthers provided ad hoc explanations for the event but were unable to predict future eclipses, unlike the gravity theories which can predict such events accurately.
How does operant conditioning theory explain the behavior of a dog that stops waving after treats are no longer given?
-Operant conditioning theory suggests that the motivation for behavior changes based on the consequences of that behavior. The dog stopped waving because the rewarding consequence (the treat) was removed, leading to a decrease in the behavior.
What is the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?
-A hypothesis is a statement of fact that is yet to be tested and can be accurate or inaccurate. A theory, however, is a well-structured framework that explains a process and generates hypotheses.
Why are hypotheses not considered guesses in scientific research?
-Hypotheses are not guesses because they are generated based on established theories and are statements that researchers aim to prove true through scientific methods, rather than random speculation.
How does a well-structured theory ensure that researchers come to the same conclusions when applied to new situations?
-A well-structured theory eliminates ambiguity and provides a clear framework for understanding a process. When honestly applied, it leads all researchers to the same hypotheses about what is likely to occur in new situations.
What does the script suggest about the validity of theories?
-The script suggests that theories can be incorrect but should not lose their status as theories because of it. Theories are logically consistent frameworks for understanding how something works, and their validity is determined by how well their predictions hold up over time.
Why is it important to distinguish between the colloquial use of the word 'theory' and its scientific meaning?
-It is important to distinguish between the colloquial use and the scientific meaning to avoid confusion and misinterpretation. In science, a theory is a specific, well-validated framework, not just a general explanation.
What is the role of a theory in explaining specific events using general principles?
-A theory's role is to provide a broader, more abstract explanation that can be applied to specific events. It uses general principles to explain not just what happens, but why it happens, and under what circumstances different outcomes may occur.
Outlines
๐ฌ The Nature of Scientific Theories
This paragraph discusses the misconception that a scientific theory is merely a guess. It clarifies that a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of natural phenomena based on established principles. The paragraph contrasts this with ad hoc reasoning, which is inductive and specific to observed events, rather than predictive and general. It uses the example of the 2017 solar eclipse and the flat earthers' inability to predict future eclipses, highlighting the predictive power of scientific theories. The paragraph also distinguishes between theories and hypotheses, explaining that hypotheses are testable statements derived from theories, and that theories generate these hypotheses automatically. The importance of a theory's framework in ensuring consistent conclusions among researchers is emphasized, and the paragraph concludes by acknowledging that theories, while logically consistent, may be incorrect and can be replaced by better explanations over time.
๐ Clarifying the Use of 'Theory' in Science
The second paragraph addresses the common confusion between the scientific and colloquial use of the term 'theory.' It emphasizes the need for precision in scientific communication to avoid misleading the public. The paragraph suggests that while a theory is a general explanation for how something works, its accuracy should not be conflated with its status as a theory. It points out that even well-validated theories, such as germ theory and the theory of tectonic plates, are subject to revision in light of new evidence or better explanations. The paragraph concludes with a call for clear and accurate language when discussing scientific theories to prevent confusion and maintain the integrity of scientific discourse.
Mindmap
Keywords
๐กTheory
๐กAd Hoc Reasoning
๐กHypothesis
๐กInductive Reasoning
๐กDeductive Reasoning
๐กOperant Conditioning
๐กPrediction
๐กGeneral Principles
๐กConsequences
๐กWell-Validated
๐กColloquial Usage
Highlights
Science critics often misunderstand the term 'theory' as a mere guess, but it actually refers to a well-substantiated explanation based on general principles.
Theories are not haphazard explanations; they avoid ad hoc reasoning, which is inductive by nature.
Theories aim to predict future events rather than explain past occurrences, exemplified by the contrast between ad hoc reasoning and the scientific approach to eclipses.
Ad hoc explanations are insufficient for predicting future phenomena, unlike scientific theories that have been consistently supported by evidence.
Theories not only predict but also provide a detailed account of how and why events occur, as illustrated by the example of operant conditioning in dogs.
Operant conditioning theory explains changes in behavior based on consequences, offering a broader and more widely applicable explanation.
Theories help explain what will happen under different circumstances, providing a framework for understanding behavior and its consequences.
Students often confuse theories with hypotheses; however, hypotheses are statements of fact that can be tested for accuracy.
Hypotheses are generated by theories and do not involve guesswork; they are a natural outcome of applying a well-structured theory.
A well-structured theory should lead to consistent conclusions and hypotheses when applied to new situations by any researcher.
Theories are inherently not ad hoc; they provide deeper and more widely applicable explanations compared to ad hoc reasoning.
Theories can be incorrect but should not lose their status as theories; their validity is separate from their framework for understanding.
Well-validated theories, such as germ theory and the theory of tectonic plates, are examples of frameworks that have withstood rigorous testing.
Theories are logically consistent frameworks for understanding processes, and their accuracy is determined by their ability to predict and explain phenomena.
The colloquial use of the term 'theory' can lead to confusion, and it is important to distinguish between a theory's framework and its accuracy.
The scientific community should clarify the use of 'theory' to avoid entangling its framework with its accuracy, ensuring clear communication.
Transcripts
people who are critical of science often
suggest that theory just refers to a
guess about how something works the
reaction to this has been for science
communicators to suggest that theory
refers to a well validated explanation
for the way a process works based on a
set of general principles that's not
entirely accurate theory obviously does
not refer to a guess it isn't some
haphazard off-the-cuff explanation about
why something happened this would be
considered ad hoc reasoning when one is
generating ad hoc explanations they are
making up explanations for what they
have already seen theory is attempting
to avoid ad hoc reasoning because ad hoc
reasoning is by its very nature
inductive more on inductive and
deductive reasoning later Theory doesn't
aim to explain what already happened it
aims to predict what will happen here's
an example to illustrate the difference
remember that solar eclipse in the US
and 2017 around this time flat earthers
came out with elaborate explanations
about how the Sun actually cast
something of a spotlight on part of the
earth during part of the day the Eclipse
then would just be the moon moving in
front of the spotlight sounds reasonable
but it is ad hoc ask the flat earther to
tell you when the next Eclipse will be
where on the earth will it totally
eclipse find me a website that predicts
future eclipses from a Flat Earth
perspective I haven't been able to find
them gravity theories do predict when
these will happen and we believe those
theories to be accurate because their
predictions keep tending to be supported
the stuff they say will happen keeps
happening but theory doesn't just
predict it also describes specifically
how and why something occurs imagine
you've been giving your dog a treat
every time she waves to you you stop
giving her a treat when she does this
she stops waving to you ad hoc
explanations would sound like this oh
she doesn't want to do it anymore
because she's not getting a treat yeah
you explained what happened you didn't
explain why it happened
on the contrary operant conditioning
theory would suggest that motivation for
behavior changes based on the
consequences of that behavior the dog
stopped waving because she was no longer
being rewarded
rewards are a consequence of a behavior
that lead to more of that behavior
removing the consequences leads to less
of that behavior Theory helps us go
farther however it helps us explain what
will happen under different
circumstances one of the different
consequence were to be introduced what
if she only got an ad a girl or a pet on
the noggin will her behavior increase or
decrease more critically why will she
increase or decrease that behavior if
consequences impact the motivation for a
behavior and the consequence is
favorable then the behavior will
increase you see how that's a broader
more widely applicable explanation that
same sentence could be uttered to
explain many different situations its
general its abstract it explains what
happens in specific events but it does
it by using general principles students
often confuse theories and hypotheses
hypotheses aren't explanations they're
statements of fact these statements of
fact could be accurate or inaccurate but
one would state a hypothesis and they
would state it as if it's going to be
shown to be true hypotheses also aren't
guesses researchers don't like guessing
they don't tend to dismissively swirl
their hand in the air and say yeah maybe
it'll go this way I don't know our
hypotheses are usually generated by our
theories in fact one of the most
fascinating things about theories is
that they generate hypotheses all on
their own
humans need not be present this is a
hard concept to grasp stick with me be
ready to relist in here if they process
works in a specific way and a
well-structured Theory aims to explain
that process then any human who honestly
applies that theory to a new situation
should come to the same conclusions
about what is likely to occur as every
other researcher doing the same thing
they will come to the same hypotheses
the theory is the framework for
understanding the process if it is well
structured there is no ambiguity about
what will occur we'll all agree that
means that theory is by its very nature
not ad-hoc its explanations are much
deeper and more widely applicable now in
the intro I attacked the phrasing that
theory means to be well validated now
I'm not believing that I've seen plenty
of crappy theories theories can be
incorrect that doesn't mean that they
should lose their theory
status in fact I've seen plenty of
theories that seem to be well validated
for some time until another theory came
along with better explanations don't
tell people that all these theories are
well validated tell them that it is a
logically consistent framework for
understanding how something works it
might be right it might be wrong but if
it is a theory than it is a framework
with specifics that predicts future
events germ theory is extremely well
validated the theory of tectonic plates
is exceptionally well validated
Einstein's theory of gravity is
extremely well validated it isn't their
well validated NIST that makes them a
theory it's their well validated NIST
that makes me believe their theory the
concept that a theory is a general
explanation for how something works
clashes with the colloquial usage of the
word to explain how scientists use the
term we have to be specific don't
entangle a Theory's accuracy with its
theory miss it's confusing and
misleading and we're specifically
supposed to be in the business of
elucidating
[Music]
Browse More Related Video
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)