Hypothesis, Model, Theory and Law

Among the most extremist -and extremely ignorant- of the anti-science crowd you will come across statements such as this: "But evolution is only a theory." Indeed, but scratch the only. In science, the terms Hypothesis, Model, Theory and Law are indeed gradations in a scale but they certainly do not share their coloquial meaning or hierharchy. If you think a scientific theory ever becomes a law or a fact you may need to read the following. Let's go back to the basics.

A Hypothesis is pretty much what people think it is: an educated guess, the suggestion of a Model which needs further testing. And what is a Model exactly? That is a useful but untrue representation of a partially workable Hypothesis. A great example of this is the Bohr model of the atom, which depicts electrons circling the nucleus in an orbit not unlike the solar system: the model is very helpful but it is in no way supposed to be a true depiction of the atom.

Then there is that word. That wretched word so misused and mishandled by creationists that they should be prosecuted for raping the concept. It is of course the term Theory. It is usually synonimous with Hypothesis -but that is not its actual usage in science. Simply put, a Theory is a Hypothesis that has been proven to work, a demonstrated model that explains certain facts. The Theoy of Evolution is not a blind stab in the dark. The Big Bang Theory is not a wild guess.

What is a Law then? How is any Theory worth studying when we have actual natural laws that work as if they were written in stone by a control freak space daddy? As much as it might disappoint those who follow the commandments of sand people that lived two or three thousand years ago, the truth is that a Law is just the fundamental mathematical description of a fact or group of facts that repeat without any known exceptions. Nothing more, nothing less.

For example, the Law of Gravitation basically says "things fall". To be fair, it is a bit more complicated than that: "every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.". That is a Law (and one of the four fundamental forces of the universe) because there has not been observed any exceptions to the rule.

A Law is just a statement of fact. But how did that happen? To answer that we need a Theory, which in the case of the Law of Gravitation is the Theory of Gravity. This goes beyond the simplest mathematical description of the thing and tells us how it actually works and what causes it. Laws are not above Theories -one is only concerned with statements of facts and the other one explains those facts. Both are needed to understand any given phenomenon.

But if that is true how is it that there is not an equivalent supporting Law for the Theory of Evolution? Plainly, evolution cannot be described as a Law because the concept does not apply: there is not, and never will be, a mathematical formulation of evolution. Biology can rarely be expressed with mathematical precision because life is just so complex. Of course, it is technically not impossible to devise a Law of Evolution, but nothing short of omniscience would grant us such a gift of knowledge. Unless we boil it down to "Life evolves," of course.

After making those distinctions it might suddenly become more obvious why it is such an affront to human intelligence to put warnings such as "Evolution is only a theory" in the Biology textbooks of so many American and Islamic children. It might be true that there are hundreds of long, boring books devoted to the tiniest minutia around the philosophical underpinnings of these concepts. But it is also true that these terms can be explained in literally five minutes.

There is no excuse for using the "Only a Theory" argument: these people are either profoundly stupid or maliciously dishonest. None of those tributes qualify anyone to legislate on education.
(El artículo traducido al castellano aquí: Hipótesis, Modelo, Teoría y Ley)

7 comentarios:

Lambsev dijo...

Just as inane are the statements "science says" or "according to science."  Science is not a person. Science does not speak. The best scientists can do is to detect repititious patterns in the natural world which prove reliable to a greater or lesser degree. Darwin did not do this and evolutionary theories remain only fantasies in the minds of psuedo scientists. These psuedo scientists are so vain they refuse to peer review the excellent work of ID and creation scientists.

At least creationists believe in a Creator who has SPOKEN.

Sergio Aragón dijo...

So much ego in those words, so much blind judgement. Of course, it comes from a mind that hasn't regained the genetic cosmic memory; so common in those types of social circles of humans. "...there is not, and never will, a mathematical formulation of evolution..."? That statement seems extremely contradictory to the essence of what science is and to the reason of why it ever came to be. If we already knew everything that is, there would be no need for science. A scientist should be a searcher of truth, not some ego-driven human that judges everything based on the ever so limited and primitive studies of the x,y and z axes of space and the and abstract but illusory and inferior "mechanized time", the linear concept of time that is. A seeker of truth is always open and willing to break down what she or he thinks she or he "knows", with the purpose of embracing an ever expanding truth.


Furthermore, let it be said that there indeed is a Supreme force that can not be ignored and that is the fuel, reason and canvas for all the marvels that human science has yet to explore and discover; even western science can no longer deny this with it's most recent discoveries on genetics and sub-atomic particle behaviour. Rest assure that this force is not some "control freak space daddy"; it's far beyond what humans may conceptualize with our current "comprehension" of what is. This force has no rules or "Laws", it allows for us to be the rule makers, gaining benefit from all experienced possibilities. It is known that this force does however, enable frequencies in which we may experience enhanced perception via certain socio-moral conduct patterns, all which originally sprout from what we conceptualize as "Love", (which, by the way, can also be mathematically expressed in numbers via the study of electro-magnetic frequencies). Don't assume you already know everything mister, you'll be in for a BIG surprise.

Lambsev dijo...

Sergio, I certainly do not know everything, but I know Jesus and His Father. Have you reviewed the creationist/ID work?

Sergio Aragón dijo...

Sir, the previous comment was directed to the author of the article, not to your persona, you can verify this by re-reading my previous commentand actually paying attention to what's being stated. If anything I am most supportive of real science, that is, science that acknowledges the Supreme Creator. I also, urge you to refer to the Messiah in a different way, "Jesus" is a most degrading name for that which he represents. May the light of God always shine in and from your heart.

Lambsev dijo...

I'm sorry, mea culpa. RE: the name Jesus, it is simply the English translation of just as it is in Spanish and German.From the Greek: Iēsous,  or in Greek: Ἰησοῦς
Ἰησοῦς
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2424&t=KJV In Armenian: Հիսուսը
In Bengali: যীশু
In Ukrainian: Ісус

Luka Nieto dijo...

Could you please stop spamming the comments with religious/spiritualist bullshit? Criticize the essay all you want, and do it with your religious arguments if that's your thing, but don't deviate from the actual topic: the essay. This is not a forum.

Anyway... a creationist and a New Age mystic. Just wow. Where did you come from to this article, if I might ask? Wherever you found this article, either you don't actually align with that website, as you don't with this, or the essay doesn't belong there in the first place. Eitherway I would be interested to know, if it's not much trouble.

Sergio Aragón dijo...

Deviating from the point is indeed frustrating, my apologies. I was linked to this essay via a post from The Zeitgeist Movement Facebook site; I clicked on the link as I felt attraction towards the title.


Now in regards to your label ("New Age mystic), I certainly understand that most people need the assurance of tagging other people with labels of what they "know" and/or can relate to, given their own insecurities regarding the world around us and the certain "status" that they must egoically maintain. However, in my ever so humble opinion, I think that your label is completely off target, inaccurate. I don't agree with any religion, be it New Age, Buddhist or Christian; I simply acknowledge what's in front of me as actually being there (as in the intelligent self-creating energy which is all around us at all times and that just simply can not be conceptualized via "modern" science because of it's self-imposed illogical limitations).

Much love to you Mr.Nieto and to you as well Mr. "Lambsev". (By the way Mr. "Lambsev", it is not the ethimology of the name, but rather the sick use that it's been given by the ever-deceiving religions what makes it an unworthy term).

Publicar un comentario

Escribe tu comentario aquí.