The Full on definitions of the word theory from the five texts referenced in my Theories video. The citations are in the format ("Title"; Principle Author (there may or may not be secondary authors); ISBN; page number referenced; which UNLV course the book is for).
See the video here.
These books may be obtained through any public library or digitally through your favorite means of obtaining digital copies of books.
These books may be obtained through any public library or digitally through your favorite means of obtaining digital copies of books.
(“Biology:
A Guide to the Natural World Fifth Edition”; David Krogh; 978-0-321-61655-5; p. 6; for UNLV's course BIOL 189 - Fundamentals of Life Sciences)
It is unfortunate but true that the word theory means one thing in everyday speech and something almost completely different in scientific communication. In everyday speech, a theory can be little more than a hunch. It is an unproven idea that may or may not have any supportive evidence. In science, meanwhile, a theory is a general set of principles, supported by evidence, that explains some aspect of nature. There is, for example, a Big Bang theory of the universe. It is a general set of principles that explains how our universe began and then developed over time. Among its principles are that a cataclysmic explosion occurred about 13.7 billion years ago, and that after it, matter first developed in the form of gases, which then coalesced into the stars we can see all around us. There are numerous facts supporting these principles, such as the current size of the universe and its average temperature. As you might imagine, with any theory this grand some pieces of it are in dispute; some facts don’t fit the theory, and scientists disagree about how to interpret this piece of information or that. On the whole, though, these insights have withstood the questioning of critics and stand as a scientific theory. Far from being a hunch, a scientific theory actually is a much more valued entity than is a scientific fact because the theory has an explanatory power, while a fact generally is an isolated piece of information. That the universe is about 13.7 billion years old is a wonderfully interesting fact, but it explains little in comparison with the Big Bang theory. Facts are important; theories could not be supported or refuted without them. But science is first and foremost in the theory-building business, not the fact-finding business.
It is unfortunate but true that the word theory means one thing in everyday speech and something almost completely different in scientific communication. In everyday speech, a theory can be little more than a hunch. It is an unproven idea that may or may not have any supportive evidence. In science, meanwhile, a theory is a general set of principles, supported by evidence, that explains some aspect of nature. There is, for example, a Big Bang theory of the universe. It is a general set of principles that explains how our universe began and then developed over time. Among its principles are that a cataclysmic explosion occurred about 13.7 billion years ago, and that after it, matter first developed in the form of gases, which then coalesced into the stars we can see all around us. There are numerous facts supporting these principles, such as the current size of the universe and its average temperature. As you might imagine, with any theory this grand some pieces of it are in dispute; some facts don’t fit the theory, and scientists disagree about how to interpret this piece of information or that. On the whole, though, these insights have withstood the questioning of critics and stand as a scientific theory. Far from being a hunch, a scientific theory actually is a much more valued entity than is a scientific fact because the theory has an explanatory power, while a fact generally is an isolated piece of information. That the universe is about 13.7 billion years old is a wonderfully interesting fact, but it explains little in comparison with the Big Bang theory. Facts are important; theories could not be supported or refuted without them. But science is first and foremost in the theory-building business, not the fact-finding business.
(“Chemistry:
The Central Science 11th
Edition”; Theodore L. Brown; 978-0-13-600617-6; p. 13; for the UNLV course CHEM 121 and CHEM 122, General Chemistry)
A theory is an explanation of the general causes of certain phenomena, with considerable evidence or facts to support it. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity was a revolutionary new way of thinking about space and time. It was more than just a simple hypothesis, however, because it could be used to make predictions that could be tested experimentally. When these experiments were conducted, the results were generally in agreement with the predictions and were not explainable by earlier theories. Thus, the theory of relativity was supported, but not proven. Indeed, theories can never be proven to be absolutely correct.
A theory is an explanation of the general causes of certain phenomena, with considerable evidence or facts to support it. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity was a revolutionary new way of thinking about space and time. It was more than just a simple hypothesis, however, because it could be used to make predictions that could be tested experimentally. When these experiments were conducted, the results were generally in agreement with the predictions and were not explainable by earlier theories. Thus, the theory of relativity was supported, but not proven. Indeed, theories can never be proven to be absolutely correct.
(“Environment
7th
Edition”; Peter H. Raven; 978-0-470-11857-3; p. 17; for the UNLV course ENV 101 - Introduction to Environmental Science)
Theories explain scientific laws. A theory is an integrated explanation of numerous hypotheses, each supported by a large body of observations and experiments and evaluated by the peer review process. A theory condenses and simplifies many data that previously appeared unrelated. A good theory grows as additional information becomes known. It predicts new data and suggests new relationships among a range of natural phenomena. A theory simplifies and clarifies our understanding of the natural world because it demonstrates relationships among classes of data. Theories are the solid ground of science, the explanations of which we are most sure. This definition contrasts sharply with the general public’s use of the word theory, implying lack of knowledge, or a guess— as in “I have a theory about the existence of life on other planets.” In this book, the word theory is always used in its scientific sense, to refer to a broadly conceived, logically coherent, and well-supported explanation. Absolute truth is not possible in science, only varying degrees of uncertainty. Science is continually evolving as new evidence comes to light, and its conclusions are always provisional or uncertain. It is always possible that the results of future experiments will contradict a prevailing theory, which will then be replaced by a new or modified theory that better explains the scientific laws of the natural world.
Theories explain scientific laws. A theory is an integrated explanation of numerous hypotheses, each supported by a large body of observations and experiments and evaluated by the peer review process. A theory condenses and simplifies many data that previously appeared unrelated. A good theory grows as additional information becomes known. It predicts new data and suggests new relationships among a range of natural phenomena. A theory simplifies and clarifies our understanding of the natural world because it demonstrates relationships among classes of data. Theories are the solid ground of science, the explanations of which we are most sure. This definition contrasts sharply with the general public’s use of the word theory, implying lack of knowledge, or a guess— as in “I have a theory about the existence of life on other planets.” In this book, the word theory is always used in its scientific sense, to refer to a broadly conceived, logically coherent, and well-supported explanation. Absolute truth is not possible in science, only varying degrees of uncertainty. Science is continually evolving as new evidence comes to light, and its conclusions are always provisional or uncertain. It is always possible that the results of future experiments will contradict a prevailing theory, which will then be replaced by a new or modified theory that better explains the scientific laws of the natural world.
(“Essentials
of Geology 4th
edition”; Stephen Marshak; 978-0-393-91939-4; p. 7; for the UNLV course GEOL 101 - Fundamentals of Geology)
Theories are scientific ideas supported by abundant evidence; they have passed many tests and have failed none. Scientists are much more confident in the correctness of a theory than of a hypothesis. Continued study in the quarry eventually yielded so much evidence for impact that the impact hypothesis came to be viewed as a theory. Scientists continue to test theories over a long time. Successful theories withstand these tests and are supported by so many observations that they become part of a discipline’s foundation. However, some theories may be disproven and replaced by better ones. In a few cases, scientists have been able to devise concise statements that completely describe a specific relationship or phenomenon. Such statements are called scientific laws. Note that the law of gravity does not explain why gravity exists, but the theory of evolution does provide an explanation of why evolution occurs.
Theories are scientific ideas supported by abundant evidence; they have passed many tests and have failed none. Scientists are much more confident in the correctness of a theory than of a hypothesis. Continued study in the quarry eventually yielded so much evidence for impact that the impact hypothesis came to be viewed as a theory. Scientists continue to test theories over a long time. Successful theories withstand these tests and are supported by so many observations that they become part of a discipline’s foundation. However, some theories may be disproven and replaced by better ones. In a few cases, scientists have been able to devise concise statements that completely describe a specific relationship or phenomenon. Such statements are called scientific laws. Note that the law of gravity does not explain why gravity exists, but the theory of evolution does provide an explanation of why evolution occurs.
(“Physics
for Scientists and Engineers 7th
Edition”; Raymond Serway; 978-0-498-11245-7; p. 2; For the UNLV Courses PHYS 180-182 - Physics for Scientists and Engineers)Like all
other sciences, physics is based on experimental observations and
quantitative measurements. The main objectives of physics are to
identify a limited number of fundamental laws that govern natural
phenomena and use them to develop theories that can predict the
results of future experiments. The fundamental laws used in
developing theories are expressed in the language of mathematics, the
tool that provides a bridge between theory and experiment. When
there is a discrepancy between the prediction of a theory and
experimental results, new or modified theories must be formulated to
remove the discrepancy. Many times a theory is satisfactory only
under limited conditions; a more general theory might be satisfactory
without such limitations. For example, the laws of motion discovered
by Isaac Newton (1642–1727) accurately describe the motion of
objects moving at normal speeds but do not apply to objects moving at
speeds comparable with the speed of light. In contrast, the special
theory of relativity developed later by Albert Einstein (1879–1955)
gives the same results as Newton’s laws at low speeds but also
correctly describes the motion of objects at speeds approaching the
speed of light. Hence, Einstein’s special theory of relativity is a
more general theory of motion than that formed from Newton’s laws.
(“Cosmic Perspective”; Jeffery Bennett; 978-0-321-71823-5; p.
76-77; for the UNLV Course AST 104 - Introductory Astronomy: Stars and Galaxies)
The most successful scientific models explain a wide variety of observations in terms of just a few general principles. When a powerful yet simple model makes predictions that survive repeated and varied testing, scientists elevate its status and call it a theory. Some famous examples are Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, and Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity. Note that the scientific meaning of the word theory is quite different from its everyday meaning, in which we equate a theory more closely with speculation or a hypothesis. For example, someone might get a new idea and say, “I have a new theory about why people enjoy the beach.” Without the support of a broad range of evidence that others have tested and confirmed, this “theory” is really only a guess. In contrast, Newton’s theory of gravity qualifies as a scientific theory because it uses simple physical principles to explain many observations and experiments. Despite its success in explaining observed phenomena, a scientific theory can never be proved true beyond all doubt, because future observations may disagree with its predictions. However, anything that qualifies as a scientific theory must be supported by a large, compelling body of evidence. In this sense, a scientific theory is not at all like a hypothesis or any other type of guess. We are free to change a hypothesis at any time, because it has not yet been carefully tested. In contrast, we can discard or replace a scientific theory only if we have an alternate way of explaining the evidence that supports it. Again, the theories of Newton and Einstein offer good examples. A vast body of evidence supports Newton’s theory of gravity, but by the late 1800s scientists had begun to discover cases where its predictions did not perfectly match observations. These discrepancies were explained only when Einstein developed his general theory of relativity, which was able to match the observations. Still, the many successes of Newton’s theory could not be ignored, and Einstein’s theory would not have gained acceptance if it had not been able to explain these successes equally well. It did, and that is why we now view Einstein’s theory as a broader theory of gravity than Newton’s theory. Some scientists today are seeking a theory of gravity that will go beyond Einstein’s. If any new theory ever gains acceptance, it will have to match all the successes of Einstein’s theory as well as work in new realms where Einstein’s theory does not.
The most successful scientific models explain a wide variety of observations in terms of just a few general principles. When a powerful yet simple model makes predictions that survive repeated and varied testing, scientists elevate its status and call it a theory. Some famous examples are Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, and Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity. Note that the scientific meaning of the word theory is quite different from its everyday meaning, in which we equate a theory more closely with speculation or a hypothesis. For example, someone might get a new idea and say, “I have a new theory about why people enjoy the beach.” Without the support of a broad range of evidence that others have tested and confirmed, this “theory” is really only a guess. In contrast, Newton’s theory of gravity qualifies as a scientific theory because it uses simple physical principles to explain many observations and experiments. Despite its success in explaining observed phenomena, a scientific theory can never be proved true beyond all doubt, because future observations may disagree with its predictions. However, anything that qualifies as a scientific theory must be supported by a large, compelling body of evidence. In this sense, a scientific theory is not at all like a hypothesis or any other type of guess. We are free to change a hypothesis at any time, because it has not yet been carefully tested. In contrast, we can discard or replace a scientific theory only if we have an alternate way of explaining the evidence that supports it. Again, the theories of Newton and Einstein offer good examples. A vast body of evidence supports Newton’s theory of gravity, but by the late 1800s scientists had begun to discover cases where its predictions did not perfectly match observations. These discrepancies were explained only when Einstein developed his general theory of relativity, which was able to match the observations. Still, the many successes of Newton’s theory could not be ignored, and Einstein’s theory would not have gained acceptance if it had not been able to explain these successes equally well. It did, and that is why we now view Einstein’s theory as a broader theory of gravity than Newton’s theory. Some scientists today are seeking a theory of gravity that will go beyond Einstein’s. If any new theory ever gains acceptance, it will have to match all the successes of Einstein’s theory as well as work in new realms where Einstein’s theory does not.
Comments
Post a Comment