Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory seeks to explain "why" or "how", whereas a fact is a simple, basic observation and a law is an empirical description of a relationship between facts and/or other laws.
Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data , not known with absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold ...
In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts. [20] Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation.
Science distinguishes a law or theory from facts. [4] Calling a law a fact is ambiguous , an overstatement , or an equivocation . [ 5 ] The nature of scientific laws has been much discussed in philosophy , but in essence scientific laws are simply empirical conclusions reached by scientific method; they are intended to be neither laden with ...
While theory in colloquial usage may denote a hunch or conjecture, a scientific theory is a set of principles that explains an observable phenomenon in natural terms. [125] [126] "Scientific fact and theory are not categorically separable", [127] and evolution is a theory in the same sense as germ theory or the theory of gravitation. [128]
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis, [1] although scientists also use evidence in other ways, such as when applying theories to practical problems. [2] Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with the scientific method.
Marston [113] [114] has argued that, although the creationism argument (that because evolution is "merely" a theory, it therefore cannot also be a fact) reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts, the scientific countering of the creationist position by the simple stipulation that evolution is a fact may be counterproductive; a ...