Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
....The other poster is correct. Gravity is not a fact; it is a theory to explain the set of facts which you presented. Newtonian gravity is a force. Then along comes General Relativity and gravity is no longer a force but a property of space. But our theories of gravity don't work at large scales. So we've invented Dark Matter and Dark Energy as additional theories to explain holes in gravity. And none of this gets into the more diverse theories of MOND or Arp.
So what does this have to do with this thread? It's a perfect example of a theory presented as fact when there are multiple competing theories and holes in it. That's where science works, finding and filling in those gaps. Newtonian Gravity works for most of our everyday needs. General Relativity fills in most of the rest. But neither can be presented as a fact, they are theories.
Overall, a very good post, tnff. Just a couple of minor clarifications or additions....
"Gravity is not a fact." I think it's just the wording that makes this problematic. As you say, the theory of gravity is not a fact. But I think one could say that the effect of gravity is indeed a fact. I don't think anyone is willing to jump off a tall building to try to falsify this fact.
But really, I think facts are things that are observed. Or more precisely, things that are observed and can be repeatedly observed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff
In much of science there are many conflicting views on how to interpret a set of facts.
I would qualify this claim to "in much of cutting edge science..." Much of science is very well supported by observational evidence. That's not to say it's all cast in stone, but there's very little chance that the prevailing theory is way off the mark (the Earth orbits the Sun, for example).
Regarding Dark Matter, I would be careful with the claim "our theories of gravity don't work at large scales." Of course it's true that our theories of gravity don't appear to work at large scales. We simply cannot detect enough mass (in a galaxy, for example) to account for the observed motions of the orbiting stars in the galaxy. They're orbiting too fast!
I wouldn't say dark matter was therefore "invented." It was hypothesized. If there was such dark matter that was non-luminous and did not interact with normal, baryonic matter, that could explain the situation, and our existing theory of gravity would continue to be working at large scales. Of course, hypothesizing a non-interacting, invisible phenomenon is always going to be problematic! But there has come to be some evidence supporting the existence of dark matter, beyond its obvious gravitational effect on matter that we can see. (See harvard.edu paper re The Bullet Cluster. [pdf])
Clearly, some theories are much more solidly supported by direct evidence than others. I first refer to one of the best science writers in our generation who speaks about "theory," then I refer to an excellent quote from Carl Sagan:
"Making a model of the universe is like trying to pitch a tent on a moonless night in a howling Arctic wind. The tent is theory. The wind is experiment. When one gets to the precipice, where the secure lands of the known have been left behind and the dark canyons of the unknown fill one's field of view, it becomes very difficult to guess just where to set the tent pegs and to predict which ones will hold once the wind comes up." -- Timothy Ferris
"Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened -- the Big Bang, the event that began our universe. Why it happened is the greatest mystery we know. That it happened is reasonably clear." - Carl Sagan
The problem isn't "facts." The problem is far too often people present conclusions as if they were "facts."
When it comes to science, theories are used to explain facts. There can be many different theories that match a given set of facts. Through experiment and additional facts, these theories can be narrowed down to a best theory. But every theory is open to revision or being discarded should a better theory come along.
In today's world we often have theories presented as facts in order to support one political agenda or another.
It's not just a choice of truth or lies. In much of science there are many conflicting views on how to interpret a set of facts. Disagreement, incomplete information, and error aren't the same as lies. Unfortunately the public and media pick up on one and present it that theory or even opinion, as "fact" and all others as lies and distortions.
Again, not that simple with real science and real facts. For example:
The other poster is correct. Gravity is not a fact; it is a theory to explain the set of facts which you presented. Newtonian gravity is a force. Then along comes General Relativity and gravity is no longer a force but a property of space. But our theories of gravity don't work at large scales. So we've invented Dark Matter and Dark Energy as additional theories to explain holes in gravity. And none of this gets into the more diverse theories of MOND or Arp.
So what does this have to do with this thread? It's a perfect example of a theory presented as fact when there are multiple competing theories and holes in it. That's where science works, finding and filling in those gaps. Newtonian Gravity works for most of our everyday needs. General Relativity fills in most of the rest. But neither can be presented as a fact, they are theories.
Thanks for clarifying. What I find perplexing is when people say "follow the science." If a scientific research study is funded by a pharmaceutical company will the study design be biased to get the desired outcome?
Perhaps this is lying by omission -- I don't know. I bring this up as the Video give the example of a vaccine. Many people distrust scientific studies that are funded by pharmaceutical companies. I have had personal experience with stent meshes that are later recalled due to blood clots. (Not sure if all medical devices are FDA approved.) According to Judith Perisichelli, New Jersey Health Commissioner: (transcript)
Judith Perisichelli: We surveyed 2,000 health care individuals, physicians and nurses and we know that over 60% of the physicians said that they would get the vaccine. We know that about 40% of the nurses said that they would line up to get the vaccine.
David Martin: That sounds awfully low.
Judith Perisichelli: Nurses I guess are skeptical.
David Martin: What does that say about your general population?
Judith Perisichelli: There is a lot of vaccine hesitancy.
So, you are saying these scientific studies presented as facts are just theories or opinions. So how does one know what to believe? How do we convince people to get a vaccine, for example?
Last edited by Maddie104; 11-14-2020 at 12:34 PM..
When it comes to science, theories are used to explain facts. There can be many different theories that match a given set of facts. Through experiment and additional facts, these theories can be narrowed down to a best theory. But every theory is open to revision or being discarded should a better theory come along.
The other poster is correct. Gravity is not a fact; it is a theory to explain the set of facts which you presented. Newtonian gravity is a force. Then along comes General Relativity and gravity is no longer a force but a property of space. But our theories of gravity don't work at large scales. So we've invented Dark Matter and Dark Energy as additional theories to explain holes in gravity. And none of this gets into the more diverse theories of MOND or Arp.
So what does this have to do with this thread? It's a perfect example of a theory presented as fact when there are multiple competing theories and holes in it. That's where science works, finding and filling in those gaps. Newtonian Gravity works for most of our everyday needs. General Relativity fills in most of the rest. But neither can be presented as a fact, they are theories.
Well said.
With respect to the topic at hand, and with the above in mind, I'd say the problem is this:
Hmmm, how do I say it, using your gravity example.
Some people too often think that something they're discussing is in the realm of modified dynamics when 99.9999999% of the time it's just good old Newtonian. The fact that scientists on the cutting edge have found some deviations from Newtonian does not suddenly lend credence to every crackpot looking to legitimize their position.
...
I would qualify this claim to "in much of cutting edge science..." Much of science is very well supported by observational evidence. That's not to say it's all cast in stone, but there's very little chance that the prevailing theory is way off the mark (the Earth orbits the Sun, for example).
Regarding Dark Matter, I would be careful with the claim "our theories of gravity don't work at large scales." Of course it's true that our theories of gravity don't appear to work at large scales. We simply cannot detect enough mass (in a galaxy, for example) to account for the observed motions of the orbiting stars in the galaxy. They're orbiting too fast!
I wouldn't say dark matter was therefore "invented." It was hypothesized. If there was such dark matter that was non-luminous and did not interact with normal, baryonic matter, that could explain the situation, and our existing theory of gravity would continue to be working at large scales. Of course, hypothesizing a non-interacting, invisible phenomenon is always going to be problematic! But there has come to be some evidence supporting the existence of dark matter, beyond its obvious gravitational effect on matter that we can see. (See harvard.edu paper re The Bullet Cluster. [pdf])
Clearly, some theories are much more solidly supported by direct evidence than others. I first refer to one of the best science writers in our generation who speaks about "theory," then I refer to an excellent quote from Carl Sagan:
...
Thank you. I like the way you stated that. Much clearer than I did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maddie104
Thanks for clarifying. What I find perplexing is when people say "follow the science." If a scientific research study is funded by a pharmaceutical company will the study design be biased to get the desired outcome?
Perhaps this is lying by omission -- I don't know. I bring this up as the Video give the example of a vaccine. Many people distrust scientific studies that are funded by pharmaceutical companies. I have had personal experience with stent meshes that are later recalled due to blood clots. (Not sure if all medical devices are FDA approved.) Moving on to climate change where we have strong political divides.
So, you are saying these scientific studies presented as facts are just theories or opinions. So how does one know what to believe?
In general people don't intentional try to bias a study to get a desired answer. I'm not saying it doesn't happen because it does. On all side of an issue. Those who are anti-something also have an ulterior motive if that's what's driving your decision. But in general ethical science tries to remove bias from a study. One problem with medical recalls is new information is learned that changes the initial result. No study is perfect; there will always be some percentage of unknown.
There is a difference between theory and opinion. In it's simplest form, theory is a rational explanation that explains a series of facts and makes predictions about unknown fact. A theory is falsifiable -- that is a theory holds so long as it's predications hold. If it fails, we find another theory. An opinion may be based on facts, but often includes beliefs and conclusions masquerading as facts. An opinion isn't falsifiable. If the facts don't fit an opinion, we change, ignore, or find new facts to justify the opinion already held.
Even if accurate, you can't assume that the listed facts are an exhaustive source of information about the topic. A common approach in the US media is to exclude facts that contradict or mitigate the claim made in the headline. The whole story can fall apart depending on the information that was left out.
Truth and facts aren't always compatible.
It is true, that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
It is a fact that the earth rotates so that the sun appears to rise in the east and set in the west.
. . .
One assumes that the sun is moving.
The other assumes that the earth is moving.
. . .
the common approach of the media is to saturate people with words and images so they are caught in a net of confusion which influences their behavior...thats it
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels
So, you are saying these scientific studies presented as facts are just theories or opinions.
Scientific studies are not "presented as facts." They report on an investigation. They report what was observed. They may then say that their observations support the prevailing theory, or not. With pharmaceutical trials, the reporting is typically statistical -- the results of a sample are observed, and depending on the sample size and variation, a certain percentage should be provided indicating how certain the investigators are about whatever claim they're making.
At the end of any scientific study or publication, any agency who provided funding for the study should be listed.
News reports of scientific studies are notoriously misleading and sensationalistic.
Also, humans like stories. We favor a good narrative that evokes emotions and conveys meaning over cold hard figures and data.
This is key. While I think there are some people who are very detail oriented and live by the facts, most people are much more heavily guided by their emotions and feelings. To those people, it's easier to deny the facts or believe alternative facts than it is to admit and accept an uncomfortable truth.
Truth and facts aren't always compatible.
It is true, that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
It is a fact that the earth rotates so that the sun appears to rise in the east and set in the west.
. . .
One assumes that the sun is moving.
The other assumes that the earth is moving.
. . .
Actually, both are true.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
