That "common misconception" picture that you posted is fun, although it somewhat disqualifies the science discussion.

About a third of it about religious stuff, which shifts them far into the bullshit domain. Like, "Satan rules Hell"... who cares. Religion is about belief, not facts. If people believe that Satan rules Hell, then he does, for them. Jihad does not mean holy war, and Fatwa isn't a death sentence. Woah dude, really. You know, when some crazy Jihadist kills you with a bomb, or some other religious nutter shoots you or splashes acid over you, it's fucking holy war and fucking death sentence for you. Who cares what the literal translation of some term is? The only thing that matters with religion is what people make of it. It's about opinions and beliefs, not facts.

A couple of the facts in that sheet follow a demonstrably wrong reasoning (although the final statement is correct, the reasoning/evidence is wrong, e.g. toilet flush or boiling water, or glass being a liquid), and some are of the dangerously clever-stupid non-expert opinion type that lacks the greater image and completely misses the point. Such as eating before you swim. Nobody cares if you get cramps or not, it's irrelevant for the matter.

These misconceptions are a pet hate of mine - the theory/fact confusion is a love of Creationists of course, but a lot of people get tripped up by the theory/law meanings.

Laws don't even have to be correct - an example is Gas Laws, which describe the behaviour of an ideal gas, but not exactly how gases work in reality.

Some of this does come down to semantics - e.g., whether we labelled the facts of matter attracting as being "gravity", or whether "gravity" just means the theory and law. But I don't think that matters - people agree that matter attracts, no matter what you call it.

But compare to say evolution, where there are people who do dispute the fact that all life today has evolved from ancestors; they're not merely saying the word "evolution" only covers the theory, rather they're using the argument "it's a theory" to suggest that the fact might not be true.

@mikeman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory quotes the National Academy of Science:

"Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong."

Yes, a lot of the time "fact" means the initial observations: apples falling to the ground, etc. But "Any 2 bodies having a mass greater than zero attract each other over any distance" is also a fact. Being also a law doesn't stop it being a fact.

Does this mean we know it to be true 100%, even for "a grain of dust 4 galaxies away"? No, but that doesn't stop it being a fact, if we have overwhelming evidence for it to be true. Otherwise I could claim that "Men are mortal" isn't a fact, because you can't prove for certain that there might exist at least one person who is immortal.

On the misconceptions chart, the heat lost through the head is an interesting one too. The problem is, what does this actually mean - and what do people really believe?

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/dec/17/medicalresearch-humanbehaviour covers this is more detail. The argument they made was that if someone isn't wearing anything (or only swimming trunks), then it's not true that most heat is lost through the head, and indeed most people would agree that then seems ludicrous.

But is that what people mean? The original source of the belief was that if someone is wearing clothes, most heat is lost through the head. But I'd argue that that's what the belief still is. When people say "Wear a hat otherwise you'll lose most heat through your head", they're usually talking to someone who is clothed. Yes, technically "Wear clothes" is also good advice in the cold, but most of the time you don't need to say that...

Frankly, I don't see the point of this thread. Everyone here understands the scientific method and the difference between data, hypothesis, theory and law.

That is because you haven’t understood the point of the thread (sounds redundant, but how else could I say it?).
You seem to think that theories are only facts when you put a semantic twist to things. Like so many others, you think that saying “gravity is a fact” or “evolution is a fact” it only means, “if we consider theories as facts.”

The point of this thread is that I am tired of explaining this over and over.
Gravitational theory is a theory because gravity is a fact. There are no semantic plays happening here. Whether there is a theory or not, gravity still keeps us attached to this planet. Gravity was a fact before it ever occurred to Newton to form a postulation/theory.

Bregma was correct until he said “gravity is not a fact”. Gravity exists, which makes it implicitly factual. Saying something “factually exists” is redundant and saying something “falsely exists” is a contradiction (it is not the same as saying something exists in fiction).

L. Spiro

I hate to nitpick when you're 99% correct, but if we're being precise I think it's worth being slightly more pedantic.

Fact: Stuff falls to the ground with a measurable force, where F = ma.

We have a well accepted theory on that which (mostly) explains the how and the why, and we call it the theory of gravity. Within the theory of gravity, we call this attractive force "gravity".

Let's make up a fictional competing theory for a moment: There are angry gremlins in the center of every sufficiently massive body which use magic spells to bring "stuff" towards them, and we'll call this attractive force the "gremlin factor".

"gravity" isn't a fact any more than the "gremlin factor" is a fact. They both only have representational meaning in the context of the theories they come with. They're both explanations of an observed phenomena. You might reply and say, "well, I don't mean 'gravity' is the fact, but the thing it represents is the fact.", and that's what we're trying to get at and clear up.

Why does this matter?

In principle, we need to be careful to discern the facts from the theory so that if we have to discard the theory, we don't discard the facts with it. Or, if the facts are wrong, it may not necessarily mean that the theory is wrong (though you need to be extra careful with this). Or in same cases, both fact and theory could be completely wrong!

As a historical example, Greek astronomers used to have a model for the solar system called the "Ptolemaic model", where they observed planets moving forwards, then backwards against the backdrop of the sky in what appeared to be circular loops. Indeed, their observations actually saw planets moving back and forth in loops in the sky, and they could claim that it was a "fact" they called "epicycles". Except in truth, epicycles don't actually exist -- it's an illusion. Within the context of the ptolemaic model, they existed as observable facts which come with a really complicated explanation.

Another historical example from 1903 -- N rays

If we get too attached to our apparent facts as being correct, we run the risk of creating flawed theories and have no way of knowing they're flawed. The theory of gravity is quite well accepted in the scientific community and it explains a lot, but there are some things it doesn't do a good job of explaining: why does matter have gravity? where exactly does it come from? If another theory comes along and explains all of the things the current theory of gravity explains and more, but it requires us to shed our belief in the current "fact" of gravity as we know it (ie, it's just our modern version of epicycles), then we must be able to do so by saying that 'gravity' only has meaning as a fact within the theory of gravity. (plausible counter-theory: "gravity doesn't actually exist, matter just warps space-time and the warping of the space-time is what causes the attractive force we experience.")

Maybe this is getting too deep into the philosophy of science though. You're totally on the right track though.

A scientific theory is never considered a fact within the scientific community—it simply best-explains the observed phenomena but could later be proven false.

In my experience, many scientists are so convinced of some theories, that they consider them facts...

A scientific theory is never considered a fact within the scientific community—it simply best-explains the observed phenomena but could later be proven false.

In my experience, many scientists are so convinced of some theories, that they consider them facts...

Not helpful at all.

Of course, there are many well established theories (gravity, evolution, climate change) that have such a preponderance of evidence behind them that they may as well be "facts" (in the ordinary sense of the word).

Actually, can we just drop the word fact from this discussion altogether. It is far too ambiguous and not at all useful.

What we're really talking about is observed phenomena.

…

You are hitting on something I wanted to cover but the post was getting long and I was low on time.
Instead, I elected to touch on it while avoiding a detailed discussion by saying, “When you make an observation, the thing you are observing does exist, or the phenomena you are observing is actually happening (not delving into discussions related to trusting your senses etc.—that is for another day).”

Gravity is still a fact, but this discussion requires a caveat in order to continue saying that: We must be sure our definitions accurately describe our observations. If we fall prey to illusions we may incorrectly believe that the sun orbits Earth or that Earth is flat. Some people would say those were facts “at the time”, but that is simply nonsense—that was the belief, while the facts of the universe remained unchanged.


As you have noticed in this topic, some people seem to think gravity is not a fact because they seem to have a misguided definition of it. “Things fall” is not the definition of gravity. The definition of gravity has changed over time as well, but it is not a spawn of the theory of gravity—the theory of gravity has simply helped us reform the definition of gravity so that it more accurately describes what we observe. Even if there was an idea of gremlins pulling objects together, that was simply be a competing theory for gravity, while gravity itself is still a fact as long as it is defined simply as “bodies of mass attract each other”.

In any case, no matter what we call it or how we define it based off our observations, there is still the underlying factual phenomena that can be observed, and that is the factual part of it. It’s just important to try to get our terminology to match up as closely as possible with that actual fact as possible. When I say “gravity is a fact” I don’t even necessarily have to mean the that definition of gravity is an accurate representation of the facts, I simply mean it as intended, which is to describe the phenomena that keeps us planted on the earth and the moon orbiting us, whatever mechanism that is, be it a force, magic, gremlins, whatever. For the sake of communication, we all know that gravity exists, regardless of exactly how we try to define it.


This is just a difficult example because it is sometimes hard to differentiate between terms when the same word has so many meanings and when there is not a physical thing to observe.
But it is still exactly the same as the following example:

You come home and your window is broken and your TV is missing. Skipping a few steps of the scientific method for the sake of simplicity, let’s just get to the theory you formed: “I have been robbed.”
Fact: Window is broken, TV is missing. We call this fact “Broken Window Missing TV”.
Theory: Been robbed. We call this theory “Theory of Broken Window Missing TV”.

All theories follow basically this pattern—the fact precludes the theory, or else how could the theory even exist? You can’t have a theory about how your spouse died if your spouse is alive and well.
This example simply makes it clear, but it is the same for all theories, including gravity.
You only have to be careful of how the facts are defined—if we stated the fact as, “House Broken Into, TV Stolen”, that is too specific and relies on information we don’t have, although later evidence might cause us to refine our “Broken Window Missing TV” fact into that.
This is an example of what you were saying. The facts are facts, but in the pursuit of knowledge we might be able to provide more descriptive forms of facts etc. It doesn’t mean that the fact is “within” the theory.

In my experience, many scientists are so convinced of some theories, that they consider them facts...

#t=436


L. Spiro

Fact: Window is broken, TV is missing. We call this fact “Broken Window Missing TV”.
Theory: Been robbed. We call this theory “Theory of Broken Window Missing TV”.

No, the theory is "Theory of Having Been Robbed". You said so yourself. The theory is the explanation, not the data. Stop trying to conflate the two.

Your gravity example is a particularly bad one, in that you have everything backwards.

Yes, in modern parlance, we can refer to gravitation as the observed phenomena of objects attracting each other. But Newton didn't set out to explain "gravity", he set out to explain "why things fall down". The word gravity didn't even really exist and certainly wasn't used to describe objects attracting each other or things falling down or any other observed phenomena.

The fact that we now use the term gravitation is because the theory fit so well.

It might be helpful to consider the reverse position, a discredited theory.

In the 19th century, it was thought that there was a medium for the propagation of light, called the Theory of Luminiferous Aether. This has now been thoroughly discredited and we have a better explanation. We still discuss the propagation of light (observed phenomena), but no-one refers to the aether (theory) anymore.

You come home and your window is broken and your TV is missing. Skipping a few steps of the scientific method for the sake of simplicity, let’s just get to the theory you formed: “I have been robbed.” Fact: Window is broken, TV is missing. We call this fact “Broken Window Missing TV”.
Theory: Been robbed. We call this theory “Theory of Broken Window Missing TV”.

The difference is that you don't really know anything about gravity (or other physics stuff). Note that when I say "you", I don't mean you in person, but in general. It is possible (not likely, but very possible) that "bodies of mass attract each other" is simply wrong. It could be confounding. Maybe objects that contain some kind of subatomar particle that you don't know attract each other, and incidentially all objects that are close enough for us to see contain those particles. Of course all those objects have mass, so you see it as a fact that "mass implies gravity". But that isn't necessarily so.

In your "TV gone" analogy, this means that the "fact" could just as well be that your TV has gone invisible and you think it's gone, and the window is broken because a bird flew against it. Or your little sister who has a key to your apartment borrowed the TV (but she will bring it back, so it is not "gone", nor is your postulation of having been robbed correct) for her girl's video night, and the window shattered due to thermal tensions (like... sun shining on a hot day). You might have a tumor that prevents your brain from realizing that the TV is still there although your eyes can clearly see it.

No, the theory is "Theory of Having Been Robbed". You said so yourself. The theory is the explanation, not the data. Stop trying to conflate the two.

Actually samoth just made my point for me, and it is you who are being Butterfingers with terms.
The theory is, “Theory of Broken Window Missing TV,” and it states, “the window is broken and the TV is gone because someone broke into my house and stole my TV.”

You are mixing names of theories with their descriptions. By your logic, it shouldn’t be named the gravitational theory (or the theory of gravity) but instead, “the theory of 2 bodies of mass attracting”. This is nonsensical. The theory is named after the fact/phenomena, not the theory’s explanation.

Why?

Because of exactly what samoth said.

Maybe you weren’t robbed.

Maybe your theory is wrong. Maybe your TV has been borrowed.

Gravitational theory has been revised numerous times, but it always keeps its name.

This should make it clear to you that your proposal to call it “Theory of Having Been Robbed” is an error, and it is you who are conflating terms.

“Theory of Broken Window Missing TV” is exactly like gravitational theory: The name is based off the observation, and the explanation put forth by the theory is subject to change as new information is gathered over time.

L. Spiro