01Theory

Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

A theory is neither
fact nor knowledge

If the purpose of science is to elucidate the true nature of facts, it would appear that

once we produce

authentic evidence we are done with our quest. For instance, if

the prosecutors take the jurors outside

space-time and point to our universe from

afar, aren’t we through with our inquiry into the large-scale

structure of the

Universe? What more is there to convince us in regards to this issue? Or take the

case

where

John’s friends can’t find him for several days and begin to suspect that

something has gone

amiss.

One

rescuer theorizes that the reason they don’t see

him is that John must be dead. The next

day they

find

John’s

body at the bottom of

the cliff. Aren’t they finished with their inquiry? Hasn’t

irrefutable

evidence

confirmed

the theory?

We could therefore define authentic science restrictively as ‘the set of facts of

nature

that are

handed

down from one generation to the next’. Anything else is still

a tentative theory.

On the other hand, if the word

science

is a synonym of the verb ‘to know’

(Latin:

scire

: to know)

, then facts

seem to be

divorced

from science altogether. Knowledge inexorably invokes a

living being whereas facts

are

true

irrespective

of observers and opinions. We have

a paradox

because

I just finished arguing that a

hypothesis

(exhibits, facts,

evidence, and

assumptions) are an integral part of science, but that they are or

should

be ideally

observer-

free.

Does science have to do with facts or with knowledge? Are facts the same

knowledge?

Let’s see if a few examples can take

out of the impasse. A general

static

timeless fact is that lions

and

wildebeest exist. This conclusion is neither a result of

experiment nor of observation. It follows

strictly from

the names we assign these

animals and from the definition of the word

exist

A specific

static

fact

is that a

rock now sits somewhere on the Serengeti plains irrespective of our

knowledge. A general

dynamic

fact is

that lions eat wildebeest. In scientific

dissertations, the proponent

justifies such facts as

an introduction to

his

theory by

either presenting evidence or by pronouncing a

statement of the facts

The

prosecutor may be

physically located in the Serengeti Plains, or he may

show a

video of a lion eating

a wildebeest, or he makes

statement such as ‘Let us assume

that lions

eat wildebeest.’ The prosecutor

is not going to prove that lions

eat

wildebeest. A statement of the facts

is an introduction, a preamble

necessary to

explain the theory. The

dissertation is perhaps about why

the population of

wildebeest is

declining, or why lions and wildebeest

share diseases, or why lions

have wildebeest on their menus.

These theories implicitly embody the

hypothesis

‘lions eat wildebeest’,

and the hypothesis ‘lions eat

wildebeest’ absolutely invokes

the objects

lion

and wildebeest and the

definition of the verb

to eat

. The

esenter of a theory

either explicitly or implicitly

covers these intermediate steps.

The prosecutor may

also entertain a specific dynamic fact involving a lion

named X and a wildebeest

named Y. For instance,

he may show a movie where lion X captures and eats

wildebeest Y. The

prosecutors are not going to

prove to their colleagues that X ate

Y. The prosecutors are

presenting a

statement of the facts. They are

stating that X

ate Y as a preamble to a theory such as why Y

could not

have been the mother of

calf Z. In

effect, the prosecutors are asking the jury to take as a given the

statement:

“Let us assume that lion X ate

wildebeest Y.” If the prosecutors stop at discovery

(the

evidentiary

stage), this alone would not qualify as

a scientific theory. So far all

they have is a statement

of the facts. If the

prosecutors stop at this

assumptions

stage, the jury has no idea what the prosecutors

were about to

explain

or what their

argument is. Clearly, facts alone or theories without assumptions are

insufficient to

do science.

These arguments

show

that both hypotheses and theories are necessary

ingredients of the scientific

method.

The purpose of a hypothesis is to furnish the

opening scenes. The exhibits together with the

alleged facts

comprise the

assumptions. Rigorous definitions of crucial terms convey crisp meanings to

juror. The

purpose of a theory is to persuade a jury that we are on the verge of

discovering a new fact.

Theory is

speculation about some of the missing frames of

the Universal Movie

(

Fig. 1

)

. The missing

frames of theory

are not the same as

the missing frames of the assumptions. We infer theory from

assumptions. We

accept

the

assumptions at face value in order to make sense of the

explanation that

follows

. That

‘John

is probably

dead’

is not and cannot be a theory. It is an assumption: “Let us

assume

that John is dead.”

John is or isn’t

dead

irrespective of our beliefs.

The members of the establishment

fall

back on

unscientific language when

they

convert

hypotheses into theories.

Gentlemen! It is no longer a theory. It is now
a fact. The reason our neighbor didn't open
the door is that she was dead.

Fig. 1 Hypothesis (B) versus Theory (C)

Theory does not include objective evidence. Theory and assumptions are both speculative. However,

theory

differs from assumptions in that the latter is taken at face value for purposes of understanding

the

theory. The jury is supposed to take the assumptions for granted and is urged to

understand the theory

(i.e., the prosecutor’s version of events). The assumptions are not in

contention. The

hypothesis

there

solely for the purposes of introducing and understanding the theory. This

doesn’t prevent the juror from

challenging them as a faithful reflection of the ‘objective’ events afterwards, for example, if the assumptions

violate logic.

theory

: The prosecutor’s

explanation

of how or why events happened; a particular

film

clip of the universal movie inferred from assumptions and reasoning;

the

second

step of the scientific method. (

yn.: explanation,

mechanism,

reason

[Philosophy]

cause,

conjecture

speculation

scientific theory

also

may not include testimony. Anecdotes are part of the

assumptions too. Otherwise,

the

prosecutor is testifying in an effort to put the

weight of authority behind his argument. He is

attempting

persuade the jury

through preponderance of the ‘evidence’ (i.e., testimony). This is

politics, not

science.

The

role of a prosecutor is to explain, not to testify.

In closing, let's also briefly clarify the role of Math in Science. T

he establishment believe

that numbers,

statistics, and equations can be used to prove a theory:

" So natural selection will frequently maximize vigor in youth at the expense of vigor

later on and thereby produce a declining vigor (aging) during adult life. These

initially verbal arguments of George Williams were later proved mathematically by

Brian Charlesworth."

[

]

Actually, an equation cannot be used to prove. The purpose of an equation is to describe. Mathematics is

strictly a science of behavior. Equations, statistics, and functions tell us about relations or about how

something moves.

Statistics and equations add

weight to a

conclusion

, meaning that they can be used to

persuade the jurors to believe

that

the

explanation just given is correct.

There

is only one way to 'prove' a

physical phenomenon and that is to make a prediction and

carry out an

experiment. If you cannot do this

with your theory,

this

does not render it unscientific. It just

takes it outside the realm of Physics. Science

merely requires a rational explanation for an event that occurred in the

past.

It is not a requirement of

Science

that theories be testable.

Experiments are features of

particular fields within science.

History,

Psychology,

and Paleontology are as much a part of

cience as

Physics.

A. Fact: A movie of everything that occurred: the entire Cosmic Movie.

B. Statement of the Facts (prosecutor); Assumptions (juror): Objective evidence (clear frames) and
subjective testimony (filled frames).

C. Theory: Film clip of some of the missing parts of the Cosmic Movie. Prosecutorial inferences
founded on evidence and testimony (statement of the facts). This movie is an abbreviated version
of select film clips of the facts. The prosecutor is proposing that this is what may have happened (or
why) because it follows from the assumptions and evidence. The prosecutor is filling in the blanks.

odule main page

A r

lativist

thinks that

a theory

becomes

a fact

when he votes for it

Pages i

n this module:

This page:

What is a t