Is a Theory Scientific? There is often a heated debate on whether or not a theory is scientific. This debate brings to light a problem named the demarcation problem. This problem simply asks how one distinguishes between science and non-science. This is a very important question especially in examining separation of church and state. The demarcation problem is apparent when schools are unsure as to whether or not they should teach creationism as a possible scientific theory. Schools are to teach science, but how does one tell the difference between a scientific theory and a theological one. In order to find a solution to the demarcation problem one might look towards falsificationism. Falsificationism states that a theory is scientific if and only if it is falsifiable or verifiable. In other words if a theory, T, is testable, then it is scientific. With falsificationism, guidelines are used to decipher between testable and not testable therefore scientific and non-scientific respectively. So by using falsificationism consistently one should be able to solve the demarcation problem. But within falsificationism, some contradictions have arisen and from these, three versions of falsificationism have been formulated. Version one is as follows: A theory T is scientific if and only if it is possible to deduce from T at least one prediction about the results of observation. This theory states that a theory, in order to be scientific, needs no additional premises or auxiliary hypotheses in order to be tested. In order to show the error in this version, one needs to examine Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian mechanics are a number of theories that deal with the motion of objects when acted on by additional forces. If one were to use the premise set forth in version one when determining whether or not Newtonian mechanics is scientific, then those theories would result in being classified as non-scientific. This, however, is clearly not the case for Newtonian mechanics are the basis for much scientific work. The reason for these theories being misclassified, is that in order for Newtonian mechanics to be considered testable, one needs to include additional premises on the forces that have acted on the object and cause its motion. Because auxiliary hypotheses are needed, Newtonian mechanics is misclassified as non-scientific according to version one. The second version states that a theory T is scientific if and only if it is possible to deduce from T with auxiliary hypotheses, at least one prediction about the results of observation.
One of a few problems that hypothetico-deductivists would find in Chalmers statement is contained in the phrase, “Scientific theories in some rigorous way from the facts of experience acquired by the observation and experiment.’’ Theories are never produced strictly, Popper would say, but firstly crafted through the thought and feeling of a scientist in their given field. This then discards the idea that theories are the result of facts and it then forwards the idea that a theory will be manipulated by individual people as they are no more than a personal concept with reason. Furthermore if theories were derived meticulously from the facts the implication would then be made that the theory is virtually perfect. Yet these theories that are disproven all the time through falsifying this then demonstrates that these theories are not just part of a scientists thoughts but also that falsification is a more precise form of proof and justification than that of induction.
In conclusion, it is possible for science and religion to overlap. Although Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial claims that creationism doesn’t conflict with evolution, it doesn’t hold with a religion that takes the biblical stories literally. Moreover, I defended my thesis, there is some overlap between science and religion and these overlaps cause conflict that make it necessary to reject either science or religion, by using Dawkins’ and Plantinga’s arguments. I said earlier that I agree with Dawkins that both science and religion provide explanation, consolation, and uplift to society. However, there is only conflict when science and religion attempt to explain human existence. Lastly, I use Plantinga’s argument for exclusivists to show that such conflict means that science and religion are not compatible. It demands a rejection t either science or religion.
In science, a theory will refer to an explanation of an important feature of the world supported by testing and facts that have been gathered over time. It’s there scientific theories that allow scientists to make predictions about untested and unobserved concurrences in the world. The American Association for the Advancement of Science has this explanation of what a theory means to those in the science field, and it is as follows, “A scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts......Such fact supported theories are not guesses but reliable accounts of the real
First, when observations are made, hypothesises are formed. To test these hypothesises scientists conduct experiments. If their hypothesis is right, it is confirmed by further experiments and validated by other scientists. After many experiments and confirmations, a theory is formed. A scientific theory is a broad and general idea or explanation provided by scientists and is related to observations and is supported by a large amount of evidence. A theory is not a fact however it is just a possible explanation. An example of a theory is the Big Bang Theory.
In recent years, the political and religious movement that sought to integrate theories competing with the theory of evolution into the curriculum of various schools in the US. The theory that was offered was the theory of “intelligent design”, which even though not explicitly religious, makes for a theory much more compatible with religion than evolution. The danger of this move was that it was trying to dismiss a legitimate scientific theory as just one among the existing theories – an equal rival in pursuit of true explanation. However, what the advocates of this measure were actually doing is to equate scientific theory with a vastly inferior narrative about the world. It was, therefore, necessary for an author like Coyne (2009) to write a book titled Why Is Evolution True? To show what exactly is meant by the term of a scientific theory and when we can say that something is actually true. The theory of evolution is precisely that kind of theory because it has been confirmed in every situation in which its predictions were tested and the evidence for it lies in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, embryology, molecular biology and biogeography.
... 1959; Nagel, 1971). Some are able to bear the burden of absurdity. Others still feel “that nostalgia for unity, that appetite for the absolute illustrates the essential impulse of the human drama” (Camus, 1955). If scientific discovery can be used as a barometer for the zeitgeist of any particular moment, then the struggle between science and creationism is an indicator of a shifting paradigm. Science is alienating those who need a greater purpose and meaning in life. The threat is a personal one. To teach creationism is not only an infringement on religious freedom, it is also the promotion of intolerance and an advocacy for being afraid of existence. Religion is always there for those who need it. Science is there for those dedicated to truth and knowledge and are comfortable with facing the painful, anxiety-producing endeavor of exploring the unknown.
The clash of creationism and evolution has begun once again. On one side sits the Christians and believers of the Holy Bible as a literal piece of history; on the other side sits scientists who dismantle any belief in any sort of God. The...
A scientific theory is an explanation that is well- substantiated explanation in regards to some aspect of the natural world that is attained through scientific method and is tested numerous times and usually confirmed through vigorous observation and experimentation. The term theory can be seen as a collection of laws which allow you to show some kind of phenomenon. The strength of a scientific theory associated with the diversity of phenomena can explain its elegance and simplicity. However when new evidence is gathered a scientific theory can be changed or even rejected if it does not fit the new findings, in such cases a more accurate theory is formed. Scientific theories are used to gain further
Theory X and Theory Y, developed by Douglas McGregor, grew out of opposition towards classical management methods. Classical management theorists, such as Fredrick Taylor, focused on scientific training and efficiency and did not account for personal and behavioral issues, such as management styles or job satisfaction. McGregor saw these deficiencies in the classical school of management which lead him to develop a theory of management that would factor the importance of the individual worker. If a manager could tap into the feelings and attitudes of their workers, then the manager would be able increase their employee’s motivation which would then increase production. McGregor’s theory viewed the employee as a person and not as a machine as classical theorists did, and because the employee will receive more personal attention, he/she will become more satisfied with his/her own work, and according to McGregor, production would then be increased (Barnett).
Theories are unproven hypotheses that serve as explanations for observations and events, so they must have a way of convincing people that they are true. A theory’s objectives are to explain and predict a phenomenon. Most ideas are not convincing without solid evidence or proof. The human sciences and natural sciences have different ways of showing the validity of a hypothesis. The natural sciences, which include subject areas such as physics, chemistry, and biology, depend on physical proof through experiments with several trials. The human sciences, which include subject areas such as sociology, economics, anthropology, and psychology, are based on human interaction, logic, and the collection of data.
Faith has several strengths and weaknesses when used as a basis for knowledge in religion and the natural sciences. In order to fully analyze these strengths and weaknesses and determine which of the two is more prevalent, faith, religion, and the natural sciences should be distinguished from one another. In The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary faith is defined as the “belief and trust in God” or “allegiance to duty or a person” (270), religion as “an organized system of faith and worship” (617), and science as “knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method” (650). Faith may be considered a strong basis for knowledge in religion as religion is usually built around the concept of faith. However, faith may be a weak basis for knowledge in religion as certain teachings in a religion may not have a direct link to the concept of faith. Similarly, in the natural sciences, faith may also be seen as a strong basis for knowledge as a scientist has faith in the hypothesis he may be testing. Likewise, faith may be perceived as a weak basis for knowledge in the natural sciences as faith and the natural sciences tend to offer incongruous solutions to the same problem.
Many atheists have used science as a way to disapprove the existence of God. Science is not an accurate way of disapproving the existence of God(2). Scient...
When considering the basis for the understanding of both science and religion it is interesting to distinguish that both are based on an overwhelming desire to define a greater knowledge, and comprehension of the universe that surrounds us. Now while, science has based its knowledge of experimental basis, researcher, and scholarly work; religion
The exact definition of theory is a system of ideas intended to explain something. When focusing on Natural sciences, theory is defined as a set of principles that predict and explain a phenomena. When focusing on Human sciences the key words are to study and interpret social phenomena within a thought. The most important key words that one has to keep in mind are interpret, predict and explain. Acknowledging this, theories come in different category’s such as: Descriptive theories, theories predicting a phenomena and theories that explain a phenomena.
In science, a theory is a tested and testable idea which is used to provide an explanation for an occurrence (Scientific Laws and Theories). Very similarly, a law can be defined as a set of observations that are expressed in an abridged statement (Scientific). An example of a law in nat...