| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oddly enough, one of the most important aspects of science is also one
of those most frequently misunderstood. That, of course, is the concept
of a "theory."
The problem is that this is one of those words which has two meanings. There's the common meaning, which is much like what a scientist would call a "hypothesis." Then there's the scientific meaning, which is much, much more. In order to get to the difference, we need to look a little bit at just what it means to "know" something.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Knowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
We learn our universe by experience; pretty much all of our useful
knowledge is experiential. As we bump around, encountering things in
our world, our brains collect enormous numbers of bits of
information--"facts," we call these. They're just little, repeatable
observations.
As our library of fact information increases, our brains do something which is apparently deeply innate to us: they form patterns. The patterns that our minds create out of those bits of information are what we "know" about the universe. Usually these patterns are pretty good reflections of reality; sometimes they can be spectacularly wrong.
Thus, if I asked you what you knew about ice, you'd have no hesitation
telling me that ice is cold. How do you know this? You've had a lot of
experience with ice in your lifetime. And every piece of ice you've
ever touched has been cold. So your brain draws the conclusion--whether
it's merited or not--that all ice is cold.
In fact, under the right conditions, water will freeze at room temperature, so while your knowledge about ice is very useful to you, it isn't actually completely correct.
This bit of knowledge--that ice is cold--is what we call a posit. A
posit is a generalization drawn from observations. Note that, like the
ice example above, it is impossible to know for sure that any posit is
absolutely correct. However, it's something for which we have so much
evidence that it is safe and useful to treat it as if it is correct.
You are not liable to get into any difficulties in your life if you
assume that every bit of ice you encounter is cold.
Virtually all of the information we have about our universe consists of posits. The ones we gather by our normal bumbling about we lump together and call "common sense." But scientists go about gathering their posits in a much more stringent and organized fashion than this. And they are often seeking experience in areas that we don't normally encounter in the every day world, using highly specialized ways to analyze what they encounter. This is why so much scientific knowledge is so counter-intuitive (meaning that it doesn't match our common sense expectations of the universe). We don't normally have all the evidence.
Here's an example. If you've got anything in your hands, put it down
for a moment. Now use one hand to grasp and feel the other. Does it
make any sense to you that your hand--that solid, substantial
object--is actually made overwhelmingly of empty space? And yet, every
method physicists and chemists have devised for looking at matter says
that it is. Surprise ;^)
So our knowledge of the universe is experiential--a huge collection of posits we've made based on the things we've encountered in our lives. And scientists are in the business of formulating much more systematic posits, based on kinds of experience we normally don't encounter.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Posits of Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Scientific knowledge is composed of two kinds of posits: laws and
theories. Yes, scientific laws are posits, which means that we are not
certain that they are true.
So what's the difference between a "law" kind of posit and a "theory" kind of posit? Contrary to the words of many, good theories don't grow up to be laws. They are quite different in nature and purpose.
Scientific laws are descriptions of the ways that matter and energy
behave. Laws are often expressed best mathematically, since they
represent observed patterns of behavior. For example, in the early days
of modern chemistry, scientists observed the ways in which different
elements combined with each other. They had no notions about how atoms
interacted--in fact, they didn't even have the notion of atoms yet. But
they were able to observe some very consistent behaviors. For
instance, hydrogen and nitrogen will combine together to form ammonia.
But there's nothing particularly random about it--it always uses up
three times as much hydrogen as nitrogen. Three parts H to one part N.
And when hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water, it always takes
twice as much hydrogen as oxygen. Two parts H to one part O. And carbon
and hydrogen combine in the ratio of four parts H to one part C. Oxygen
combines with carbon in the ratio of 2 parts O to one part C. Over the
years, many, many of these relationships were discovered, recorded and
shared. These became the Laws of Chemical Proportion. None of these
budding chemists had any idea why these elements combined in these
proportions; their law simply described how the elements behaved.
It wasn't until this century that the reason for this behavior began to emerge--with the formation of our modern Theory of Atomic Structure. What we now believe we understand about the way atoms are built--a theory--accounts for all of those ratios of combination--a law.
And that's what a theory is--an explanation. Laws describe; theories
explain. And it's the explanatory power of a theory that makes it
powerful and important.
Ideas which a scientist honors with the title of theory share a number of features:
. They explain a lot of observations.
. They are supported by a great deal of evidence.
. They are very broad, encompassing and explaining a lot of hypotheses.
. Despite many, many challenges, they have never been demonstrated to be untrue.
Theories are very important ideas--arguably more important than laws. Laws are rather like tools; theories are the working concepts of science.
.
I'm guessing more in line with "Positivism".
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
Positivism is a philosophy of science based on the view that in the
social as well as natural sciences information derived from sensory
experience, and logical and mathematical treatments of such data, are
together the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge.
Positivism assumes that there is valid knowledge (truth) only in
scientific knowledge. Obtaining and verifying data that can be
received from the senses is known as empirical evidence. This view
holds that society operates according to general laws like the physical
world. Introspective and intuitional attempts to gain knowledge are
rejected. Though the positivist approach has been a recurrent theme in
the history of Western thought, the concept was developed in the
modern sense in the early 19th century by the philosopher and founding
sociologist, Auguste Comte. Comte argued that society operates
according to its own quasi-absolute laws, much as the physical world
operates according to gravity and other absolute laws of nature.
I have a pad of Posit notes on my desk, they do not seem very special.
correct.
.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.
I wonder if Bigfoot is a posit?
.
Also great for getting out 'posits of hooker blood in your car trunk!
I wonder if Bigfoot is a posit?
If you accelerate Bigfoot to near the speed of C, and he hits a halfling head on traveling at the same speed, what previously undiscovered cryptid quarks would we observe?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know, but I posit that I better drink my own pee.
I wonder if Bigfoot is a posit?If you accelerate Bigfoot to near the speed of C, and he hits a halfling head on traveling at the same speed, what previously undiscovered cryptid quarks would we observe?
In addition to the regular quarks (up, down, top, bottom, strange, and charm), I hypothesize that we'll see the theoretical hairy and filthy quarks.
In addition to the regular quarks (up, down, top, bottom, strange, and charm), I hypothesize that we'll see the theoretical hairy and filthy quarks.I wonder if Bigfoot is a posit?If you accelerate Bigfoot to near the speed of C, and he hits a halfling head on traveling at the same speed, what previously undiscovered cryptid quarks would we observe?
.
Is that a posit?
.
I posit that the silliness level of this thread will be directly proportional to the number of posts, despite--or in fact because of--any serious attempts to continue the conversation.
I posit that the silliness level of this thread will be directly proportional to the number of posts, despite--or in fact because of--any serious attempts to continue the conversation.
.
Um... yay. dude, that is not a posit.
.
I posit that the silliness level of this thread will be directly proportional to the number of posts, despite--or in fact because of--any serious attempts to continue the conversation..
Um... yay. dude, that is not a posit.
.
Um...yay. Dude, I used the word in its correct verb form. Get off my back.
posit— verb
1. to assume or put forward as fact or the factual basis for an argument; postulate
One might think that, but I couldn't possibly comment...
I posit that the silliness level of this thread will be directly proportional to the number of posts, despite--or in fact because of--any serious attempts to continue the conversation..
Um... yay. dude, that is not a posit.
.
Um...yay. Dude, I used the word in its correct verb form. Get off my back.
posit— verb
1. to assume or put forward as fact or the factual basis for an argument; postulate
.
I was testing you. You get a point.
.
*makes a 'posit in his diaper*