Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory seeks to explain "why" or "how", whereas a fact is a simple, basic observation and a law is an empirical description of a relationship between facts and/or other laws.
Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data , not known with absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold ...
In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts. [20] Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation.
Science distinguishes a law or theory from facts. [4] Calling a law a fact is ambiguous , an overstatement , or an equivocation . [ 5 ] The nature of scientific laws has been much discussed in philosophy , but in essence scientific laws are simply empirical conclusions reached by scientific method; they are intended to be neither laden with ...
Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis, [1] although scientists also use evidence in other ways, such as when applying theories to practical problems. [2] Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with the scientific method.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
Scientific theory. A theory is a well-substantiated and comprehensive explanation of the reasons an observed fact takes place that way and not in another way. They may be used to make predictions, but they are not predictions themselves. It is quite a big deal for something to be accepted as a scientific theory.
The problem of underdetermination concerns the fact that the available evidence often provides equal support to either theory and therefore cannot arbitrate between them. [12] [13] Theory-ladenness refers to the idea that evidence already includes theoretical assumptions. These assumptions can hinder it from acting as neutral arbiter.