{"id":6164,"date":"2020-07-15T11:49:36","date_gmt":"2020-07-15T10:49:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.innovationnewsnetwork.com\/?p=6164"},"modified":"2020-12-10T08:17:25","modified_gmt":"2020-12-10T08:17:25","slug":"scientific-theories-and-the-power-of-enquiry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.innovationnewsnetwork.com\/scientific-theories-and-the-power-of-enquiry\/6164\/","title":{"rendered":"Scientific theories and the power of enquiry"},"content":{"rendered":"
Science \u2013 as a way of knowing and making sense of the world \u2013 uses many conceptual \u2018tools.\u2019 Among these are observations, inferences, predictions, hypotheses, laws, and scientific theories. Together, this array of conceptual tools represents a powerful heuristic used to solve scientific puzzles and problems. New discoveries often begin with observations obtained through our senses (sight, smell, sound, taste, and touch) and by means of measurement instruments (e.g., telescopes, microscopes, mass balances, thermometers, computers) that extend our senses. Observations are repeated (and independently corroborated), patterns are inferred and are then aggregated to form a more generalised conclusion \u2013 or theory. Theories permit scientists to make new predictions<\/a> (i.e., if -> then conditional propositions), pose and test hypotheses, and collect confirming or disconfirming additional data.<\/p>\n Theories, then, are simultaneously an endpoint of inductive science and the starting point of deductive science. Together, induction and deduction frame a self-correcting cycle of verification \u2013 in other words, science \u2013 through its working theoretical paradigms \u2013 which is necessarily uncertain (especially at the outset of new discoveries), subject to change with the accumulation of new evidence, and increasing in probabilistic accuracy over time. Scientific theories that continue to be useful tools are those that yield confirmatory evidence repeatedly; theories that begin to produce disconfirming results (i.e., anomalies) eventually get replaced by a new theory that explains both everything the previous theory did plus account for the anomalies encountered.<\/p>\n Scientific theories, nonetheless, are often mischaracterised by non-scientists, journalists, etc., as being merely someone\u2019s guesses; guesses that would be more appropriately labelled as conjecture or speculation. Others mistakenly equate theory and hypothesis. Still others incorrectly assert that scientific laws<\/a> (which refer to a limited set of remarkably repeatable observational data) are \u2018stronger\u2019 than theories. In the practice of science, however, laws are narrowly confined and limited in application, whereas theories are broad in scope and widely applied. Simply stated, theories are scientists\u2019 most powerful tools. For example, the Hardy-Weinberg law is remarkably useful in accurately predicting the change in frequency of dominant\/recessive alleles within a population over time. The data sets for which the Hardy-Weinberg law exhibits explanatory power are merely a small fraction of the aggregate corroborative lines of evidence in genetics, which in turn is but one support discipline for evolutionary theory.<\/p>\n One overriding question I often get from non-scientists (and students) is \u201cDo you believe in evolution?\u201d I have learned over the extent of my academic career to be very careful in responding to this question. My standard response became, \u201cDo you believe in screwdrivers?\u201d I ask them if my question sounds odd \u2013 they affirm that it does \u2013 until I clarify that a screwdriver is a tool that one learns to use to assist in performing very specific tasks. A screwdriver is to a builder what a theory is to a scientist \u2013 a very good tool (when one uses it to resolve a specific need). I elaborate that I accept the evidence for evolution and the power it provides to solve puzzles and answer scientific questions<\/a>. In other words, I don\u2019t care whether anybody believes in evolution, I only care whether evolutionary theory works \u2013 does it provide explanatory power, predictive capacity, and does it permit broad testing of new \u2018if-then\u2019 conditional propositions.<\/p>\nDo you believe in evolution?<\/h3>\n