What Reference has an Irrefutable Definition of a Scientific Theory?

I'm in a debate that has boiled down to a need for an irrefutable definition of a "scientific theory." I thought that I would ask mathematicians and physicists because the precision and sophistication of their science is far above the many quasi-sciences.

Here is what I want to know specifically and please forgive me in advance if you find my question contemptible. Is there an incontrovertible definition of a scientific theory that makes The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin a "scientific theory"? If so, what is that definition and please cite the source.

Thanks for your help.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A definition simply makes standard that which we want to discuss. For example, if no one agrees on what the definition of a "planet" is, then one doesn't know if we are talking about just Earth and Mars, all the main 8 bodies orbiting the Sun, Pluto, the asteroid belt, etc.

Definition doesn't determine theory. It determines the language we use to express the theory in a comprehensible way.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I realize that definitions are arbitrary. However, if a proposed claim satisfies (or fails to satisfy) a given definition of a scientific theory, then the determination is definitional.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You will find different references in different places. The generally correct (by which I mean "agreed upon") definition is that a theory is an explanation for why something is the way it is. This is different from a scientific law, which is a statement of the way something is (but does not offer an explanation as to why). Sometimes sources will claim that a theory is more thoroughly tested or better-supported than a hypothesis, which isn't necessarily a definition that everyone would agree with. Sometimes (especially in low-level science books for young students) you will see claims that a theory can become a law if it is well-supported enough, but that's generally agreed to be a bad definition, since a theory is an explanation and a law is not.

 

Typically in a debate you would hash this out, no? You propose a definition, your debate partner tells you why that definition is shitty, you tell him why his definition is shitty, and everybody goes for a beer.

This is how everyone else debates, right?

 

Thank you Nasor but, not to question your expertise, I was looking for a definition that is unquestionably authoritative.

 

Ben,

You're too reasonable. That's the way civilized people' debate.

My last remark was:

That attempt at communicating my understanding of science and trying to be reconciliatory was followed by the discussion thread being locked.

 

There is no "unquestionably authoritative" definition. It's not like we all got together at some point and voted to make some person/group/whatever in charge of what the word means. Different people use the word in different ways, and non of them are objectively right or wrong (although some types of uses are much more common than others).

 

So all celebrity scientists, like Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Steven Hawking and Richard Dawkins, known for popularizing science, have never defined science?

 

That isn't what he said. He said there's no ""unquestionably authoritative" definition". While those people will have views a lot of people will listen to, there's people who will disagree with some part of what they say. Your entire reason for posting this thread was so you could justify calling 'devolution' a theory so I imagine you don't entirely agree with Dawkins as you say things which are conflicting with his views.

 

Science should be expressed in precise language, which facilitates clear thinking. One obvious clue that many of the quasi-sciences are subpar is their quasi-scientists giving flowery and/or terribly imprecise definitions of what science is, and what a scientific theory is, in their discipline. Therefore, in the interest of promoting all true science, I have devised the following argument for a general definition of a scientific theory.

All mathematicians agree that mathematics is anything that enables the creation of mathematical theorems, once precise definitions are given. Logically then, a scientific theory may be defined as any endeavor that mimics the highest science according to David Hilbert's philosophy of physics. Thus, for those that think like mathematicians, a scientific theory only requires a logically consistent set of definitions and precisely stated fundamental axioms that generates a plethora of coherent, precisely stated physical concepts and ideas.

 

This idealisation is probably too restrictive even for physics. For instance, my understanding is that finding an axiomatic formulation for quantum field theory is still an open problem, yet as a theory it has been a staple of particle and high energy physics for many decades now. Also, not every theory is a "model" in this sense. Many theories are explanations of some particular phenomenon that draw on existing theories (usually from physics or chemistry), so we have or develop theories about why the dinosaurs went extinct, baryogenesis, abiogenesis, the origin of gamma-ray bursts, the age of the Earth, the structure of stars, and so on.

The recurring themes in good science are experimental reproducibility (where applicable), testability (in particular, falsifiability) of theories, and adherence to Occam's razor. The reason science doesn't have an authoritative definition is because the scientific method is itself subject to refinements. Science has the basic goal of discovering reliable information about the universe and its unfolding, and constructing models capable of yielding predictions. The characteristics of good science and the scientific method are just whatever we've found by experience to yield reliable results and theories and to distinguish science from pseudosciences. Consequently, probably one of the best ways to learn what good science is is to study examples and characteristics of what isn't science.

In many cases what's called "theory" is just the aggregate wisdom of a community of scientists who have collectively researched some natural phenomenon using the scientific method, and which has attained a certain degree of plausibility and acceptance. This even applies in cases in mathematics and physics. For example, group theory is much more than just a couple of definitions and axioms. It is the combination of everything mathematicians have managed to learn about groups and their properties.

For Richard Feynman's views on science, his essay on Cargo Cult science makes good reading. As far as his views on mathematical "purity" in physics goes, I found this, from Vol. II of "Feynman's Lectures" in a discussion of the meaning of physical understanding quite memorable:

Mathematical abstractions are wonders, but they aren't everything.

 

przyk,

Thank you for your rich and insightful reply. It will be a pleasure for me to try to answer your many excellent points.

What is wrong in politely asking arrogant quantum physicists to face reality and in saying that their science has not yet reached the minimum standard of a consistent fundamental theory?

That is my understanding also. However, there are physicists that admit that the reason quantum field theory has been a staple for many decades is because all physics has been stagnant for many decades now and the reason is that most physicists abhor axiomatization.

What is wrong with calling those ideas hypotheses?

I assume you expect that most logically consistent sets of definitions that can be devised with precisely stated fundamental axioms that generate a plethora of coherent, precisely stated physical concepts and ideas, will not be reproducible, testable and falsifiable scientific theories. Could you please list one or two simple examples?

I thought that I had just posted an authoritative definition of science.

The construction of logically consistent models is fundamental in my definition of a scientific theory. Please give me an example of a scientific theory that satisfies my definition yet makes no predictions whatsoever.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Unquestionably, observing nature is a profound source of inspiration for scientific theories. Yet, as A. S. Wightman has said, "A great physical theory is not mature until it has been put in a precise mathematical form, and it is often only in such a mature form that it admits clear answers to conceptual problems."

I strongly disagree. Just the opposite is true. There is no light in darkness. Students need to understand the highest and purest form of science ever conceptualized by the human mind.

That is true but it doesn't strike against my definition of a scientific theory. Aren't most people comfortable with the fact that most words carry many different shades of meaning? Consider, if you will, the many shades of meaning of the word science at dictionary.com. One meaning is "methodological activity, discipline, or study" and gives the example, "I've got packing a suitcase down to a science." I don't know anyone that has a problem with that.

That's an excellent illustration of a scientific theory that only requires a logically consistent set of definitions, which, in the hands of mathematicians, generates a plethora of coherent, precisely stated physical concepts and ideas. Symmetry groups are obviously a legitimate scientific way to mathematize all the symmetries that exist in nature.

I appreciate the quote but I hope you realize that physicists do not consider Maxwell's equations as a legitimate mathematical model of fundamental physics.

 

proof

the ability for any virus to adapt to the enviroment of which they are in , of which HIV does and many others do

inotherwords these viruses evolve

 

Like who? I'm not saying I agree, but if anything I've heard the criticism that physicists are over obsessed with engaging in overly abstract theories with no established connection to reality than anything else.

Also I hope you're aware that quantum mechanics and quantum field theory aren't entirely the same thing. Axiomatic quantum mechanics is basically just linear algebra, and whatever problem there may be formulating quantum field theories in an axiomatic manner (I'm no expert on this issue), it's probably more to do with renormalisation and not due to its nature as a quantum theory.

It depends on their status. The idea is that a hypothesis is a proposal still in need of verification, while a theory should be more mature and better established. How reliable, plausible, and well-supported an idea is is a distinction central to science. Whether an idea has an axiomatic mathematical formulation or not is more an issue of aesthetic appeal.

Off the top of my head: a model of a population of invisible pink unicorns that are governed by Newton's laws but don't interact with ordinary matter. For a more real-world example: arguably, String Theory (at least in practice at the moment). But that's not my point, and I never said that mathematical modelling and science were mutually exclusive. For the record, I am a mathematically minded individual and I feel the best physical theories should be self-contained models. But this doesn't mean I'm going to be a snot and call all of biology, modern medicine, or geology substandard science just because they don't use enough math.

You're an authority?

As I've said, this is an aesthetic concern. If sciences manage to produce reliable results without needing to formulate their theories in a rigorous axiomatic fashion, I don't see that that in itself should be a point against them. Exclusive concern with axiomatic models is taking an unnecessarily narrow view of science.

You started this thread asking for an "authoritative" definition of "scientific theory", presumably so you could then go and shove it in someone's face and either proclaim some pet hypothesis of yours is "really" a theory or that evolution or whatever isn't. Only it doesn't work that way. Even within science not everyone uses "theory" in exactly the same way, and the best you can do is look at the things scientists tend to call "theory" and identify their common characteristics. Your definition does not encompass everything scientists call "theory", and, depending on the details of the definition, may well encompass abstract mathematical constructs that wouldn't normally be considered science.

Only group theory is a branch of mathematics and isn't a theory in the scientific sense. On its own it doesn't make any physical predictions whatsoever. A physical theory may apply group theory or abstract a symmetry as a symmetry group (gauge field theories as well as theories incorporating special and general relativity and supersymmetry are examples) but will still need to specify what those symmetry groups are, and the theory itself must include physical quantities with operational definitions and is unlikely to consist entirely of group theory.

That quote was from just such a physicist. In fact Feynman was one of individuals who developed the modern successor to classical electrodynamics the decade before his lectures. Quantum electrodynamics (which incidentally still uses its own form of Maxwell's equations) is embedded in the Standard Model and appears as a seperate component of the theory below the electroweak symmetry breaking scale.

 

I'm sure that if you were to ask them, you would get four different definitions.

 

Dr. Charles Francis can answer those questions better than I can. He sums up the issues of consistency in quantum theory and unification and mentions the current stagnancy in physics nicely in the following reply, dated August 8, 2008, 2:31 am:

As for the widely acknowledged inconsistency of quantum field theory, just google for it. I don't have time to search for an excellent authoritative quote but many should be easy to find. Google lists 59,900 hits for inconsistency "quantum field theory".

I spent about an hour on the Internet trying to find the book published about 22 years ago by Springer Verlag that had the statement I was thinking of but could not find it. The problem is I do not remember the title or author of the book.

After another hour of searching the Internet for the concept of insurmountable difficulties in classical electrodynamics, I've concluded that the statement in the book I had in mind is unreliable.

Thank you James R. Your challenging question was helpful to me.

 

Your "concerns," like your references, are antique.

The self-consistency of QFT requires the interaction terms have certain relationships. Thus the alleged problems actual point to what physics are realistic. When the standard model is put into QFT anomalies cancel. Infinities turn out to be tamable, and give information. The math of the renormalization group is developed to tell us more about physical theories (even theories which are not QFT theories).

The consistency of QFT with empirical observation is very, very good with the exception of gravity. Therefore we know QFT is not the end of theoretical physics, but a beginning. And while we know that the QFT will be useless for prediction of physics at the Planck scale, we require empirical evidence to know what the next theory will be.

The fact that QFT, as it is done by physicists who publish successful papers, may be distressing to some mathematicians and philosophers in not a priori a reason to discount it.

 

I happily applaud your axiomatization because it delights me to no end. Why should anyone be alarmed by me calling that a scientific theory? Newton's laws alone constitute a scientific theory. How is your axiomatization any different than David Hilbert's description of geometry as a set of relationships between undefined objects and that the undefined objects could just as easily represent steins of beer as anything else? I believe this characterization of geometry by Hilbert is discussed in Leo Corry's book, David Hilbert and the Axiomatization of Physics (1898-1918) From Grundlagen der Geometrie to Grundlagen der Physik.

As a footnote for the naïve and unsuspecting, Hilbert's philosophy of mathematics has been summarized by the well-known attribution: "Mathematics is a game played according to certain simple rules with meaningless marks on paper."

You have betrayed yourself by your own example. Physicists call string theory string theory.

You have misinterpreted my definition of a scientific theory. No mathematics is required.

Only if Hilbert has spoken authoritatively on the meaning of science. My authority derives from his. I am captivated by the beauty of David Hilbert's philosophy of physics.

You have it backwards. You have the restrictive view of science. My definition of science is broad and all-encompassing.

No. I came up with my definition of a scientific theory when I realized that no one else on this and other forums had anything consistent to offer that could be called rigorous and concise.

You are joking, of course, given that many physicists, to all appearances, don't know how to define a scientific theory. Many of them have made a career of pontificating eloquently about the specific nature of physical reality and claim frequently that they are about to figure out how the universe exploded into existence out of nothingness, and then they call their prattle a scientific theory. I believe that I've been very gracious. And that's the issue here — grace. The religion of physicists doesn't permit them to have any. With beauty and grace there is axiomatization.

The normalcy of what is considered science is on my side. Mathematics is science according to dictionary.com.

science
noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Say those who think they own the meaning of the word theory.