Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
After 3 days of being inundated with ignorant creationists and others spouting incredibly popular but absolutely wrongheaded claims about the meaning of "fact" and "theory" in science, I think it's a good idea to post what I think is the clearest and best explanation ever written of what those words mean in science. It comes from the late Stephen Jay Gould, written for Discover magazine in 1981. It sums up the difference between the vernacular and scientific meanings of those words perfectly. Excerpt below the fold:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
This is exactly what I have been trying, in vain, to explain to several commenters over the last several days.
Comments
This is fairly typical of Gould's pretentious style. Can there ever be a word in vernacular that means "imperfect fact"? Technically it is possible to represent the meaning in one system in another, but at some point it is better, if possible, to describe the meaning in the system it is originally represented in.
In the vernacular "theory" means something somebody else says is true, but we are pretty sure is not true. Here is how one might describe its vernacular meaning in vernacular:
"In theory, Mary is going to meet us at the bar" means "Mary told me she will be at the bar, but you know Mary, so fahgetaboutit."
"In theory, if I attach these two wires it will work" means "The directions say to attach these two wires but the last few times I followed the directions they were, like, totally bogus"
"In theory, I turn left here" means "Yea, right, we're friggin lost, man"
When Gould used the phrase "imperfect fact" not only does he show his pretension in his effort to bludgeon us with his in theory excellent command of the language, but he also totally misses the meaning. "Theory" in vernacular does not mean imperfect fact. It means "totally bogus shit."
Posted by: Greg Laden | December 30, 2007 9:59 AM
Greg, you may be right about the specific phrase "in theory", but in the vernacular, you can also say "I have a theory about that", meaning you have an idea about what is going on, but not total confidence.
Posted by: Squiddhartha | December 30, 2007 10:35 AM
I think the distinction is easy. A fact is something observed. A theory is thinking about facts.
If you flip a light switch but the light does not come on, switch being on and the light being dark are both facts. You can have theories that would explain the facts, but you'd need more evidence to evaluate the theories.
Evolution is observed, and there is thinking about evolution.
Posted by: 6EQUJ5 | December 30, 2007 10:58 AM
Greg,
I agree with Squid', in one particular, sarcastic sense the word can be used as you suggest, but there are other, perhaps less modern and cynical, uses.
'Why does Greg always see the worst in people?' asked Alice.
'Well,' replied Bob, 'my theory is that he was spoilt as a child.'
Posted by: Felix | December 30, 2007 11:04 AM
I think this is the real crux of the issue. When creationists blather about "Darwinist dogma" or "atheist fundamentalists" or "faith in materialist science", they're really just projecting. They have a system which demands unquestioning faith in a list of assertions (Bible is inerrant, Jesus is Lord, there is only one God, etc), and since such a system is by definition intellectually indefensible they can't attack science on its own terms. While science is claiming "This is the best explanation based on the best evidence currently available", which is by definition a provisional statement, the creationists want this to be a battle of "worldviews", with "worldview" defined as a laundry list of dogmatically accepted assertions which is incompatible with another laundry list of dogmatically accepted assertions. These "worldviews" are then in opposition and hence need to duke it out.
You could point out to creationists until you're blue in the face that "theory" doesn't mean a guess or a dogma, but they'll never listen. If they operated on the scientific definition of the word, it would totally undermine what they're trying to do. The goal isn't best provisional explanation; the goal is rock-'em-sock-'em "worldviews".
Posted by: Wes | December 30, 2007 11:07 AM
I hate to repeat myself with a comment I posted on a previous thread but I will have to take strong exception to the late Prof. Goulds' statement that Einsteins' General Thkeory of Relativity replaced Newtons theory of gravity. Once again, this is not true. This type of statement is, unfortunately, all to prevalent among those who, mostly well meaning, lack a detailed understanding of physics. Einsteins' theory rather augments Newtons' theory for most applications in celestial mechanics. Thus, GR can be treated as a perturbation on Newtonian mechanics when performing most calculations. As I stated previously, the calculation of the GR contribution of 43 seconds of arc per century to the precession rate of Mercurys' orbit is an example of this.
Posted by: SLC | December 30, 2007 11:11 AM
No
. Can there ever be a word in vernacular that means "imperfect fact"?
Apparently, you have done no experimentation. I have. If I do an experiment and get a result, that is a fact. If I do a thousand of the same experiments and get results those are also facts. If the result of the first experiment is significantly outside of the results of the others, it's still a fact (worthy of examination) but it is reasonable to ignore it at the moment for the purpose of generating a theory to explain the results of the other experiments.
Posted by: raj | December 30, 2007 11:14 AM
One man's pretentiousness is another's rich literary style.
But as far as American usage is concerned, I think both Greg and Gould are right. Sometimes people use "theory" to mean "unlikely event;" sometimes as "wild-assed guess;" and sometimes (especially when they have pretentions to science, like the IDeologists and "creation scientists") as something only slightly better than a hypothesis. All of which is complicated by the difference between "common descent" (which most people are thinking of when "evolution" is mentioned"), which is, in general, a "fact," and "natural selection" or "genetic drift" and the other explanations for why and how common descent occurred, which are theories (well supported by fact in most cases).
BTW, Ed, have you seen that Martin Cothran is at it again?
Posted by: John Pieret | December 30, 2007 11:16 AM
> You could point out to creationists until you're
> blue in the face that "theory" doesn't mean a
> guess or a dogma, but they'll never listen.
Quite the opposite. It's absolutely neccessary to point out until you're blue in the face that "theory" doesn't mean a guess or a dogma. Even though they'll never listen. Why? Because letting this type of ignorance stand unchallenged means that other minds will continue to be infected with this dangerous meme. One of the unfortunate side-effects of separation of state and religion is that these kinds of ideas can't be explicitly named, and analyzed in American school systems. Children are not specifically taught how disarm the broken logic in creationist thinking. That means that we have a responsibility to challenge creationist arguments at every possible opportunity, as it occurs outside the classroom. You won't save those who have been infected; but you may prevent the disease from spreading.
Posted by: edrowland | December 30, 2007 11:21 AM
Futile. As long as theory is used in the current manner in The Real World, and as long as scientists can be spotted using the word in that manner rather than in the "proper scientific" sense, nothing's going to change.
Posted by: Scott Belyea | December 30, 2007 12:06 PM
Typical of Laden's pretentious style, of course. Not content with sniping at Gould, he then proceeds to talk nonsense in trying to define how "theory" is used in The Real World, and misses it by a mile.
Posted by: Scott Belyea | December 30, 2007 12:10 PM
I'm not sure I understand why Greg Laden chose to make such a vitriolic response here. All he really added to the conversation was that there is another, more sarcastic usage of theory in the vernacular that, like the one Gould offers, does not match what the word means in a scientific context. Interesting point, and I'm sure Gould would concede its truth, but at best it augments his argument that the vernacular usage differs greatly from the scientific usage. It's not a response to what Gould said, it's a "yes, and" addition.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 30, 2007 12:18 PM
Almost anyone who writes about science or evolution does better a job than Gould and I've found him pretty much unreadable, difficult to understand and he writes in a style that first assumes you have PhD in the subject and then have to unravel what he says. Pretension is his middle name, but his explanation in this rare case was understandable and I liked the example of "Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome."
Posted by: Mike | December 30, 2007 12:30 PM
After 3 days of being inundated with ignorant creationists and others spouting incredibly popular but absolutely wrongheaded claims about the meaning of "fact" and "theory" in science...
Trying to explain how science works to people like creationists who've already made up their minds that it doesn't is like running in the Special Olympics: Even if you win you're still retarded.
Posted by: triviality | December 30, 2007 12:31 PM
I'm with Greg on this. His examples were a sarcastic variant, but the sarcasm isn't the point. Gould has led the argument astray.
Would it be terribly confusing to admit publicly that scientists commonly use the word 'theory' in just the same way non-scientists do? We say things like "I've got a theory about why the spectrophotometer isn't working", or "I've got a theory about why cells take up DNA" much more often than we say things like "Darwin's theory of evolution explains how species change".
Like many other words (including 'evolution') 'theory' has acquired a specialized technical meaning in one particular scientific context (not all of science) that derives from its meaning(s) in everyday life. We'd do better by explaining this rather than by telling our critics that they're using the word wrong.
Posted by: Rosie Redfield | December 30, 2007 12:44 PM
Rosie, if 'theory' has a specialized technical meaning, and the "it's just a theory" folks are ignorantly (or intentionally) conflating that meaning with the common meaning... how does explaining this differ from "telling our critics that they're using the word wrong"?
Posted by: Squiddhartha | December 30, 2007 1:40 PM
Greg Laden is overdoing it. On the street, and even for scientists speaking (or occasionally writing) sloppily, "theory" means "speculative guess". But -- and this is the point that needs to be made again and again -- this colloquial usage does not magically mean that atomic theory, germ theory, cell theory, the theory of plate tectonics, and, of course, the theory of evolution, can magically be dismissed as guesses because they include the word theory.
This "theory not fact" silliness is intrinsic to fundamentalist opposition to evolution and goes all the way back to the 1920s and before, read Genie Scott's expert report for Selman:
http://www2.ncseweb.org/selman/2006-11-16_Scott_expert_report.pdf
Posted by: Nick (Matzke) | December 30, 2007 1:48 PM
Hmm. Gould didn't use the phrase "specialized technical meaning", which I think is good, but his point is clear enough. I don't think he's led us astray.
In any case, explaining things to creationists is a taxing affair and they don't seem capable of understanding for the reasons Wes described above, so this exercise is more for us than anything. Which is fine, it's good for us, but meh.
That said, what the hell? Where did all these creationists come from? This is worse than the time those creepy southern nationalists showed up.
Posted by: Leni | December 30, 2007 2:10 PM
I've been thinking the exact same thing Leni. I mean, the usual ID/creationists are still around and active, but their arguments are more nuanced and challenging (but only by comparison). But these new guys are throwing out turds like the '2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution' and 'But it's just a theory, not a fact'.
Forget about quoting documents from TalkOrigins, all we need to do with these guys is to quote AiG's "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use".
Posted by: doctorgoo | December 30, 2007 2:51 PM
Theory is a word with so many meanings that it is a good word to avoid if you can. Some scientists have advocated that we abandon it for that reason. Even Sir Karl Popper uses theory and hypothesis as synonyms. I think it is correct to say that Einstein's Theory is more comprehensive than Newton's, rather than that it has replaced Newton's Theory. I would even stretch a point to say that spherical earth theory is more comprehensive than flat earth theory, because I suspect your house was built on a flat earth. Now count up how many times i used theory. Resistance is futile!
Posted by: Jim Thomerson | December 30, 2007 3:09 PM
Possible definitions for law, fact, theory, and hypothesis...
Law = a fact that is likely unchangeable if it can be described via mathematical equations, pure logic, and/or remains consistent with repeated observations
Fact = historical and current phenomena that can be observed either informally (e.g., everyday life events) by the non-scientist or empirically by scientists in the form of quantitative and qualitative data
Theory = A tentative explanation of facts usually supported or refuted by empirical evidence
Hypothesis = A sublevel explanation of a theory usually based on experimentation
***********************************************************
Examples...
Law: A naturalistic theory such as evolutionary theory is an ineffective framework in which to speculate about a supernatural entity (i.e., natural =/= supernatural)
Fact: Darwin went to the Galapagos islands and observed some finches that varied in their size of their beaks and their location on the island (plus some other naturalistic observations)
Theory: In a nutshell, evolutionary theory suggests that all life forms in their current form are a product of a long history of two fundamental processes: natural selection and variability within organisms that may or may not be adaptive as it concerns natural selection
Hypothesis: If a population of organisms are exposed to a deadly virus, organisms that have a natural biological resistance to the virus will survive and those that don't will not. See War of the Worlds (2005; Spielberg version) which provides an interesting contrast between a social Darwinian and just plain old Darwinian view of evolution (if one pays very close attention to the start and end of the movie), or, for an even more real-world phenomenon, the current problem hospitals are having with antibiotic resistant (i.e., super) bugs.
Posted by: Tony Jeremiah | December 30, 2007 4:45 PM
I've a question. Is the Theory v. Theory problem unique to english? Or do the two meanings use the same word in french, for instance?
Not that I'm excusing the IDiots, mind you. It's obvious they're deliberately using the wrong meaning.
Posted by: Jrob | December 30, 2007 6:02 PM
Ah, you whacky experimentalists! things are much simpler for mathematicians. "Axiom", "postulate", "theorem", "lemma", "corollary" and "conjecture" all have well-understood meanings that nobody can confuse.
Posted by: Pseudonym | December 30, 2007 6:11 PM
This has been a great post to follow. Thanks to all.
Whoever said,
> You could point out to creationists until you're
> blue in the face that "theory" doesn't mean a
> guess or a dogma, but they'll never listen.
is totally consistent with my experience.
When you are dealing with someone who has been culturally conditioned since birth, they have a myriad of defense systems built into to protect their belief systems, no matter how irrational, and with whatever fractured logic they use, they cannot be persuaded.
That is precisely why they continue to try to have their belief systems taught in the public schools. The younger, the better.
Posted by: dale | December 30, 2007 6:17 PM
Pseudonym,
You just sent a chill down my spine in your 6:11 comment, although I do think that god loves theoretical mathemeticians.
Posted by: dale | December 30, 2007 6:24 PM
Jrob:
"I've a question. Is the Theory v. Theory problem unique to english? Or do the two meanings use the same word in french, for instance?
The more general "problem" is called equivocation. This happens when a word or phrase has two or more meanings. If a person makes an argument using an ambiguous word like "bank" the conclusion can be unwarranted. As in:
"All banks are beside rivers. Therefore, the financial institution where I deposit my money is beside a river."
Swiped from:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html
As far as I know, all languages suffer from this "problem." Specifically regarding "Theory" I don't know.
Posted by: dogscratcher | December 30, 2007 7:18 PM
Nobody, eh? That sounds like a job for Sal Cordova!
Posted by: Skemono | December 30, 2007 7:37 PM
I recommend the following definitions to my students:
Fact: "a strongly supported inferred conclusion derived from a group of repeatedly confirmed observations, a confirmed pattern of observations." E.g. (getting away from sensitive subjects), "The sun moves around the earth", "the earth moves in a circular orbit around the sun", and "the earth moves in an elliptical orbit" were/are all confirmed patterns of observations about the natural world. Additional or improved observations can result in facts changing. Also, note that facts are seldom the result of direct observations, but are usually inferred -- no one has directly eyeballed the earth moving in its orbit.
Theory: "a causal process or explanation that has exceptionally strong support by a number of criteria." Good theories suggest fruitful lines of empirical research. E.g., "Gravitational attraction (proportional to the masses of the objects, varying inversely with square of the distance, etc.) causes objects to move in elliptical paths" has very strong support from the facts of planetary and terrestrial motions.
Getting back to the hot topic, "evolution" is a fact in the sense that many observations have lead us to the conclusion that organisms have changed over time and that descendant populations have been modified from ancestral populations; also allele frequencies change over time.
Evolution is a theory when you invoke causes for descent with modification -- selection, drift, gene flow, vicariance, etc.
Hypothesis: "a tentative statement about natural world leading to deductions that can be tested empirically." E.g., every cladogram is a hypothesis that suggests relationships between organisms that can be tested by gathering particular types of data, such as looking for intermediate fossils in rocks of a particular age.
Law: "a descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated conditions". E.g., the Hardy-Weinberg law predicts allele and genotype frequencies when evolutionary forces are not affecting a local population -- providing the null hypothesis for many studies.
Suggestions or improvements encouraged.
And I also don't expect Creationist/IDists to get it. However, people with open minds can, which is why we need to keep speaking up whenever an epidemic of foolishness breaks out.
Posted by: FrankP | December 30, 2007 7:46 PM
When Gould used the phrase "imperfect fact" not only does he show his pretension in his effort to bludgeon us with his in theory excellent command of the language, but he also totally misses the meaning. "Theory" in vernacular does not mean imperfect fact. It means "totally bogus shit."
You say there's one and only one American vernacular meaning of theory; Gould says there are several (by saying "often means"), and highlights one, the one most often used by creationists, which is specifically what he's talking about. He's right; you're wrong.
Posted by: QrazyQat | December 30, 2007 10:34 PM
Squiddhartha et al,
You are of course correct that one can say "I have a theory about that" and in that sense one is using the term in a possibly vernacular context but with a meaning more similar to what is meant in science (sort of). But that is clearly not what Gould was talking about (nor what I was talking about).
Ed et al:
I'm not really trying to be vitriolic. I'm just expressing without really being clear about it a bit of residual annoyance at Steve for being a pampas ass now and then. I'm sure that we (Gould and Greg) have the same exact opinion about what is going on with the term "theory." I just said it better.
Posted by: greg laden | December 30, 2007 11:07 PM
Let me add a little to this. I'm teaching a course in which students are being exposed to concepts of theory and academics. I find that many students in this particular setting come into the class with a need to understand the meaning of "theory" .... I'm planning on assigning this post by the way ... Anyway, I've found that mentioning that "theory" is as I describe above, as well as this: That "academic" as a term, in the vernacular, usually means "unimportant" (I'll spare you the sarcastic examples unless you insist). This drive hope the point very well. So I'm just practicing for class, really.
What you are not seeing is the whole picture. Of my sarcasm, I mean. I'm never sarcastic, really, but the words by themselves are not as good without the hand gesticulations and funny faces I make while I'm talking. I'm a dead ringer for George Carlin. Often mistaken for him.
Posted by: greg laden | December 30, 2007 11:11 PM
And another thing! That's "pampas ass" as in Argentinian Mule. No kidding.
Posted by: greg laden | December 30, 2007 11:34 PM
Us physicist often use the term "string theory". 'nuff said.
Posted by: Roman | December 31, 2007 6:03 AM
I think that your getting hung up on semantics. Popper and Kuhn are possibly the last major figures to define what is required of science. Kuhn describes paradigms as;
"the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques and so on shared by the members of a given community."
A theory is just part of the picture. Paradigm shifts occur when a new theory is used to better understand the "puzzles" of current theoretical understanding and contra indicated data. Read Kuhn's "The structure of Scientific Revolutions" for more. Data being subjected to different techniques, more data being found and further analysis of current data all add to the progress of science.
To attack a theory becuase it is a theory is the hieght of stupidity... Einstien- "I think I have come up with a thoery of general relativty" Muppet- "Oh so it's just a theory then, I'm off to watch WWE."
Posted by: Baker | December 31, 2007 7:13 AM
Skemono: Crap, you're right, I shouldn't have spoken so soon.
The day that the DI says that information theory is "just a theory", I owe you guys a round of drinks, okay?
Posted by: Pseudonym | December 31, 2007 8:47 AM
I haven't really paid attention to this argument on this blog (busy past week) but, if it helps, one way I use to explain the scientific usage of the word theory is by using a puzzle. Basically, the individual pieces of a puzzle are facts and observations. As you link these pieces together you start to see an overall picture even though there are still missing pieces found throughout. Eventually, you can make out distinctly what the picture is even though you do not have every piece. This general picture represents the theory. This theory can be added to and refined as more and more pieces to the puzzle are found. The picture, however, will never become complete. More and more pieces will continue to become added but a totally complete picture will never occur no matter how many times you search the couch for more.
Posted by: llDayo | December 31, 2007 9:44 AM
"Axiom", "postulate", "theorem", "lemma", "corollary" and "conjecture" all have well-understood meanings that nobody can confuse.
You mean, because "axiom" and "postulate" mean the exact same thing, as do "theorem", "lemma", and "corollary"?
Posted by: One Brow | December 31, 2007 11:04 AM
You know, I think dogscratcher is on to something. The real problem is equivocation, not the "real" definition of theory.
For instance, most of the things we call nuts are not, botanically, nuts. So what? You can have a little fun pointing out that a peanut is a legume, and a walnut is a drupe, etc., but it really doesn't make much difference. A rose by any other name, so to speak.
Equivocation is also used by the flat-Earthers when they talk about natural selection being "random." In the mathematical and scientific sense, it is anything but random, but in one commonly used sense of the word, it is. Random also means "for no particular reason of purpose."
Anyway, pointing out the logical fallacy may be more productive than arguing over what a word "really" means.
Posted by: BaldApe | December 31, 2007 11:08 AM
The distinction is not "easy" like some people want to make it. There is no clear demarcation between theoretical and observational statements. What we typically call observations are actually complex explanatory accounts of sensory patterns that have built into them ideas about how the world is. They are "theory-laden" as the term goes.
Not only that, but observations draw into them inferences that require background presuppositions that are theoretical in nature. To pick a popular example, that when galileo looked through a telescope and believed he was seeing enlarged versions of distant objects, he had to have some theory of optics so he preferenced this account over the observations being viewed as 'tricks' of the lens. And when you think about that, remember that an eyeball is a measuring device just the same.
Take a simple observation like, "the lights are on." This requires one's brain to draw a series of inferences about sensory data to pull them into coherent accounts of the world. That there is a thing called "lights" in a "room" is a theory. This statement is an explanatory account of a pattern of photons detected by your eyes. It draws into it prior knowledge, theories in other words, about how the world works in order to make that conclusion. It is, no doubt, a fact. But it is also a theory.
Again, this is basic philosophy of science. Gould was no philosopher of science and this has pretty much zero relevance to the truth of evolution or creationism. It is still quite wrong to attack the likelihood of evolutionary theory being true by calling it "just a theory." But the distinction here is still is a bit naive.
Posted by: Jason S. | December 31, 2007 8:47 PM
Baker--I've recently been reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn so I was excited to see you bring it up in this discussion.
Anyways, I just wanted to say that it is sad that many people do not understand the difference between how theory is defined in science and how it is used in everyday language. As a new teacher (high school math) I hear students sometimes dismissing evolution as "just a theory".
Also unfortunately, teachers do as well. I was not introduced to evolution in any meaningful way until Biology and Biological Anthropology in college.
I had a 5th grade teacher who said that he didn't believe in dinosaurs! And my high school biology teacher simply said that she did not believe in evolution and proceeded to skip that unit in the textbook.
Posted by: JoshuaChayne | December 31, 2007 9:07 PM
Us physicist often use the term "string theory". 'nuff said
That's about as silly as the Discovery Institute calling "intelligent design" a theory. Neither ID nor string "theory" has any evidence to provide support.
I know that some physicists consider "string theory" a theory, but that's pretty much irrelevant. Moreover, it is a degredation of the term "theory." BTW, I have a physics background, too.
Posted by: raj | January 1, 2008 12:39 AM
Nonsense. "String theory" is no more ridiculous than "category theory" or "group theory".
Sure, string theory may turn out to have no applications in physics, but it'll still be an impressive body of pure maths.
Posted by: Pseudonym | January 1, 2008 11:37 PM
Unless there have been recent advances I am unaware of, string theory cannot be experimentally verified. Therefore, it should not qualify as a scientific theory; at best, it is an impressively sophisticated ad hoc hypothesis that, as of yet, makes no testable predictions.
Posted by: Shygetz | January 2, 2008 9:38 AM
Sure, string theory may turn out to have no applications in physics...
Then physicists should not engage in the pretense that it is a scientific theory.
Unless there have been recent advances I am unaware of, string theory cannot be experimentally verified
Not necessarily. But string "theorists" have not proposed any mechanism to provide evidence for their ruminations. It is oftentimes forgotten that, when Einstein, for example, devised general relativity, he proposed a number of mechanisms by which evidence for the theory could be adduced. And with quantum mechanics there was ample evidence before papers on the theory were published.
Posted by: raj | January 2, 2008 10:30 AM
Sounds to me like "String Theory" is a valid mathmatical construct. However can it be proved or falsified in the 'real world' like, say, 'Evolutionary Theory'?
In ignorance - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | January 3, 2008 12:58 AM
Sure, string theory may turn out to have no applications in physics, but it'll still be an impressive body of pure maths.
Yup. But then it is not a physical theory. And yet physicists call it so, for PR reasons I believe.
Posted by: Roman | January 3, 2008 5:07 AM