/sci/ - Science & Math

Very rarely does an idea get to be more than a theory. Even relativity is still just a theory because there are constantly holes in it. Basically the goal of science is to disprove all the theories until there are none left.

>Basically the goal of science is to disprove all the theories until there are none left.
>until there are none left.

A theory is a model of how we think the real world works. A hypothesis is a test to see if the model matches what happen in the real world. A fact is something that happens in the real world.

As axiomatic as the theory of evolution is, it is starting to be recognised in the community as scientific fact. So I guess I could answer your second question with "nearly 200 years", but I'm not sure when the hypothesis turned into a theory in the first place.
The "we don't have enough evidence to disprove x" argument is pretty shitty these days IMO.

Hypotheses can be upgraded to theories or laws. Theories are facts. Laws are facts.
Theories never become laws.
Laws never become theories.
We had this thread 2 hours ago about what the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory is.

A scientific law makes predictions, and are generally mathematical formulas. A scientific theory states why/how things work that way.
Consider that there is both a law and a theory of gravity.
Consider that there is both a law and a theory regarding the conservation of mass.
Consider that there is both a law and a theory of radiation.

/thread
Any posts after these are trolling.

>>3750109
>>3750103
NERD ALERT!

Hypothesis to theory comes after a good amount of experimental confirmation. Theory to fact is an impossible leap; the existence of error bars mean we can never be sure that there isn't a slightly more precise theory than currently known.

Science doesn't work that way.
A theory is an idea of a natural process or phenomenon that's backed up by evidence, and can be used to predict further occurrences of said process.
Theories are not 'upgraded' to fact or scientific law. They're simply improved upon as new data/better technology emerges; No theory is ever 100% perfect.

The point is, widely accepted theories (Such as Gravity, Electromagnetism, evolution & natural selection, etc) are the best possible explanations we have for these natural phenomenon. If you want to try to come up with a better idea, form a hypothesis and gather data to support it so it can become a theory and maybe challenge the widely accepted norm. That's what science is about.
Even simple stuff like gravity isn't completely understood; There's funky shit going on with dark matter that is almost completely unknown.
I'm sure that if there was a mainstream religion dictating that Gravity is caused by invisible raccoon sized metallic pixies, that there would be psuedoscientific bullshit circulated against the theory of gravity, etc, as there is with evolution.

Genuine science often gets politicized and discredited, which is sad.
At least hopefully now you know what a theory is and isn't.

>>3750038
> When does an idea get upgraded from a hypothesis to a theory?
A hypothesis becomes a theory when it has been experimentally verified by a broad range of results, explains a significant phenomenon with a high degree of certainty, and is contradicted by none of the data.
> What about a theory to a fact?
Theories are explanations of facts. It is a fact that mutations alter the genes of an individual. It is a fact that these alterations affect the reproductive rates and survivability of the individuals containing them. It is a fact that the genetic frequencies in populations change over time as a result of differing reproductive success. The theory of evolution by natural selection and descent with modification explains those facts.
> If there is so much proof for evolution then why is it still a theory?
Because there's so much proof for it. To make it not be a theory, there's have to be less proof, or a fact which undermines it would have to be discovered.
> Some people say that it's because there isn't enough evidence yet and others were saying it's wrong (probably trolls).
The evidence is overwhelming and comes from many divergent fields of science. The theory of evolution is currently on stronger footing than the theory of gravity and the theory of general relativity.
> Who was right?
Neither of those two groups of trolls are correct.