3 ms·

I understand your point, and I agree. But there's nuance here. Some theories, ranked by the strength of their supporting evidence, e.g. and IMO: 0 Baby-eati

I understand your point, and I agree. But there's nuance here. Some theories, ranked by the strength of their supporting evidence, e.g. and IMO: 0 Baby-eating lizard aliens run the US government 1 .. 2 String theory 3 .. 4 .. 5 .. 6 .. 7 Asteroid extinction event 8 Relativity 9 Evolution Scientists and specialists should draw a critical line between theory and fact. But there are always unknowables, and if "fact" requires the elimination of uncertainty ("10" in the above), then it is a useless word. So we'd need a new word, that means "very well-supported theory, based on all available evidence, with no strong competing explanations". Open to suggestions here! But for non-specialists, at what score is it reasonable to treat a theory as "fact"? I'll vote for 7.5. :) Obligatory: Colloquially, "fact" as "true idea" -- not "quantum of isolated information which can be knowable". The latter definition is lovely, but has little application in the world of people.

plank_time 6y ago
Relativity is lower than evolution? I would put relativity at 9.5 because it can be verified with actual experiments today. Regardless I’ll say the same thing I tell my kid which is the same as what you said. Everything that isn’t a fact is a theory with various levels of evidence. The stronger the evidence, the more likely the theory is correct. But a theory will weak evidence could suddenly improve if a new piece of strong evidence comes to light. And a strong theory could become weak if a piece of evidence disproves the entire thing. So keep an open mind and don’t mistake theories for facts.
- quesera 6y ago
  > I would put relativity at 9.5 Fair point. It was crowded up there, and my physics is less than current. I think we agree, really. I'm just not as strict on the semantics of the word "fact". I agree that laziness on the margins of fact is lazy, esp for specialists. I don't think we can authoritatively say that anything is an absolute truth. But there are some really useful models. The extinction event model serves a purpose for paleontologists, and it's pretty good for most of them. It serves a different purpose for non-specialists.

plank_time 6y ago

Relativity is lower than evolution? I would put relativity at 9.5 because it can be verified with actual experiments today. Regardless I’ll say the same thing I tell my kid which is the same as what you said. Everything that isn’t a fact is a theory with various levels of evidence. The stronger the evidence, the more likely the theory is correct. But a theory will weak evidence could suddenly improve if a new piece of strong evidence comes to light. And a strong theory could become weak if a piece of evidence disproves the entire thing. So keep an open mind and don’t mistake theories for facts.

quesera 6y ago
> I would put relativity at 9.5 Fair point. It was crowded up there, and my physics is less than current. I think we agree, really. I'm just not as strict on the semantics of the word "fact". I agree that laziness on the margins of fact is lazy, esp for specialists. I don't think we can authoritatively say that anything is an absolute truth. But there are some really useful models. The extinction event model serves a purpose for paleontologists, and it's pretty good for most of them. It serves a different purpose for non-specialists.