Theories only exist due to a lack of facts.
Wrong! A scientific theory is a body of knowledge that has been accumulated to describe a certain observed phenomena.
For example, there is the fact
that evolution takes place, and there is the theory
of evolution which accurately describes this fact based upon empirical evidence.
Things like evolution, gravity, the big bang are facts that have theories ascribed to them. Understand? Edited, May 1st 2011 11:59am by Nilatai
You haven't contradicted anything that I said. How again is it wrong? Let me break it down. Is a theory a fact? Yes or no?
So, what differentiates a scientific theory from a scientific fact? What's the difference between evidence and empirical evidence?
Did I not just explain that? Things can be both, and they usually are.
A scientific theory usually
sets out the details of something that is an accepted and established fact. Like gravity.
We know Gravity is
. Just because we don't know all the details about it does not stop it from being. Same goes for things like Evolution and the Big Bang. Edited, May 1st 2011 12:19pm by Nilatai
I only asked, because what I googled/wiki'd "scientific theory vs scientific fact", I got something similar yet different.
In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts. (For an example, see Evolution as theory and fact.)
To be fair, there are various other interpretations if you read the entire page.
Consistent with the theory of confirmation holism, some scholars assert "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden" to some degree. Thomas Kuhn and others pointed out that knowing what facts to measure, and how to measure them, requires the use of some other theory (e.g., age of fossils is based on radiocarbon dating which is justified by reasoning that radioactive decay follows a Poisson process rather than a Bernoulli process). Similarly, Percy Williams Bridgman is credited with the methodological position known as operationalism, which asserts that all observations are not only influenced, but necessarily defined by the means and assumptions used to measure them.
I just wanted to know your interpretation. I favor the first quote, which is the point I was trying to make.
Again, I must say here that this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method.
Science never proves anything, ever.
As for your example of the big bang, it is indeed a theory that could be completely wrong. Just because some people argue that it is a fact does not make it inline with the scientific method.
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results.
Dude.. you're wrong.. scientific explanations and reasons are proofs and evidences of questions and concerns that we have.
The whole point in science is to explain why things are the way they are and the only way you can do that is by proving a hypothesis true or false. Which is exactly what I said. Science is nothing but proving things true and false.
I thought that was very common knowledge.