Well, I think the rub is in being explicit about what you are talking about.
As I mentioned before I think even a scientist would say gravity is a “fact”. It is clearly there. Can’t miss it really.
That said the description of what gravity is would be the theory.
So too with evolution. It is a “fact” in that we observe it. It exists. The fiddly details of its mechanisms are the theory.
This goes directly to what you said in your last post more succinctly:
“Facts are simply observations that we make about the real world. Hypothesis are speculations we make about why the facts are what they are. Theories are hypothesis that stand the test of scrutiny and make predictions about the real world that, when tested, turn out to be true.”
There are also components of number and agreement in determining a fact, as opposed to any old observation someone makes. That the sun rises in the East is a fact. That you saw a ghost last night is not.
A theory invites examination and argument. That is what theories are for. They require testing, and evidence, and retesting, and continual comparison to new evidence. Theories can be disproven. Creationism meets none of these requirements.
If I had to add anything, it would be that a “fact” in a scientific context is a word which should be used judiciously, and only as the axioms (i.e. Self-evident) upon which an hypothesis is based.
It’s the seed that brings forth a theory,* not the other way around*.
I don’t think any scientist would say that either gravity or evolution is a fact. We note that we are drawn to the Earth and therefore do not fly off. We note that the planets stay in orbit. We note that a dropped object falls to the earth, unless a gust of wind carries it off. Those are observations which conform to reality as you see it. You can call those “facts,” but they are actually observations. You may claim a theory supporting those observations. You may call it “Theory 42,” if you wish. But now a dropped object does not fall as a gust of wind blows it up. Now you note that the universe is expanding faster than it would applying your math to your theory. You may defend your theory by intervening forces, but then again your theory may be insufficient or incorrect.
You may see microscopic beings change into different forms in the Petri dish. You may call it “General Theory of Evolution.” But the only “fact” you know is that you observed a living form change into another living form. Maybe it metamorphorized. You can see a caterpillar form a chrysalis and emerge as another life form: a butterfly. Is that evolution? All you can say is what you observed. It could be a general theory of evolution, a special theory of evolution, or metamorphorism.
Then, again, what is “reality”? Does reality exist in the objective world or only in your world? That’s a philosophical question and not material to this thread.
This route leads to the “nothing can be proven” philosophy. Maybe we are in the Matrix and all we see is an illusion.
I think that route leads to no useful results.
Can someone suppose we are in a computer generated fantasy land? Sure. But I think the base assumption has to be the world is as we perceive it.
I could claim you and your post are a product of my imagination. I think, therefore I am. But I am not in your head so as far as I know you are a figment of my imagination (and of course you could say the same thing back to me).
While that is fun stuff for a philosophical bull session I think the presumption has to be the world is real and abides by certain rules.
Drop an object and it falls. Gravity.
Newton did a great job in describing the rules of gravity but even Newton himself knew he had no idea of the mechanisms of gravity.
Einstein came along and gave an explanation (curved space) so better.
But why? How?
Questions remain.
We know gravity exists because we are stuck to this planet and the planet is stuck orbiting the sun and so on. Gravity is a FACT (yeah caps).
The details of how/why we are glued to objects is theory.
I think evolution is the best answer we have to explain our existence. It’s a far better answer than creationism. Evolution is definitely the best answer we have without having a philosophical debate.
If we were having a philosophical debate, I could really only prove that I exist (as Whack-a-Mole stated). Whack-a-Mole, please correct me if I misinterpreted your post because that happens sometimes.
Let us just say that we have a higher probability of having evolved from apes than from appearing out of thin air. Maybe, somewhere along the line, someone will have a different answer that might have a higher probability of being true than the “evolution-answer.” It is definitely possible that someone might have a different interpretation and might come up with more proof to back it up. Considering what options are available to believe, I’ll say that I believe that we simply evolved.
Is there any thread in which we can make a Warner Brothers Cartoon reference and it won’t be appropriate? No? Didn’t think so. With big Bugs Bunny teeth.
I actually half-remember from a recent philosophy class that if you can prove you exist (a la Descartes), you (and by you, I mean Descartes) can somehow derive a proof from that fact that shows everything else exists, although I can’t remember the details I found the proof a bit half-assed… to be fair.
Once you get past “I think, therefore I am,” you think of a perfect deity: benevolent and wise, all-knowing and all-powerful. As fallible and imperfect as you are, could you think up something that flawless? No, you must have gotten it from someone else – but not from me, since I’m also fallible and imperfect. Why, the only entity perfect enough to create that idea must be that perfect deity, who must therefore exist – and who isn’t out to play evil deceiver, but rather to largely align our perceptions with reality, since, y’know, all that wisdom and benevolence means His power is working on our behalf, right?
Horrible argument, taken apart by any number of philosophers since – some of whom figure it was so bad that Descartes was doing it solely to help spark doubts about God, laying out bad arguments like a straight-faced Stephen Colbert.
It’s worse than half-assed. Descartes “proves” the existence of a benevolent God, and then argues that that entails we aren’t deceived about the nature of reality.
It’s worth noting that the “natural philosophers” who were alive at the same time Darwin wrote all, as far as I know, believed that evolution occurred, because they observed evidence for it. These men were mostly religious in the Victorian sense, but they took evolution as a given and tried to explain why they saw what they saw.
The question of the day was what mechanism caused it or drove it. Darwin’s answer was “natural selection” (I am simplifying, of course).
As far as I know, except for some religious reactionaries, everyone since that time (and for at least some time before then) accepts that evolution, in the sense of change over time, occurs.
And the Bible per se doesn’t mention evolution positively or negatively. IMHO it’s almost entirely people who feel offended at the thought they’re descended from monkeys who drive the whole Creationist movement, whether you spell it old style (“Creationism”) or new style (“Intelligent Design”).
All life sharing a common origin is a fact - it is a statement that requires an explanation (ie, how is this possible?). The theory of evolution explains this fact.
It should be noted that ‘fact’ is not the same thing as philosophical certainty. Facts are open to future revision if the data point that way.
This is worse than an arbitrary wordplay.
It’s arbitrary concept play.
a gauge or X o’clock is not a measure to be added, or mathed with in another way.
2 o’clock plus 3 o’clock is not 5 o’clock.
It is just a gauge, it isn’t the same as 2 hours plus 3 hours.
What upset the religious was not evolution per se, but the evolution of man. That attacked the fundamental belief that we were created in God’s image. If it was found that all animals but ourselves evolved, all but the most fundamentalist religions would have been fine with it. After all, Darwin spent a lot of time discussing the “intelligent design” of plants and animals through selective breeding.
Excellent post! How interesting that science’s great strength (one of them, anyway) is often used “against” it (imprecisely, by those with an agenda), as if it were some sort of weakness.
With big Bugs Bunny teeth.