Theory (Idea) vs Theory (Scientific)

It seems straight-forward but it can be complicated

6 min readOct 8, 2018

This meme artfully arranged from a video clip by “The Logic of Science” is perfect for a cursory view of the dilemma. If you are thinking of the meaning of theory as a notion, or idle thought, you won’t find that definition used anywhere in science. Not that all of contemporary science consistently uses theory as backed up by experiment, observation, and empirical evidence. There are some exceptions. One of those exceptions came up in a recent discussion and it motivated me to write this missive. The use of theory in science has mostly come to mean what the meme implies but there is ample room for confusion, which is why I don’t really hold it against people who don’t understand what is meant by a scientific theory.

Just to get our ducks in row. What is a scientific theory? Dictionary.com uses this definition:

“a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation: the scientific theory of evolution.”

The key element is repeatedly confirmed through experiment or predicted observation. Scientific theories are not born of a few data points. It takes a good amount of confirmation to move from a working hypothesis to a theory you can hang your hat on. They need to go through the crucible of hypothesis testing and reliably demonstrate predictive power before you can count on them to explain the phenomena in question.

There are some fun hypotheses moving along the path to theory. I’ll use two of my favorites as examples. The first is the RNA World hypothesis. The idea is that RNA came out of the primordial soup as the first molecule of life. Spiffy idea, that has garnered some evidence as a possibility, but is still firmly in the hypothesis stage. The next one moving along in the process and which has gathered a good amount of evidence is the Hygiene hypothesis. The idea here is that early environmental exposures to microorganisms, dirt, and, and what not, can reduce allergies and such. To be honest, I’m not sure there could ever be enough data to change the name of Hygiene hypothesis to Hygiene theory. That alliteration is just too powerful. 😉

The area of science that generated the exception I spoke about was Theoretical Physics. As the name implies, they are not usually speaking to established theories that have gone through the crucible of testing, but of new ideas extrapolated from existing scientific theories and data to explain gaps in those theories. Some go on to be theories in the scientific sense via experimental validation (Relativity), others not so much (Steady State). No wonder folks get confused. The particular one in my recent discussion was the Many Worlds or Multiverse Theory . While there have been a few tantalizing hints, this idea remains mostly in the realm of math extrapolated from Quantum Mechanics. The robust confirmation through experiment and predicted observations is lacking so it is not yet a scientific theory despite theory being used in the name. Although, it is a fascinating concept that has become a hallmark of comics and science fiction. Still, with scientists actually muddying the waters in how theory is used it is no wonder that its use is often misunderstood.

It gets even more complicated because of how theory is approached in describing the history of science. Many past “theories” would not pass muster for what we now require of scientific theories, but theory is used to describe them. In fact in that discussion I spoke of, Phlogiston Theory and Luminiferous Aether Theory were referenced as if they were theories in the scientific sense. We might as well toss in the theory of Spontaneous Generation for good measure. Of the three, Phlogiston comes the closest to being what we might call a scientific theory, but ultimately it couldn’t be validated through experimentation as Phlogiston doesn’t exist. What these ideas of the past all have in common is that they are what I like to think of as black box place holders. In the absence of empirical data, these ideas are floated to explain phenomena that are poorly understood. In the era where scientists were natural philosophers, speculating about the nature of things was what you did when you hit the limit of your technology/knowledge. Such speculations are not what we now think of as scientific theories. Which is why many such ideas collapsed like a house of cards once they were actually capable of being tested. They did serve a purpose. To provide a hypothetical framework that might be tested once our technology/knowledge was up to the task. We still do this today although we are a bit more upfront about our lack of knowledge. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are two that readily come to mind. The dark indicates our ignorance, and the speculation is that the observed phenomena are explained by matter or energy we can’t yet detect.

Don’t get me wrong. There are many theories developed in the past that work by today’s definition of a scientific theory. Those are the ones that didn’t collapse like a house of cards upon being tested. Newton’s theory of gravity is an example. Einstein came along and provided a lot more insight into the nature of gravity, but he didn’t invalidate Newton’s work. That is how it goes with scientific theories. Work that was derived and confirmed through repeated experimentation and observation isn’t undone by new data. It is accounted for and incorporated into the expanded data set which provides a better understanding of the phenomena it explains. Scientific theories are often modified and updated with new information, but it is rare for them to be completely wrong in what they are explaining*. All that confirmation via predicted observations and experiment is hard to dismiss.

The next time you see someone confused by what theory means, show some compassion. Unless they have had a bit of training in the sciences, the deck is stacked against them. Even then, with some folks not strictly following the definition (I’m looking at you Theoretical Physics) it can even throw off some who are science literate. Of course, if they remain obstinate about it after you’ve patiently explained, I recommend dropping the meme I used at the beginning of the piece. 😇

*For more on the idea of science being wrong I highly recommend the following: Isaac Asimov’s essay “The Relativity of Wrong” and The Credible Hulk’s “Incommensurability, The Correspondence Principle, and the “Scientists Were Wrong Before” Gambit”

Postscript. There are a couple of different multiverse ideas. Both are currently in the hypothesis stage. I thought I should break that out for clarity.

The many-worlds interpretation sees different worlds spinning off with every choice decision/observation.

The multiverse hypothesis is about different universes born of different big bangs. Our universe is one of many.

Both speak to there being different universes, so it can be confusing as to which multiverse idea is being discussed. Especially since some proponents blend the two ideas into different hypothetical classification schemes.

References:

Logic of Science meme: https://www.facebook.com/thelogicofscience/photos/a.1618699508361446/2273809009517156/?type=3&theater

Video clip from The Late Show with Steven Colbert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcPrl0rl76M&list=PLiZxWe0ejyv9R8q1jN70HZ4mwhTJxSIXf&index=5

The Logic of Science Webpage: https://thelogicofscience.com/

Definition of scientific theory: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-theory

RNA World hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world

Hygiene hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis

Theoretical physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics

Theory of relativity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

Steady State Model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_model

Many-worlds interpretation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

Quantum mechanics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics