They need to come up with a new word to define scientific theories, because idiots just don't understand that the definition of theory in science is not that same as the normal definition. How long have we been trying to educate people on this very simple fact? Clearly this is an impossible task.

@MrTysonfish

9 жыл бұрын

I just dealt with this yesterday. Their inability to grasp a scientific understanding baffles me.

@kre8noys

7 жыл бұрын

I've been trying for 5 years with a friend of mine. It's simply impossible.

@rickybello74

5 жыл бұрын

3 years later.....I couldn't agree more!

@chrisdenison3273

3 жыл бұрын

When someone fails to understand something explained to them, it's often failure on the behalf of the person explaining it. Always seek to improve your explanations - that is, if they're willing to listen.

You missed an important factor. To be a scientific theory, it _must be testable_, otherwise it is just a hypothesis. (that's always, not usually)

@racarth1

8 жыл бұрын

+Lennard Church He said that - it's the third point (see 2:30)

@lennardchurch8483

8 жыл бұрын

racarth1 I personally take issue that many people (including writers of school books) don't bother to differentiate between testable theories and unprovable hypotheses. ex: The origin of the universe. We can't create anything _ex nihilo_, so we can't test to prove how the universe came into existence. As such any explanation of how the universe came into existence doesn't belong in science books being taught as fact.

@error.418

8 жыл бұрын

+Lennard Church And which textbooks have anything saying that? The Big Bang Theory (bad name, should be called the Everywhere Stretch Theory) is not an origin theory, so you can't mean that. So what do you mean?

@TheDude50447

5 жыл бұрын

@@error.418 everything stretch theory. I like that :D though it's just space time stretching, not everything.

@error.418

5 жыл бұрын

@@TheDude50447 Everywhere, not everything :) But yeah, it's a simplification

thats just your theroy

@elaksandra

6 жыл бұрын

Hahahaha xD

I can feel the future of the comments on this video already.

@TheBuilderPro2024

Жыл бұрын

You just predicted everyone saying "A GAME THEORY", well done 😅

Thanks to one linguistically talented supporter we now have Spanish subtitles for this video. Muchos gracias!

@elaksandra

6 жыл бұрын

Thanks :)

@DivergentDroid

Жыл бұрын

Why did you LIE about The Scientific Method so much in this video? You couldn't science your way out of a wet paper bag. NathanOakley1980 and Quantum Eraser tells the Truth about the scientific method.

If I had one tiny problem with this video its the excessive use of visuals. Overall they do support eachother, which is what visuals should do. But at times they are massively distracting from the content. Other thing you could have explained in the video, since the subject is misconceptions about scientific lingo, are other terms like 'law', 'evidence' and 'fact' in scientific context (or otherwise it might be an interesting video for the future? hint hint) Excited about Rosetta? Was biting nails all throughout

@TheRoyalInstitution

9 жыл бұрын

Thanks for your feedback and yes we're interested hoping to produce some follow up pieces exploring some of the other terms you mentioned! Very excited about Rosetta, what a WIN for the human race.

@ahtoshkaa

9 жыл бұрын

You have to understand that the video targets the kind of people that have a hard time understanding text. Pictures are simpler.

@m0skit0

9 жыл бұрын

"Law" is just the old term for "theory".

@Shangori

9 жыл бұрын

m0skit0zindahouse Nah, the biggest difference between law and theory is that the latter is an explanation for an observed phenomenon and the first, a law, is a description of an observed phenomenon. Newton's law of motion is a law, because it doesn't explain the way the 'motion' works, but does give the description of it with which we can predict future 'motion' (well, within context anyway)

@artsmith100

9 жыл бұрын

m0skit0zindahouse Not exactly, as Justin Stressman has so ably pointed out.

This has to be the best video The Royal Institution has ever made.

@TheRoyalInstitution

9 жыл бұрын

It's a video we felt had to be made! Glad you enjoyed it!

@ahtoshkaa

9 жыл бұрын

The Royal Institution thank you so much for this video... Someone needed to explain it in terms which could be understood even by people who claim that Scientific theory is Just a theory.

@vectoredthrust5214

9 жыл бұрын

I'm still a bigger fan of the Diamond Light Source and Superconducting Magnet track videos, but this is probably one of the most important

But hey, that's just a theory, a GAME THEORY! Thanks for watching.

@Bolt8864

6 ай бұрын

Saw this after he left.

Great video and nicely narrated by Jim. Clear, accessible examples making good points about the language we use, which provides some people with an imagined loophole when discussing scientific theories. (the BBC could do with watching this, so they stop providing false balance' by asking Prof Alice Roberts to debate evolution with creationists...) Makes me wish I was still in the classroom so I could set this as HW; I'd have kids watch it with their parents then record any following discussion. I agree that there are more words with dual meanings (science/general) that could be explained in the same format - I strongly suggest they're already on a wish list at the RI! Nice one Alom - look forward to seeing more.

Thank you for making this video. It's really valuable as people do get confused about the scientific meaning of the word 'theory'. I will be showing this to my classes, especially when we are addressing a specific theory like tectonic plates.

Borrowing from _The Princess Bride_ with Mandy Patinkin as *Inigo Montoya:* "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

When scientists use the term "scientific theory", they do not typically mean something that puts forward "a comprehensive explanation of things we observe in nature". Even if most scientists using the term were Humean Empiricists of this sort, scientists cannot generally define what constitutes "comprehensive" and identifying the necessary and sufficient conditions for a narrative to qualify as a "scientific explanation" - especially since these are unsettled questions in philosophy of science, where such things are the focus of study. Typically what they mean is: "What I feel is a plausible conceptual structure." Let's bow to experts: science to scientists, and meta-science to philosophers of science.

I think this could be much better clarified by having people understand that the word theory means a working model based on evidence. Guesses are hypothesis, something that has yet to be tested or be backed by evidence. If people were more concise in their language and understanding of it, then "Just a theory" would sound as nuts as "I dont believe that, it's just a fact." The video seems to maintain that using theory in daily language as a guess, is okay, and it really isnt.

@EstanislaoSantino-xk8uz

9 ай бұрын

Is all theory's are correct?

@FNHot

9 ай бұрын

@@EstanislaoSantino-xk8uz All scientific theories have been tested and found to be true with the facts and evidence available. Theories can be modified or added to, but for the most part, yes all theories are true, but arent necessarily complete. People get confused because in math, theory means something different, and most peoples first exposure to the word is in math class.

@EstanislaoSantino-xk8uz

9 ай бұрын

@@FNHot oh, is all theory's are half correct and wrong, is I get that right?

@FNHot

9 ай бұрын

@@EstanislaoSantino-xk8uz they're correct, pending new information.

I was having this argument with my maths teacher earlier today. She was claiming that evolution was just a theory and that humans did not evolve from a common ancestor. I was honestly quite shocked that anyone would say that but i don't live in America so i guess I am not used to this.

@donrahstar9447

Жыл бұрын

Evolution is a theory. It makes the most sense but there certainly still is a "missing link"

@chrisclark784

Жыл бұрын

​@@donrahstar9447But a theory is well supported by evidence a theory is the highest point a scientific endeavour can reach.

2:35 - ALL of those aerodynamic diagrams are wrong. If they were right, the airplane wouldn't fly! Airplane and bird wings direct air downward, which is what keeps them aloft (Newton's Third Law).

@dgbucko

9 жыл бұрын

Shane Killian Not true. The lift is derived from a pressure differential; the curve of the wing creating lower pressure above the wing than is below the wing. This simply lifts the plane into the lower pressure area. The diagrams are correct.

@shanedk

9 жыл бұрын

ezz il Sigh...No, NOT CORRECT. Wings work by FORCING AIR DOWNWARDS. If you and they are correct, there's a simple experiment that would prove it: Put a giant box made of plexiglass on a scale and put a model helicopter inside it. Put it all on a scale. The scale shows the weight of the box plus the weight of the helicopter. If you're right, then when the helicopter lifts off, the scale will show a lower weight, being the weight of the box and NOT the helicopter. Guess what? IT DOESN'T. Even when the 'copter is hovering, its weight STILL shows on the scale. Because the ONLY way it can stay aloft is to push air downwards with a force that matches its weight. THE DIAGRAMS ARE WRONG. Newton's Third Law. No getting around it.

@dgbucko

9 жыл бұрын

Shane Killian This is the internet. There really is no need to tell us about your heavy breathing issues. Its Newtons second law you need to be reading, coupled with Bernoulli's Principle. The air above the wing is travelling faster than the air below, as demonstrated by wind tunnel experiments. This creates a pressure gradient and so lift. It is a very technical subject, but the images give a decent representation of the flow over the curve of the foil following the shape of the foil, which is correct. Not too up on helicopters in boxes. Would love to see that being demonstrated. With a plane, the force generated by the engines produces forward motion, producing air flow, quicker above the foil than below, and in accordance with Bernoulli's Principle there is an inverse relationship between speed and pressure of the air as it moves over the foil, thus the pressure above the foil is lower than the pressure below the surface of the foil and so we have lift. I do not see how this contravenes Newton's third law. In this example, forward motion has developed lift that is overcoming the force of gravity.

@shanedk

9 жыл бұрын

ezz il "There really is no need to tell us about your heavy breathing issues." LOLWUT??? "Its Newtons second law you need to be reading, coupled with Bernoulli's Principle." Nope. Bernoulli's Principle is involved, but YOU HAVE IT ALL WRONG. The wing is angled downward slightly, and slightly curved as well. It makes sense, then, that the air below the wing (again contrary to the diagram) is forced downward. Bernoulli's Principle is about what happens ABOVE the wing: since the air below the wing is forced down, if the air above the wing kept going like it was then there'd be a vaccum; that reduction in pressure PULLS THE AIR ABOVE THE WING DOWNWARD AS WELL. So BOTH the air above and below the wing get forced downward. Here's another test to see if your (and their) version is true: if it were, the no plane could fly upside-down. Yet, stunt pilots do it all the time! "but the images give a decent representation of the flow over the curve of the foil following the shape of the foil, which is correct." NO IT DOES NOT, because IT DOES NOT SHOW THE AIR MOVING DOWNWARD! Here's a MUCH better diagram: hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/fluids/imgflu/airattack.gif "I do not see how this contravenes Newton's third law. In this example, forward motion has developed lift that is overcoming the force of gravity." Because the third law says there MUST BE A DOWNWARD FORCE. And in that diagram, THERE IS NONE. YOU ARE WRONG. DEAL with it.

Reminds me of the electronic book in the TV adaptation of the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy!! "DON'T PANIC" Great vid!

But hey, that's just a theory. A GAME THEORY

I think the visuals help, and the style of them and the narration is very Hitchhikers Guide, which is good :)

Exceptional vid. Thank you Ri for producing and sharing this.

Great video guys - please can we have subtitles or captions for students who are hard of hearing though

@TheRoyalInstitution

9 жыл бұрын

Thank you, we really enjoyed making it! We're working on uploading subtitles to this film so please bear with us.

@TheRoyalInstitution

9 жыл бұрын

Jocelyn Wishart We've now uploaded subtitles to this film. Thanks again for your comments and we're glad you enjoyed the video!

Hi Nathan Oakley 1980 sent me , he’s commented on your vid please take a look and keep up the good work

I love the homage to Hitchhiker's Guide, though I kinda wish they'd gone into a bit more detail on the scientific method.

This is awesome, but I disagree with the last statement - that being a theory is the 'highest praise'. Even though a scientific theory is tested against how things work in real world, it is a theory until it is proven that they work that way because of what the theory says. A theory is like an implication - Theory => real world. Even if you see that real world works that way, it doesn't tell you whether the theory is true or not. I mean they call it theory for a reason (probably because they are too sincere to be calling it something else, even though they'd love to, given how probable the theories sometimes are).

Great video. I love the command prompt idea.

Something tells me that I'm going to end up sharing this video quite a bit on my more "open minded" acquaintances

Amazing video and design and info and all. Keep up the good work!

Help us understand by calling it 'fact' rather than misusing the English word theory to mean a 'possible fact' or the 'best available possible fact we have', just a thought.

@rick7424

2 жыл бұрын

"A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses"

@albundy2740

2 жыл бұрын

@@rick7424 wow didn't even remember commenting on this. Thanks for the answer/reply 4 years on. My past self was an idiot, you were spot on👌.

Excellent stuff - very well explained! :)

Hey man don't forget music theory!

A game theory! Thanks for watching!

is not just theory , but just prediction and probabilities

Too bad the "Royal Institution" (?) put so much effort into making this video without first checking out what the word "theory" means in scientific discourse. The theory of plate tectonics was referred to as a "theory" long before it was widely accepted. Dalton immediately referred to his atomic theory as a theory in his notebooks, before anyone else knew about it. Obviously, being a theory does not depend on popularity or amount of evidence. A theory is a grand hypothesis, a systematic conjecture. It does not have to be accepted. In fact, scientists still use the word "theory" for the theories that they reject. In evolution, most people reject Kimura's neutral theory of molecular evolution, but it is still called the Neutral Theory.

@rick7424

2 жыл бұрын

A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses

NathanOakley1980 channel sent me here… he did a reaction video to your content. 👍

@BrendaCreates

Жыл бұрын

It's called clout begging.

Hi, Nathan Oakley 1980 channel responded to your video.

It makes some very good points - although I found the presentation far too rapid; I wanted to stop and think about some of the points. The public at large - and most urgently, pupils at school - need to understand scientific method. Scientists collect facts, observations, and experimental results. Maybe they just happen to notice them, maybe they do a series of detailed and costly experiments to investigate or verify them. They find there is a pattern, which they can formulate into a law or a discovery e.g. the law of evolution, theory of relativity, the fact that there is global warming, the existence of the Higgs boson. They make predictions based on this law/discovery. If those predictions are validated by experiment or observation, the case for the law or discovery is immensely strengthened. They publish the discovery and await peer review and discussion. If the discovery survives this, it is an acceptable discovery. The theories of relativity (both special and General) are perhaps the best cases of this. But a single verifiable, repeatable counter observation could destroy the discovery (or completely modify it, as Einstein did to Newton’s previously impregnable law of Gravity) But in the absence of such a counter-observation ,the discovery or law is a non-optional, non-disputable statement of how the world and nature work. We need to get that fact (and I do mean fact) across to people about Global warming. And to save abuse being hurled at me, I would put anthropogenic Global warming (AGW) as needing exactly the same procedures but as a separate fact from Global warming. I DO believe Global warming is aggravated or significantly cause by man’s actions - but here I have far fewer indisputable facts at my finger tips. Occam’s razor says to me that it is anthropogenic, so for the safety of my children I will act as if it is. But causes are far less easy to demonstrate. Evolution - yes (Occam’s razor says so). By natural selection of the fittest? That is the ONLY default explanation if you have decided (without evidence, but via some non-divine revelation) that there is unarguably no Creator overall in charge. But if there is a Creator (or with scientific open-mindedness we accept the possibility that there might be One) , we then need experimental demonstration that survival of the fittest is the actual mechanism. I’ve spent 50 years waiting for that evidence as an irrefutable observation or experiment; I haven’t found it yet. Some issues - like the existence of a Creator, and Intelligent Design are outside the scope of science because as the Nobel Laureate, Sir Paul Nurse so wisely observed, “It’s not a testable hypothesis”. So let us commit all necessary resources and spare no effort to make it clear to youngsters at school how the scientific method works and that scientific theories are not “optional” or open to doubt and opinion, but that there are areas (like the Driving Force of evolution and the origin of the first cell(s) on earth) that are outside the realm of science at the moment because they are neither testable nor verifiable - and that it is a matter of personal opinion and belief whether they are likely to remain so

Good job, thanks for posting.

So the earth was once flat? There was a time when science said it was.

This is going to be a very useful video.

This is easily one of the coolest videos that I've ever seen!!

@mcrohof

8 жыл бұрын

+Thomas Russell you got ties with them royal unstitutionalized, eh? Shame on you.

But hey, that’s just a theory, A GAME THEORY! And cut.

Science isn't a theory; it's a process. Quantum physics is a theory. Gravity is a theory. Relativity is a theory. Evolution is a theory, and it's in good company.

I don’t know how many times I’ve explained this to my parents and friends

@EstanislaoSantino-xk8uz

9 ай бұрын

Why

But. A theory is just that. Until the next theory comea along. And therefor is something else than fact. Not sure what you guys are trying to say here.

@heethanthen

Жыл бұрын

You somehow completely missed the point of what this video was trying to get across

Appart from all the overly detailed animations, the sole thing that apparently you are saying is "scientific theories are credible because scientists say so", and just make a passing comment about how they are observed, tested and reproduced, when it's the actual big deal. Not because "science name theories to give them the maximum praise" as you said pretty much in this fashion, but because they are observable and reproduceable. This video if anything, give the "lizard leaders believing tin-foil hat" crew even more ammunition ... "they think only their 'opinions' count because they are 'scientists'".

@ryanparteer0415

Жыл бұрын

Love this comment… voted for best of the year for me!

Bloody excellent animations!

it is still just a theory

@noahert1337

2 жыл бұрын

A GAAAAAAAAAME THEORY! Thanks For Watching ( >wO)

but thats just a theory..a GAME theory!

@shaderxluna

5 ай бұрын

Or maybe even a food theory 😂

@zat-1-fury

2 күн бұрын

Theory… I just made this reference and didn’t see this comment yet 😅

Your knowledge is so vast. Do tell me more, O wise one.

Gotta love Jim Al-Khalili :)

It's JUST a [experimentally demonstrated explanation unifying of a whole body demonstrable facts for which all relevant evidence fails to disconfirm and thus has gained broad consensus across the scientific community].

@YOSUP315

7 жыл бұрын

***** Theories explain why laws and facts are what they are. Atomic theory explains chemical facts/laws, evolution explains biological facts/laws, etc. Given that, I don't see what else it is I'm supposed to be wrapping my head around.

@YOSUP315

7 жыл бұрын

***** Um no; that's a completely different meaning of the word. In science, a theory is as described in the original comment.

@YOSUP315

7 жыл бұрын

skyisthelimit @readyornotfor2 Your opinion doesn't really fucking matter; what matters is what hypothesis makes falsifiable predictions that get experimentally demonstrated. And creation hypothesis is not experimentally demonstrated.

@YOSUP315

7 жыл бұрын

***** Religion has been saying this shit for millennia "we're not meant to know" "we never can know" Yet science just keeps solving these questions anyway, constantly advancing while religion is constantly losing and receding: Why does the earth, sun, moon, stars, exist? No not because some God did a 5-day landscaping project, but because of billions of years of accretion and geological processes. What makes thunder? No not Thor or Zeus, but electrostatic forces in clouds. Why do we have all these different types of organisms that function well in their environment? No not God making a little garden/zoo, but evolutionary processes. What causes disease and seizures and hallucinations? No not daemons, but germs, parasites, brain damage, chemical imbalance, etc. What causes earthquakes and volcanic activity? No not vengeful Gods or gay sex, but tectonic activity. Where do rivers come from? No not from various God/spirit activity, but from glacial melt, natural springs, rainfall in drainage basins. What makes a dead body different from a living person/animal? No not a soul, but the an interconnected network of trillions of neurons firing.

@YOSUP315

7 жыл бұрын

***** either troll or pants on head stupid...

I am unsubscribing from RI. This video crosses a line that the Royal Institute shouldn't even be close to. The graph at 02:00 would imply that time alone is enough for a theory to gain credibility. Shouldn't the X axis be "Evidence" that the theory is correct based on rigorous testing through the scientific method? Just because a "scientist" makes a theory, doesn't mean it is infallible, and should be accepted regardless of evidence that would indicate it is flawed. It doesn't gain credibility just because many scientists with loud voices believe it, have faith in it, or want it to be true. Scientists around the world should take the lead from Darwin himself, who was humble enough to write "“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.” ― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species. With modern microscopes, we have innumerable examples of irreducible complexity. Where is the humility? Macro Evolution is "just a theory". What would Darwin say to you today, Jim Al-Khalili? Aren't you just a bit embarrassed that you likened anyone who dismisses the theory of evolution, in favor of another theory, to people who believe Elvis is alive, UFOs, and Reptilian world leaders? As a theoretical physicist, do your theories magically gain credibility over time, until they are unquestionable? No solid, peer-reviewed evidence necessary?

@AlexMercer77

9 жыл бұрын

Oooooohhh so you're gonna unsubscribe? Noooooo plz dontz. Like we give a damn.

So what you're saying is that it's shape-shifting snails right?

Sounds oddly religious: "When scientists refer to an idea as a theory, well, they're giving it the highest PRAISE it can have." 3:18 I don't care one bit what scientists "praise." Unlike much of the "scientific community," I need evidence. Pseudoscience is when you have to make a video "praising" evolution without providing one bit of evidence for the claim. Science is not about belief, the evidence must lead to one's conclusions, otherwise those conclusions are unfounded.

Wow! He uses DOS to counter 'just a theory'? Why use such a backward archaic system? Why not use OS X and make a stronger statement?

@theDuffChimp

9 жыл бұрын

Because he didn't want to be laughed at?

@DaFan86

9 жыл бұрын

>"Backward archaic system" > Says to use OSX instead. ...LOL

@ReevansElectro

9 жыл бұрын

I use both every day and have developed software on both. Since 1985, I have preferred Mac OS versions over all that Microsoft produced. My main employment requires MS OS and I hate the unintuitive way it works.

@ohmycosh

9 жыл бұрын

DaFan86 OS X uses bash... Very close to GNU/Linux :p I'd rather develop on OS X than windows.

@DaFan86

9 жыл бұрын

Tru3Gamer I prefer Linux personally, so no worries :D

Love the H2G2 vibe

Fantastic!

He erroneously ends with theory being the highest praise for scientific information. That is incorrect. Law is the highest praise. Theory always falls short of law in some form. Darwinian evolution has insufficient evidence and testing to prove it as fact. Even the evolutionary scientists are looking for other ways evolution could work besides Darwin's proposition. The evidence we use is fact, but theories are simply propositions that are founded upon known facts in an attempt to explain phenomenon that we have observed. Misinterpreting facts easily leads to erroneous theories. There are various levels of trustworthiness of scientific theories, but only one trustworthiness for scientific law.

@ARCADEGHOST

8 жыл бұрын

+Ian Belletti Yes! That is really good on what you said. But honestly, I see that this is not taught in universities. Students are just given information in science classes and forced to see them as true. It really is a shame because anything that goes against a theory, not just evolution, will be immediately rejected by the future generation of scientists.

@ianbelletti6241

8 жыл бұрын

ARCADEGHOST What you said and what the person said in this video are how they justify bad science (i.e. the instantaneous rejection of other theories that go against the direction that they want the science to head). I agree with you that this attitude about theory being fact is an absolute shame and it is a crime that they teach this to students. The central point of this video was good, the fact that theories in science aren't purely conjectures but have a foundation of evidence is correct, however, he errs like many in saying that theories are fact. Fact indicates an absolute that cannot be changed; however, if a theory can be changed if a better theory comes along to explain the phenomenon, logically, the assumption that what a theory states is a fact is erroneous. We can talk about the reliability of a theory, we cannot talk about the reliability of facts.

@Para199x

8 жыл бұрын

+Ian Belletti That is entirely untrue. A "Law" in science doesn't really have a consistent definition and the word is only used for historical reasons. The idea that a "Law" is better than a theory is easily debunked by referring to some of the most famous Laws of physics (Newton's), all of them have been shown to fail in certain circumstances and the better explanations we have are all referred to as theories. (Newton's Law of Gravitation -> The General Theory of Relativity for example)

@ianbelletti6241

8 жыл бұрын

Para199x Every scientific law has a framework in which it is to be applied. Newton's laws of motion haven't been found in error, nor his law of gravity. Don't confuse Newton's law of gravity with gravitational theory. Gravitational theory is an attempt to further understand what causes the force that we call gravity. All Newton's law does is explain how gravity affects objects. Gravity is considered a weak force, that's why at the subatomic level other forces have the ability to overcome gravity. That's also why you can levitate an object with magnets if the magnetic force is great enough or why we can send rockets into space with powerful engines. Newton's laws haven't been found in error. As far as Einstein's theories of relativity, both general and special, haven't been debunked yet, but haven't been sufficiently tested and proven to be considered absolute fact. It is a well trusted set of theories because it has been proven dependable, but we do not have the ability to say that it's got our full trust. That's why the theories of relativity remain theories. I stick with my original post on the definition of theory and law.

@Para199x

8 жыл бұрын

Well I don't want to get into the semantic arguement about what counts as being "wrong" in science. However we can (and have) measured significant deviations from Newton's law of gravitation and all those deviations are in exact agreement (at least within experimental accuracy) with GR.

It is humans who put a hierarchy of thoughts that is relative to individual perception. It sounds to me your argument strays from scientific theory and migrates into scientific belief. In a sense you are creating a religion in replace of true scientific method. If theory is the pinnacle of scientific discovery as you state at the end, then what of its applications in the natural world, that the theory attempts to explain?

Does string theory meet these criteria? Then why is it called a theory?

This is really really great.

Mine did lol. Find a Doctor who uses sound waves to treat it . Works better than mustard gass

That's really helpful and informative, thank you! I didn't know that the word 'theory' was used differently in science than what it is commonly used for. Yeah for education!!

didn't they get the science of how wings work wrong in that animation?

to me, the theory of evolution fails the 2nd and 3rd requirements mentioned in the video. before i talk about those, i need to talk about my views on evolution. to me, mutation is mutation. not evolution. adaptation is adaptation. not evolution. when i say evolution, i mean the theory that humans and cows and fish all evolved from the same organism millions of years ago. 2nd - what is considered "strong" evidence is a matter of opinion and not a matter of fact. therefore it's up for debate but to my standards, the evidence is not strong enough. 3rd - the theory of evolution makes no predictions that are practical nor useful. it would take millions of years of observation to prove the prediction of this theory which is not practical. even if this prediction proves to be true, there's nothing useful about it. at least not at this time.

Its a game theory!

Such is the power of reason

A theory is a hypothesis with supporting facts, FACTS

What is the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific fact?

@mukkimmajjomm

9 жыл бұрын

theory - as said, strong evidence, can build upon and can predict, but there still maybe things about that that we are not sure about, or work differently. But the described part of the theory IS right, just not everything is discovered about it. fact - it is proven always, in every possible way, it works always, in every possible way, it will never change, in any possible way. its a fact.

@Niosus

9 жыл бұрын

mukkimmajjomm I'd add a bit more nuance there. A fact would be an observation. "When I jump, I fall back down again". A fact does not explain anything, it is merely a statement that is true. The thing is that there is no such thing as a scientific fact. When we measure something we cannot know that what we measured is what we wanted to measure. Only when there are enough independent measurements with a high statistical significance we can assume that we measured the right thing. That still isn't 100% certainty though. You can never be absolutely certain of anything in science. A theory is like said in the video, a framework of ideas that explain a certain part of reality (which part it explains is also part of what makes up a theory). A scientific theory either has no evidence against it, or when there is evidence of its shortcomings there still is no better explanation. For instance we know that the standard model of physics does not explain 96% of the universe. However for the other 4% it is remarkably accurate. That leads us to believe that it is at least incomplete, yet we still use it to explain the 4% of the universe that is visible to us since it does a fantastic job at that specific part.

@p00ky76

9 жыл бұрын

To me a "fact" is an individual piece of information that can be repeatably verified e.g. If I measure the height of a box and I find it to be 100mm, then it is a fact that the box has a height of 100mm (at least where I measured it, using the technique and accuracy that I used, at the time I measured it). If that's the case then i would say that a scientific "theory" is comprised of many scientific facts. Now, if I were to come up with a better measuring technique with greater accuracy for example & I re-measure the same box but because I now have the ability to measure the height more accurately, I find that the box actually has a height of 99.7349mm. The scientific "fact" must change & the "theory" may require adjustment too. I point this out because "facts" like "theories" are only ever best estimates. The more supporting data the stronger they are & in some fields of science your talking evidence gathered over hundreds of years giving data on millions of years. So I guess my opinion is different from mukkimmajjomm. I would say that his definition of "fact" describes something that simply can't exist as you could never have that level of accuracy or amount of data on anything. So it's simply not a practical model. Or maybe I've turned into a Solipsist :S who knows? Oh I have, dam, when did that happen :D Anyways just an opinion I guess, anyone care to add their 10cents?

Do you really expect the people who say this to not be too stupid to get past what they think words mean?

Hm, it doesn't have strong evidence and is hardly testable and yet they call it string theory. ;)

a theory can't be provened but also can't be denied that is why their are scientific laws because scientific laws are fact and theories aren't

HAVE ANYONE SEEN THE BIGBANG???

@Azariy0

2 жыл бұрын

Explain why you have to see something to prove it?

@Lexi2019AURORA

Жыл бұрын

Has anyone seen God saying "let there be light"? NO Yet people still eat that narrative. You see the fatal flaw in your logic?

@Betelgeuse2142

Жыл бұрын

​@@Azariy0 god

Would have been better if it wouldn't start with *outrageous* (everyday-life) theories. To use such did not contribute to the explanation and instead just added an extra element that the viewer, who supposedly does not know the meaning of (scientific) theory, would have to sort out.

So far I find his explanation of scientific theories "spot on" (jesting at accent). The issue he runs into with comparing Einstein and Darwin. Einstein's relativity had testable prediction, and was not considered proven until thoroughly tested. E=mc^2 can be observed in every reactor in the world. Etc... "Origin of species" is a little more difficult to test unless you can create life (which they have been failing at for a quite a while). We can observe characteristic changes in traits, but haven't ever heard of new traits evolving. At least not proven, all cases I know of are either an unknown trait newly discovered or an exist trait modified. Then there because that problem, even if a new trait did evolve and was observed, how to prove that it wasn't a pre-existing trait not observed or merely modified to be more observable? With relativity, we got a nice solar eclipse to look at. At the end of the video he finishes with "when scientists call something a theory they are giving it the highest praise". If you believe the praise (prayers) of scientist can affect the nature of reality, then this is valid, otherwise it is stupid. A theory should not be rejected on the title of "theory". It should be questioned on the ability to testable produce predicted observed measured outcomes. Germinology was really a relatively weak theory until we got the technology to see microbes.

How can you prove that anything is real and not just a hallucination or a generated reality?

@durpface1087

9 жыл бұрын

Well maybe be if you blow up Earth.... That'll figure things out, right?

That's just a theory, a GA- I SAID TOO MUCH.

@militarymanperson

5 ай бұрын

YES!

If you read the first few chapters of The God Delusion, Dawkins clears this matter up (and a few others including deserved and undeserved respect) by referring to the two OED definitions of "theory". I like the animations in this video so that the scientifically illiterate can digest it.

I'm not really agree because there are theorys like theory of relativity wich are safer than other theorys like strings theory.

Theory in a scientific term is a bettter focus than a layman's term.

Best vid by far

Your video is not going to convince the true believer. In order to properly appreciate anything in science, one has to invest an enormous amount of time into it. For example, I recently studied a little of quantum physics. It has some good predictive abilities. I appreciate it now even more. Then I see some people claiming that consciousness creates reality but what the heck are they basing this on? From my research, they are just believers in souls and mystic Mumbo jumbo, trying to validate their religious beliefs.

@kossmikham

9 жыл бұрын

No physicist has ever claimed "consciousness creates reality". I think you're confusing charlatans and snake oil salesmen like Deepak Chopra with scientists. Take some introductory physics and chemistry courses at your local college. That way you'll at least be able to tell bullshit from science.

It’s a game theory

yes this is correct, but philosophicly its still just a theory. Science is great, as long as used in areas, it is useful. In other words, scientists should know the limits of the scientific method.

Oh thank you so much. I can think of many occasions where I will send this to people that are refraining from basing their arguments on more than guesses.

But hey that's just a theory A THEORY THEORY

But theories are just that, aren't they?

Why science is NOT 'Just a Theory.'

sounds like we have the same friend :)

for the 2 simple facts, a) we do not know what we do not know. and b) there is never a record of an event before it happens, everything is just a theory....

@error.418

8 жыл бұрын

+Cheyne Simons See, that's the confusion. The word theory in science is NOT the same as the word theory in standard English. They are completely different words with completely different meanings. . A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. Calling something a theory is the highest form of praise. So saying "just a theory" makes no sense in science. It's like saying it's "just the best." It's "only number one."

I have a theory that this guy is a happy willing slave, who likes to be told what to believe and what to think. It's a theory based on facts. His tone, his words, his obvious love and acceptance of unproven science. It's a scientific theory so it has to be accepted.

@johnwarosa2905

4 жыл бұрын

Then try to disprove these theories. Youll have a hard time because a hyothesisis tested extensively before it can be considered a theory

Interesting, I wonder if a scientist has come up with a theory on the Holy Bible using these guidelines?

@IstasPumaNevada

9 жыл бұрын

***** Nicely put. :)

Theory … this is just a theory a KZread THEORY 🤣

@zat-1-fury

2 күн бұрын

I’m sorry I just had to 😅

an excellent explanation of scientific theory vs other theories (subbed because i love what you did here The Royal Institution !)

@msginca

9 жыл бұрын

+*FICTION *FIGHTER* I like following you around … you find some really excellent stuff!

@627pts

9 жыл бұрын

msginca THX i'm glad someone is benefiting from the gems i find lol ;) I try to keep it an interesting mix ;) xox theres soo much stuff ,i can barely keep up sometimes , Ive got some great people i follow around too ;) Its all so much better than whats on tv eh?? It keeps me glued to google + and utube ......i ditched the satellite tv service almost a year ago lol

@msginca

9 жыл бұрын

*FICTION *FIGHTER* and beautiful GEMS is exactly what they are.

Hypothesis ❤

@NathanOakley1980 sent me to this interesting informative channel, and I’m appreciative & elated to subscribe & stay tuned!! 👍🏽

A scientific theory isn't a scientific fact. It is just a hypothesis that might be true. When its predictions are tested and found to hold up, then it isn't a theory any more, but a fact because it is proven (although what counts as "proven" is debatable). So it makes more sense for those who believe in the truth of evolution to say it is an established scientific fact and not a theory, rather than to say it is a theory but in a different sense than the common use of the word (i.e. just a theory). When proven, it moves beyond theory and becomes fact. Evolution is a fact and no longer just a theory.

@error.418

8 жыл бұрын

+chel3SEY That's not accurate. A theory is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. So you must first have a hypothesis, then you must test that hypothesis through the scientific method, and if proven through repeated tests and observations, you then have a theory. Your hypothesis becomes a theory. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. As used in everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" implies that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, or hypothesis; such a usage is the opposite of a scientific theory. In science, a fact is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence. Facts are central to building scientific theories. So a theory comes from facts which support it. A theory comes from facts. A theory is an interpretation of the facts.

@chel3SEY

8 жыл бұрын

+Anonymous User So there are two inconsistent usages of the word: a broader popular usage (implying an unproven hypothesis) and a narrower scientific usage (based on scientifically established facts). It may be confusing, but both usages are equally legitimate. Scientists who get worked up by the fact that the common usage isn't the scientific usage (and there seem to be 1000s of them online) can bluster and abominate till the cows come home. It won't make a difference. The popular usage is well-entrenched in the culture. It isn't going to change for the foreseeable future.

@error.418

8 жыл бұрын

chel3SEY Yes, that's correct. I understand that and am not asking it to change. I am not worked up about it nor blustering about it. I'm passing on the information in order to help as best I can.

Nicely done. Short, sweet, and to the point.

Nice. I have also some not theories, just very unscientific hypothesis. :-) Just kidding... I ask questions about the why, now how things work. I guess with more study I might be answer these questions or see that my hypothesis is fundamentally flawed. Too bad that self learning to such a deep level is virtually impossible (or I am just lazy). And I do not speak the language of mathematics at a required level. :-( Nor do I have the time or support of people around me. I am just a crazy weirdo who looks like a hobo and has low self-esteem.

Never the less it is still a theory and not a fact

@johnwarosa2905

4 жыл бұрын

There are no facts, just theories and laws