A question regarding "Fact and Theory"

[YJOB]

---

After browsing another thread in this section about facts and theories, something came into my mind.
Well, this might be a nonsense question pero wala man tingali dautan kung i-post ni nako diri.

I may even receive an infraction for this but anyway wa pa man sad ko kasuway dawat infraction at least maka-experience ko.

---

Regarding scientific facts, is it possible that sometime in the future it will be withdrawn and considered as theory?
If yes, how many scientific facts will soon be considered as theories and not facts?
That something which has been established as fact for a long long time turns out to be wrong?

Is it possible that these things that we are so firm at believing in our discussions here will turn out to be theories and not facts as what we have believed in?

To make myself clear, I will cite an example.

Here in istorya, we have different opinions, views and beliefs.
At some point the discussions turn into debates because we can't agree on the same thing.
I won't talk about conspiracy theories here to be safe.
Even though you guys have different opinions about specific conspiracy theories especially the moon landing, I'll just leave it as is.
Whether it's a fact or a myth, it's up to you to decide after reading this post.

Let's take for example... Pluto.

For how many years it has been considered as one of the nine planets.
Nobody can disagree about that, we all agree.
All scientific calculations and experimentation and studies arrive to a single conclusion that it is indeed a planet.
Extensive research and observations were done to establish the fact that it is a planet.

Then suddenly, we were told that it was not.

Textbooks and reference materials have to be edited.
All previous publications have to be rewritten.

My point is, maybe we so strongly defend our stand about something and then it turns out to be something else.

.

[moy1moy1]

hehe d ka ma infract ani, i tot another myth or conspiracy neh, but after reading the whole article, u do have a point!! nice find... yeah nganu kaha noh? when theories became sci. real, and that conclusion suddenly changes and became a theory?

[rodsky]

The reason why you're confused is because you're confusing facts with politics.

The Pluto issue is a Political one. It's just a NAMING ISSUE.

Here is an analogy of the Pluto issue nga hopefully ka-relate mo.

A beauty contest was held. The criteria/conditions of the contest said nga pwede moapil ang mestizas. So naay nag apil nga mestiza tapos nidaog. And THEN all of a sudden, a day after the event, the judges said "Ay we made a mistake, dili dapat diay apil ang mestiza kay unfair sa mga local talent"...and so, the winner was forced to surrender her crown.

Same case with Pluto. Before 2007, the criteria for being a "planet" was different. Unya after the 2006 IAU conference, gi-usab nila. Kay ngano man i-usab man dyud? Now here's where you'll have difficulty in chewing the food...kay dapat naa kay background in planetary geology to understand the issues involved, but one simple angle...if ang pre 2007 definition of a planet dawaton gihapon...na, ang total number of planets in the solar system kay molapas ug 30...so just think of all the planets that an elementary school kid would have to memorize? And to think they're barely visible (very small and very far, these are the so called Kuiper Belt objects).

SO, one of the solutions is to cut down the number of planets to 8, kay most of the other "planets" in the list of 30 candidates, mga gagmay man dyud. Did you know that some of these 30 are even LARGER than Pluto? So unsaon man na nimo bi? Mas dako pa sa Pluto, pero hiwi ang orbit in relation to the solar plane? Aber? Unsa man? Unya what about satellite-harboring? Aysus daghang kaayo intawon nga issue, so that the debate will last siguro mga 10 years...so para human na ang hisgut, since naming issue ra man ni, mas maayo nga 8 planets ra dyud para human na ang lalis. Sabot?

So don't automatically judge stuff kung wala mo'y nahibaw-an about the decisions involved.

-RODION

[moy1moy1]

getz kona............hehehehe tnx

[rodsky]

getz kona............hehehehe tnx

Mao gani. Ang uban diri sige lang patakag yaw yaw nya wala diay kabalo sa background issues involved.

-RODION

[YJOB]

oh ok, anyway example raman sad to ang Pluto sir.
the point of this topic remains the same even if Pluto is a bad example.

i know there are other credible examples lying around.
sooner or later, especially with the advancement in technology, a few scientific facts will turn out to be wrong.

[rodsky]

sooner or later, especially with the advancement in technology, a few scientific facts will turn out to be wrong.

LOL, you just described the scientific process.

The Scientific method is not a recipe: it requires intelligence, imagination, and creativity. It is also an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods. For example, when Einstein developed the Special and General Theories of Relativity, he did not in any way refute or discount Newton's Principia. On the contrary, if the astronomically large, the vanishingly small, and the extremely fast are reduced out from Einstein's theories — all phenomena that Newton could not have observed — Newton's equations remain. Einstein's theories are expansions and refinements of Newton's theories and, thus, increase our confidence in Newton's work.

Once upon a time, Newton was right, but then Einstein came along and said, "there's something even better..." and yes, one day, someone will come along and say "Einstein was right, but there's something even better..."

THESIS + COUNTERTHESIS = SYNTHESIS

(SYN) THESIS + COUNTERTHESIS = SYNTHESIS

(SYN) THESIS + COUNTERTHESIS = SYNTHESIS

...and so on.

It's a continuous process.

So unsa man ang imong problema?

Siguro ang hinungdan? Simbahan/Religion. Why? Kay in religion, if there is ALREADY one explanation, wala na dayon MOLALIS KAY GABAAN SA GINOO.

Which makes it clear why people who have strong tendencies to believe in religions CANNOT GROW properly into mature human beings, kay in their WORLD, FROZEN na ang kalibutan--wala nay angay pang tun-an, kay everything is already ANSWERED...

...shakes head.

Hahay.

-RODION

[moy1moy1]

hmm... but @ least gi embraced n2 ang morals given by what religion we belong 2? even to an atheist, good morals ain't a hindrance to learning esp. science dibah? although God may never exist @ all, tnx to them religions, people can either live peacefully or live chaotically.. hehe

[YJOB]

wala koy problema sir oy.
just came to my mind lang ba.
layo ra sad kaayo nang religion.

pananglit lang, it's a fact that the pituitary gland is responsible for growth or height.
then after 20 years from now naay mogawas nga findings nga dili diay.

it's not about scientific process, i mean, maybe just maybe naay bag-ong mga studies nga mogawas then ang isa ka scientific fact ma-proven to be wrong.

my point is, will all scientific facts today hold true after 50 or so years?

[rodsky]

my point is, will all scientific facts today hold true after 50 or so years?

It all depends on whoever keeps on repeating the tests/experiments. Even ikaw, given the funding, and the proper training, who knows if you keep repeating the experiment, and one day, your findings might suggest that the results of the experiment have changed so then of course, the fact of today will no longer be considered as fact, kay nag-usab naman ang findings. Simple as that.

-RODION