It's Just A Theory: The Pleasure Of Finding Things Out

Yes, that's true: a theory is not a claim of knowing the truth, or the true nature of reality. But... A theory on the other hand is the highest attainable status a hypothesis is able to reach in science.

_{source: Pixabay}

And since science is the best method we have to describe an approximation of reality, the "theory" is, so to speak, the best understanding of "truth" we human beings are able to attain. Or at least the physical truth about the "stuff" of our surroundings on all scales.

In this short post I'd like to address this oldest of misunderstandings about science or the scientific method. As such, it's also the most used argument against science, usually used in conversations between religious people and atheists. "You don't know what you're saying is true, you only have a theory!". And that's exactly true. Science never claims to know the absolute truth. Scientists only speak in terms of probabilities; based on observations it is more probable that this conforms with reality than that.

After this observation a hypothesis is proposed; based on repeated observations I or we propose this description or this model best explains what we observe. We don't know if it's true. The next step, in the scientific method, is the testing of this description or model. Through repeated experimentation, independent researchers try to replicate the observed results. Every effort is made to prove the hypothesis wrong, so it can be thrown in the dustbin of unfruitful ideas about reality. This is the process of "peer review".

And only if and when all the attempts to disprove the hypothesis have failed, a process of many, many years, only then this initial idea about a very small aspect of reality is "promoted" to the much coveted status of a real Theory. So the Theory of Evolution is the best model we have been able to develop to describe the evolution of the immense diversification and development of life on earth from a common ancestor. It is the agreed upon best guess about reality in the community of scientists. And I even give an incomplete description of this method, and should emphasize also that it's an ongoing process, as hypotheses and even previously agreed upon theories get re-evaluated, refined, altered or rejected altogether. This illustration should make it clearer:

_{source: Wikimedia Commons}

The scientific method implies and demands a willingness to change your view about anything at all, as soon there's evidence that disproves previous best guesses. It's how Newton's theory on gravity was allowed to evolve into Einsteins model of curved space-time. And it's a good thing to, because Newton's model just isn't good enough to make our lives better with things like GPS.

This also means that atheists, like myself, don't rule out the possibility of there being one or more Gods. There's just no reason for me to assume one exists. Laplace said it best:

Laplace presented his definitive work on the properties of the solar system to Napoleon. Napoleon, liking to embarrass people, asked Laplace if it was true that there was no mention of the solar system’s Creator (ie God) in his opus magus. Laplace, on this occasion at least, was not obsequious and replied, "I had no need of that hypothesis."
_{source: Quantum Diaries}

We don't know there's no God. We don't know anything. Maybe our universe is a 3D hologram projected from a 2D plane of pure information. Maybe everything is consciousness and consciousness is everything. Science has given us some reason for these hypotheses and we're looking for methods to test them. But there's no reason to assume the existence of a God where we just don't know things (yet). There's every reason, on the other hand, to keep searching for better ways to describe the observable reality we can all agree on that it exists.

Unfortunately, many scientists manage to come across as rather arrogant because, in spite of all I just explained about the inherent uncertainty assumed in the scientific method, they speak about truths and knowing. This is, I think at least, a reaction to the truths spoken by religions. It's when they're accused of not knowing anything, for having only theories and nothing else, they feel the need to say that their version of the truth is the truth. Scientists know, or should know that "truth" is always in motion, always developing, always evolving, and that yesterday's truths are today's myths.

One of the best descriptions I've ever seen and heard, of the beauty of science and learning and finding things out, is from Richard Feynman. If you can spare the time, and if you're interested in science and scientists, watch this 1983 interview:

_{Richard Feynman: "Fun To Imagine" (1983)}

Life's a miracle, with or without God. That's all I'm gonna leave you with today. Hope that sparked some thoughts, and I'll see you back here tomorrow!

Recent articles you might be interested in:

Latest article >>>>>>>>>>>	Mad As Hell!!
Aliens On Earth	Self-Help
Myths Of Our Economy: The Middle Class	Early Signs Of Fascism
Investigative Journalism To Keep Us Awake	Is Star Wars Dead?

Thanks for stopping by and reading. If you really liked this content, if you disagree (or if you do agree), please leave a comment. Of course, upvotes, follows, resteems are all greatly appreciated, but nothing brings me and you more growth than sharing our ideas. It's what Steemit is made for!

I am a proud helpinaut! @Helpie is looking for new members! Helpie has been growing nicely and we are always on the lookout for new valuable members. We are very supportive and community oriented. If you would like to be scouted for @helpie , please drop a comment on THIS POST or contact @paintingangels on discord at paintingangels(serena)#3668.

Just for Full Disclosure, I'm invested in these crypto-currencies:

Bitcoin | Litecoin | EOS | OmiseGo | FunFair | KIN | Pillar | DENT | Polymath | XDCE | 0x | Decred | Ethereum | Carmel | XYO