What's a Theory? Part II
by MikeGeneAccording to Celeste Biever, writing for the NewScientist.com, "Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science."
Biever also writes:
Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory: "Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.""¦"¦Behe said he had come up with his own "broader" definition of a theory, claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are actually used by scientists. "The word is used a lot more loosely than the NAS defined it," he says. Rothschild suggested that Behe's definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe's definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS's definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.
Let's think this through.
By playing these rhetorical games, Rothschild is admitting that all scientific hypotheses are in the same class as astrology. There is no need to attack science like this, as such games can be played in the court room only because it is often very hard to precisely define our complex reality. And yes, human reality and inquiry is part of our complex reality.
Behe is absolutely correct in noting that there does not seem to be a strong consensus on the use of the term "˜theory' among those who practice science. Readers of Telic Thoughts should be ahead of the curve here, as I already spotlighted this over a month ago.
When Rothschild quotes from the US National Academy of Sciences. he is offering an ecclesiastical argument. It doesn't really matter what a small band of authorities write down as a definition. Science does not proceed by appealing to authority. The scientific way of going about something is too observe and study the way the scientific community actually uses the term "˜theory' in the real-world.
It's an easy experiment to do. Simply wander over to PubMed and search with the word "˜theory.'
The search word "˜theory' retrieves 120926 articles. This seemed awfully high for a word defined so stringently by the NAS, so I checked this by adding another word and searched with "˜theory evolution.' The number retrieved dropped dramatically to 4908. Since the Theory of Evolution is very important in biology, yet over 95% of the articles appear to discuss other theories, it looks as if Behe's theory about the loose use of the term "˜theory' is supported.
To get a better grasp, I simply spent a whole 5-10 minutes checking out some of these theories. Here is a sample of some very recent papers:
1. The two articles also validate certain predictions of directionality theory, an evolutionary model that integrates demography and ecology with population genetics. (Dietz K. Darwinian fitness, evolutionary entropy and directionality theory. Bioessays. 2005 Oct 19;27(11):1097-1101).
2. Our experiences in dissecting the genetic control of autoimmune diseases and autoimmune phenotypes suggest that for many autoimmune processes, an alternative conceptual framework may be more useful. We term this approach a "modular" theory of autoimmunity. (Irie J, Ridgway WM. A modular theory of autoimmunity. Keio J Med. 2005 Sep;54(3):121-6.)
3. Based on an analysis of evolutionary distances, we propose a two-step "domino effect" model for reductive genome evolution. (Dagan T, Blekhman R, Graur D. The "Domino Theory" of Gene Death: Gradual and Mass Gene Extinction Events in Three Lineages of Obligate Symbiotic Bacterial Pathogens. Mol Biol Evol. 2005 Oct 19).
4. However, recent clinical and laboratory evidence suggests that ER-positive/PR-negative breast cancers may be specifically resistant to SERMs, whereas they may be less resistant to estrogen withdrawal therapy with aromatase inhibitors, which is a result inconsistent with the nonfunctional ER theory. (Cui X, Schiff R, Arpino G, Osborne CK, Lee AV. Biology of progesterone receptor loss in breast cancer and its implications for endocrine therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Oct 20;23(30):7721-35.)
5. A time-course gene-expression profile was generated for Escherichia coli TK31 when it was exposed to an organic solvent mixture, and classified by fuzzy adaptive resonance theory (Fuzzy ART). (Shimizu K, Hayashi S, Doukyu N, Kobayashi T, Honda H. Time-course data analysis of gene expression profiles reveals purR regulon concerns in organic solvent tolerance in Escherichia coli. J Biosci Bioeng. 2005 Jan;99(1):72-4).
6. Such findings are consistent with restraint theory, which suggests that dietary restraint potentiates binging, but does not necessarily trigger its occurrence. (Engelberg MJ, Gauvin L, Steiger H. A naturalistic evaluation of the relation between dietary restraint, the urge to binge, and actual binge eating: A clarification. Int J Eat Disord. 2005 Oct 17).
7. We explain these puzzling nonequilibrium structures using a geometric argument. (Huang JR, Zou LN, Witten TA. Confined multilamellae prefer cylindrical morphology A theory of myelin formation. Eur Phys J E Soft Matter. 2005 Oct 18).
8. The similarity with the patterns induced by pterygia, the lack of corneal infiltration, and the complete reversal of astigmatism after excision support the theory that tear pooling at the tumor apex is responsible for secondary astigmatism and diffuse corneal flattening. (Leccisotti A. Corneal topographic changes in a case of limbal conjunctival carcinoma. Cornea. 2005 Nov;24(8):1021-3).
9. Current theory suggests that MS is a collection of diseases which produce generally the same result. However, this is not a satisfactory explanation. (Westall FC. Histo-clinical variation in multiple sclerosis: Heterogeneous proteolytic immunogenic processing. Med Hypotheses. 2005 Oct 14).
10. We discuss the discovery of late life and the two main theories developed to explain this phase of life: lifelong demographic heterogeneity theory and evolutionary theory based on the force of natural selection. (Rose MR, Rauser CL, Mueller LD. Late life: a new frontier for physiology. Physiol Biochem Zool. 2005 Nov-Dec;78(6):869-78.)
It would seem pretty clear to me that Behe has this right "“ these articles use the term "˜theory' loosely and not as the NAS defines it. And remember - the use of the term did pass peer review. So I quickly counted 27 authors among these papers and assume 3 reviewers per paper for a total of almost 60 scientists who use the term "˜theory' loosely and/or approve of it.
When citing Evolutionary Theory or the Theory of Gravity as examples of the way scientists think of "˜theories,' why not instead use the following examples: Directionality Theory, The "Modular" Theory of Autoimmunity, The "Domino Theory", Nonfunctional ER Theory, Fuzzy Adaptive Resonance Theory, Restraint Theory, A Theory of Myelin Formation, The Theory of Tear Pooling, and Lifelong Demographic Heterogeneity Theory? Since theories are everywhere, why pick the same old ones as pedagogical examples? Do those privileged examples really capture the way the scientific communities thinks of theories?
Let me now raise the scientific hypothesis that the US National Academy of Sciences' definition of "˜theory' is out of touch with the practice of mainstream science. To test this hypothesis, one could survey a truly random set of a few hundred journal article abstracts and score the manner in which the term "˜theory' is used in the peer reviewed literature. It would be very interesting, for example, if less that 50% of the articles use the term as the NAS defines it.
October 22nd, 2005 at 9:42 am
I'm only interested in comments that focus on how science uses the term 'theory.' I'm not interested in hearing whether ID is a theory, whether some theory is better than another theory, or whether evolution qualifies as a theory.
Comment by MikeGene — October 22, 2005 @ 9:42 am
October 22nd, 2005 at 10:10 am
I think a random sampling of original scientific reports should suffice to show that scientists use the word "theory" colloquially. If you examine their usage more closely I think you'll find that's true.
Indeed, if "theory" is defined as narrowly as suggested, scientists would hardly use it all! I think you're right about that. As defined, it is what you say, a rhetorical device. a terminological obfuscation.
Let's put it plainly: It's dishonest. It's a lie and demonstrably so. (Can Biever be charged with perjury?! LOL)
Of course astrology is a scientific theory. It's just a bad theory. It's wrong. Incorrect. A false theory.
By "definition" its impossible for there to be such a thing as a "false theory"! In defiance of both common sense and common usage. IOW Nonsense!
I accept definitions first as theories. Definitions, like everything else in science, to be scientific, must be tested. And this theory about theories is false.
Comment by Rock — October 22, 2005 @ 10:10 am
October 22nd, 2005 at 11:35 am
MikeGene:
I'm only interested in comments that focus on how science uses the term "˜theory.'
My apologies. I was trying to show that how the NAS defines "theory" contradicts how "theory"is actually used.
But anyway, the following is what the Encyclopedia Britannica has to say about it:
IOW we could use Brit's definition agianst the NAS's definition to see which better represents reality (how scientists actually use the word)
Comment by Joe G — October 22, 2005 @ 11:35 am
October 22nd, 2005 at 11:54 am
Since it appears the US National Academy of Sciences is out of touch with the mainstream scientific community's use of the term "˜theory,' I began to wonder how the NAS ever came up with their definition of this term. I began to wonder if the definition was simply a general reaction to the common creationist complaint that "evolution is only a theory." So the first question to ask is where and when did they define theory as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." I Googled this definition and found the source.
The definition comes from the NAS' 1998 booklet, Science and Creationism.
It turns out I was right. This definition looks like a political response to the creationist arguments about what we can teach in the schools. Here is the complete context of the section Rothschild quoted from:
It should be crystal clear to any scientist that the 10 theories I found from 10 minutes of searching PubMed cannot be described as "end points of science." On the contrary, it is clear those scientists used the term "theory" in a way that is synonymous with "approach," "hypothesis," "model," and "argument." They use the term "˜theory' in an exploratory sense. So once again, we see the NAS is out of touch with the practice of science in the peer reviewed literature. Although they assert otherwise, the authors provided no evidence that the scientific use and common use of the term "˜theory' are usually different. This is simply declared by fiat.
More importantly is that we can see the NAS definition of "˜theory' was not derived from a scientific study of the way scientists practice science. On the contrary, the definition was invoked in response to creationist rhetoric and politics, making us wonder how much the NAS definition itself is indebted to rhetoric and politics.
Comment by MikeGene — October 22, 2005 @ 11:54 am
October 22nd, 2005 at 12:29 pm
Hi Mr. Gene,
I'm a big fan of telic thoughts. I've been following the ID "controversy" for some time now and find your site quite thought provoking. I've been particularly annoyed with this sometimes paranoid focus on distinguishing theory and fact. This particular blog entry discussing what constitutes a theory has been quite elucidating. I'd direct your attention to the webiste of Dr George Georgiou, head of the Molecular Bioengineering group in Texas and one of his fascinating books, "Directed Enzyme Evolution" ( an oxymoron, perhaps) and mention that the Protein Society of America just held an annual summer conference on Molecular Machines and the Design of Complex Integrated Structures ( not sure this is availbale on the web). Keep up the good work. Always a fascinating read.
Harry Woodward
Comment by hdwood — October 22, 2005 @ 12:29 pm
October 22nd, 2005 at 12:49 pm
Great minds think alike! LOL The exact same thought occurred to me, Mike Gene! The only place I've ever seen the NAS definition of "theory" used is in the context of "evolution vs. creation." They have specifically tailored a definition to that context and to what end?! Why did they just make it up? (Are scientists supposed to do that? Just make stuff up and say its definitive and true?)
I've read a lot of literature about "What is a theory?" and really nothing like what the NAS says a theory is.
Let's see here… I have on my bookshelves a big fat book entitled "The Structure of Scientific Theories," edited by Frederick Suppe (1977). It is includes essays by and discussions amongst such philosophical "heaveyweights" as David Bohm, Bas van Frassen, Carl Hempel, Thomas Kuhn, Hilary Putnam, Dudley Shapere, Patrick Suppes, and Stephen Toulmin.
How much ya wanna bet I will find that not a single one of them will defend the NAS definition of "theory"
Comment by Rock — October 22, 2005 @ 12:49 pm
October 22nd, 2005 at 1:12 pm
I think you normally start science from a 'general framework' or 'theory' that describes the way you view how things work. From this theory, you deduce hypotheses that are testable. So you use hypotheses to prove or falsify your theory. If your hypotheses are verified against your original framework (theory) and put to the test by other scientists, it can become a Theory.
We do have to realize that hypotheses are derived from an initial theory and can not be directly used to disprove other theories.
Comment by AdR — October 22, 2005 @ 1:12 pm
October 22nd, 2005 at 11:10 pm
Rock,
The definition was derived by the US National Academy of Sciences. They are the Experts. They said it. That settles it. That's science.
Comment by MikeGene — October 22, 2005 @ 11:10 pm
October 23rd, 2005 at 1:56 am
Here's an article by Paul Thagard : Link. Its called "˜why astrology is a pseudoscience' — I believe that Thagard moved away from (or loosened) the criterion he offers in the above article somewhat in latter years"¦ but it might be of interest in this debate.
For those that don't want to read the article ill just quote the criterion offered.
"A theory or discipline which purports to be scientific is pseudoscientific if and only if:
it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems; but the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations." [Thagard]
Comment by de_nacisse — October 23, 2005 @ 1:56 am
October 23rd, 2005 at 9:02 am
MikeGene:
The definition was derived by the US National Academy of Sciences. They are the Experts. They said it. That settles it. That's science.
But who are "They" How did "They" become "They" What was the mechanism of implementation "They" used?
What about "Them" who say "They" are incorrect? According to "Them" the level of expertise "They" claim is not greater when compared to "Them". " "They", "Them" would claim, were in no position to make the claim "They" did".
We need to poll scientists and philosophers of science to see who agrees with "They" and who sides with "Them".
Then we need to see what that is currrently being passed off as a theory, meets the definition.
Comment by Joe G — October 23, 2005 @ 9:02 am