Fact vs. Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law… EXPLAINED!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2015
- Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/PBSDSDonate
Think you know the difference?
Don’t miss our next video! SUBSCRIBE! ►► bit.ly/iotbs_sub
↓ More info and sources below ↓
Some people try to attack things like evolution by natural selection and man-made climate change by saying “Oh, that’s just a THEORY!”
Yes, they are both theories. Stop saying it like it’s a bad thing! It’s time we learn the difference between a fact, a theory, a hypothesis, and a scientific law.
Have an idea for an episode or an amazing science question you want answered? Leave a comment or check us out at the links below!
Follow on Twitter: / okaytobesmart
/ jtotheizzoe
Follow on Tumblr: www.itsokaytobesmart.com
Follow on Instagram: / jtotheizzoe
Follow on Snapchat: YoDrJoe
-----------------
It’s Okay To Be Smart is written and hosted by Joe Hanson, Ph.D.
Follow me on Twitter: @jtotheizzoe
Email me: itsokaytobesmart AT gmail DOT com
Facebook: / itsokaytobesmart
For more awesome science, check out: www.itsokaytobesmart.com
Produced by PBS Digital Studios: / pbsdigitalstudios
Joe Hanson - Creator/Host/Writer
Joe Nicolosi - Director
Amanda Fox - Producer, Spotzen Inc.
Kate Eads - Producer
Andrew Matthews - Editing/Motion Graphics/Animation
Katie Graham - Camera
John Knudsen - Gaffer
Theme music: “Ouroboros” by Kevin MacLeod
Other music via APM
Stock images from Shutterstock, stock footage from Videoblocks (unless otherwise noted)
This video should be required watching at all public high schools.
Facts
high schools? how about elementary school?
ArcDuc Yes, it should be simple enough to understand by a 6th grader.
what do u think I'm doing right now?
+KAM Gaming Watch it again.
Well, science is a lot like evolution by natural selection. It's survival of the fittest hypothesis.
+N3rdSci3nc3 Brilliant way of looking at it.
+N3rdSci3nc3 i like this, this is mine now.
ill make it into a shirt if you guys think it would work. just like
SCIENCE!
Survival Of
The Fittest
Hypothesis
+N3rdSci3nc3 Yeah that would look so cool!
+N3rdSci3nc3 cool man :)
My theory is that I've been misusing this word my whole life.
No ... Wait ... That's a fact.
@@JamesTheFoxeArt bad day?
@@trashcan7140 can't remember because it was 2 months ago
Mad Geo
I guess you did not misused these words.
He tells it @0:53 quote: "...means something totally different to a scientist than the way they're used in everyday speech"
@@Cruz8R Weeeell but just because a lot of people are using the word that way, doesn't mean they're right.
Someone once told me: "just because there's a lot of stupid people out there, doesn't mean they're right."
And I'm not trying to be a d¡Ck or anything but it's a cool quote right?
@@JamesTheFoxeArt You're an idiot not a idiot
The problem is that many people aren't intellectually honest enough to accept certain facts, and dismiss them as opinions :'(
Evolution is not a fact, lacking only the "how"
This video is disingenuous and dishonest
@@357rees9 Evolution is a fact and a theory. Evolution is any change in the population of animals compared to what they were in the past. Evolution is an observable fact.
Look at dogs for example. There are no poodles in the wild, they "evolved" from domesticated wolves because humans selectively breed hairier and hairier dogs. Certain viruses "evolve" to be more resistant to our medicine. Ever wonder why bananas have no seeds? It's because the modern banana "evolved" from the wild banana that has seeds because farmers kept replanting bananas with less and less seeds because they are more enjoyable to eat. Evolution of certain species Is an observable fact.
Of course the "fact" of evolution just says that the genes of animals can evolve overtime. Why? Here comes the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution says that the reason that these animals evolve is through selection. The theory of evolution also says that evolution (an observable fact) is responsible for the evolution of all life on earth from a single common ancestor. This is why Zebras, Horses, and Donkeys look similar. They share a common ancestor, they just evolved differently. This is why Chimps, Baboons, and Orangutans look similar. If you go further you can see that all mammals share a common ancestor. As do all the fish, and all the invertebrates. And then you see that all animals are similar to each other. Of course you could give a hypothesis that all these similarities are due to being "created" by the same God. But that's just a hypothesis. The theory of Evolution is backed by centuries of scientific research from Anthropology, Genetics, DNA and Microbiology. Creation is a hypothesis that is supported by the existence of fiction books created by dead people who still belived in magic, curses, demons, three headed cow deities and magic fairys in the sky.
How is evolution a fact
and say that their opinion is a fact
There is nothing like "fact of evaluation".
It is the "theory of evolution"
So I should not think that it is a fact
But hey, that's just a theory... A SCIENCE THEORY! Thanks for watching!
Hey Scott! It's weird when my favourite comics channel references my favourite game theory channel on a video by my favourite science channel! Also, fancy meeting you here!
+The Nerd The UA-cam Inteception.
The Nerd I love any channel that's educational. Had the great privilege of meeting Joe at VidCon a few months back. He's a cool guy! Tried to meet MatPat, but he was swarmed by fans. Someday...
A game Hypothesis... thanks for watching... MatPat must do something of this kind.. it kinda spreads the misconception of the word "theory"
This is almost as good as when XKCD What If led me to Scott Manley!
finally someone made this video. Been asking around if one of the bigger science channels could address these terms.
And I must say: brilliantly done. Not that my sign of approval means much, but still wanted to say that I truly appreciate it
+Shangori They did quite a good explanation on DNews, actually may have been TestTube Plus, where Trace discussed what is meant by Scientific Method.
+Jonas Hamill
After some questionable videos they made I stopped watching. I wont go into it.
*****
It's strictly personal. And again: I won't go into it. This isn't the video that invites me to spit my gal over another channel.
***** Evening thankfully, been one bitch of a work-day. Same to you as well
+Shangori This video may have been needed yet, in all honesty, it didn't do a very good job as it pertains to evolution. Using the Scientific Method, evolution really doesn't get by the hypothesis stage, despite it being called a theory in broad circles. In order for a hypothesis to become a theory, observations need to be made whereby we fail to reject the hypothesis. No where have we ever observed one species of life giving birth to another species of life. Yes, there may be four different breeds of birds, for example, with similar characteristics which might lead one to hypothesize that one evolved from another. But unless we can observe one breed producing offspring of the other breed, a theory cannot be made that can be tested over and over again such that with a prediction can be made of the outcome with a high level of confidence. This missing element - the actual observation of one species giving birth to another becomes just a leap of intellectual faith and forces the hypothesis to remain just that, a hypothesis. That is why this video is misleading - just because there is evidence to ASSUME that evolution exists, does not make evolution a theory in the strict scientific sense of the word. Without that observation, a hypothesis can not be tested, and thus a theory can not be constructed. And saying that evolution is a 'fact' is just plain incorrect.
Really excellent video! Thanks.
59-year-old Electrical Engineer here. Even with my reasonably substantial scientific and technological education, I have to confess that these terms have been a little muddled in my mind!
To clarify, though...
The emphasis of this video is that a Scientist’s definition of a “Theory” is very different from a police detective’s definition! That’s a really excellent distinction, but I in particular *did* know and already understood a Scientific Theory very well. I have largely equated “Theory” with “Model” - the explanation.
What this video clarified for me was the terms “fact” and “Law,” and how they relate to the Theory. I hadn’t heard those terms particularly clearly defined before!
Newtonian gravity is definitely an excellent example:
A scientific *fact* is just a distinct piece of wisdom that we all accept as true, like that objects near the surface of the Earth fall accelerating at a rate of ~9.8 m/s/s. This fact, in itself, does not involve explanation - it’s not about “how” or “why,” but just “what,” is true.
The *Law* of Newtonian Gravity is F=Gm1m2/r^2. That is not an individual fact like 9.8m/s/s, nor is it the actual Theory - the explanation - itself, but it’s a reliable formula based upon the Theory.
The *Theory* of Newtonian Gravity - which by the way, is clearly known to be flat-out wrong, but is an extremely good approximation - is Gravitational Fields. That is not a distinct fact nor a formula; it is the *model* - the underlying logic.
Theories back then: EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION!
Theories now: JaR jAr BiNkS iS a SiTh LoRd
He might be 😳
Well yeah
@@coolio4548 no no no,he is
Hypothesis*
Derp
Can we have "WE DID A SCIENCE!" as a T-shirt please?
+Zaziuma I'd wear it for sure. Great idea!
Yes please!
I'm pretty sure there are websites where you can make your own t-shirts.
+It's Okay To Be Smart Hell, i could make it. I designs t-shirts www.teepublic.com/user/KingVego
+N3rdSci3nc3 They apparently have t-shirts, but the link didn't work.
But hey! Thats just a hypothesis... a game hypothesis!
+Thingonometry - Actually Matt pat's use of theory is correct because he also tests what he says. I think :D
+1234kalmar No. You are wrong. He constantly misuses it.
king samurott Oh well
+1234kalmar actually he did admit he used the wrong term in one of his video. But he said he didn't care and game hypothesis was not cool.
+1234kalmar you're right. He tested an hypothesis.
I like this video because it shines a light on the philosophy from which Science stems. You cannot derive absolute truth from Science however it is the best tool we currently have to make a best attempt at trying to make sense of the physical world around us.
me when i make carbon dioxide from tree air "WE DID A SCIENCE"
You don't confirm Hypothesis you fail to reject them.
That's great. Did you come up with that or is that from something?
+TheRonster9319 It's lesson 1 in basic stats in university.
TheRonster9319 It's what is done when you learn statistics. You setup the null hypothesis, for example the gas pump is correctly calibrated, then you run your test, maybe pump 100 gallons and measure how off you are. If you the measurement falls outside your confidence interval(this is what they mean in particle physics 5 sigma, or how the IPCC can say something like they are 95% confident that Global Warming is caused by us), you can reject the hypothesis at that confidence level, if not you fail to reject. This way you can Quantitatively talk about your errors and uncertainty.
Nolan Thiessen Well not technically, they usually cover sampling, then get into sample and population mean and variance, then how to make charts, 2d data sets and correlation, then some probability theory then at the end of the class(chapter 10 in wife's book) they'll cover hypothesis testing. But yeah I get your point it is a pretty fundamental concept.
+TheRonster9319 No that's just basic statistics
Don't you mean "I LIKE THAT HYPOTHESIS"
+markog1999 I Thought the same
+markog1999 Lesson learnt.
+markog1999 He made a prediction, so it's a theory. But that's just my hypothesis.
+TheMegaOne1000 Actually he made a prediction and pointed out an hyphothesis about it , which means that if he cant test it , then its not a theory.
+Percy Cardona Yes, it was a joke but no, it was not a misuse of the word. People just use it within different registers which changes its meaning. Nothing wrong about that. It's only wrong to take the meaning from common parlance and apply it to terms that are clearly scientific jargon. Like the theory of evolution. That's a screw-up, not saying something like: "I have this pet theory I want to talk to you about."
I can't stand how creationists often say, "evolution is just a theory". The _"just_ a theory" part is what's funny, as if "theory" simply means "guess".
no guess means hypothesis
I'm watching this video because yesterday I heard a coworker say just that
In other words it hasn’t been proven, it’s not a ‘fact’
@@tional5266 but it's greatly reliable
@@zedankhan6123 just a quick question for all of the folks in this comment, do you all celebrate Christmas?
Thank you for this awesome video! A scientifically literate society is so important!
It’s to bad that this is a lie, a theory is a theory, it’s a guess, it cannot be observed, therefore it’s a theory. Someone “thinks” it goes this way or that way, but doesn’t know for sure, so it’s a theory. Considering evolution has been debunked 6 ways till Sunday, it will NEVER be anything more than some crazy guys WAG. Personally, I know that evolution is BS. Now I’m not saying that I have the answer to the beginning of time, but if evolution was a thing, it would still be happening before our eyes, because there would be stages and we could observe these stages. Since there isn’t any, it’s Butkus. Theory not a fact and definitely not proven.
But hey, that's just a theory. A GERM THEORY!
+Raikesy01 God damn it you two.
+The Nerd i cube you
+The Nerd I suppose I can count on you guys to say "A GAME HYPOTHESIS" on the next GT video. ;)
+thedudxo "are you a fan of nerdcubed? I think that you might be" HE LIED
+Ryddoo I think he already knows that Game Theory really has nothing to do with the field of game theory.
Go read Karl Popper: You don't confirm a hypothesis. You fail to reject a hypothesis. Although it may seem like semantics. It is an important distinction.
+Micah Roediger Then read Duhem, Quine, Hempel, Goodman, Kuhn, Lakatos, and the Bayesians. You can probably skip Feyerabend, though.
also commenting on the video. isnt the sun is out a observation rather than a hypothesis? then you say the sun must be out because ____. then that's your hypothesis am i right? that's how my biology lab claims , then you test your hypothesis.
We've come a long way by rejecting the bill hypothesis.
@@randyholdampf8320 It might help to watch that part of the video again. His initial observation was that it was bright outside. Without seeing the sun, his hypothesis was that it was bright because the sun was up. He then tested this by going outside and observed the sun in the sky.
@@JayWozz he then could use that confirmed hypothesis to come up with another hypothesis for why the sun is up like the heliocentric model of the universe which could then be tested by going up into space and seeing it for yourself which is when you realize it looks different from different reference points and then you might just be Einstein coming up with the theory of relativity all because you wondered why it was bright outside
Thank you for the work and these clear explanations. Many people need to watch this.
This was exactly what I was looking for. You're never too old to learn.
You’re right, it’s never to late to learn, just like how it’s never to late to change that pfp either
@@S_Miclemie Imagine caring what others put as their pfp? Who cares what his pfp is? Why be negative, age doesn't mean anything about pfps you negative potato. Shut it
I like your pfp lmao
1:25 Out...side....what's that? What is this mythical land of sunlight and gumdrops you speak of?
+JGamer king i think it is some new VR game. i hear it has terrible graphics and gameplay though, so i'm probably gonna skip on that one til developers get better with VR.
+JGamer king And drop bears
+pharynx007 It actually depends on your hardware, but even then the best hardware can only run at about 30 frames per second.
Way underwhelming if you ask me.
+JGamer king
Went outside.
Graphics sucked.
Everyone's unsure if there is an admin around or not too.
5:55 Now we're starting to get into philosophy. If you replace all the parts of your car slowly over the course of a few years, is it still the same car?
If your cells are constantly dying and being replaced over a long period of time, are you still you?
Your molecules and cells all renew themselves over time, yet you remain as a sum, you. It is as we define, regardless of change, be it slow, or complete at the fundamental level. That bottle of water on your desk most likely at one time, composed the urine of none other than Adolph Hitler.
It's rather arbitrary, but it's pragmatic. Isn't that really all we want in the end?
Sure, when it involves incomplete definitions its always philosophy else its math ;)
as I see it, we give a specific arrangement of particles an arbitrary label. Seeing the label is arbitrary, I see no reason to call a new arrangement by that same label. So yes, 'my car' will still be 'my car' even if all the parts have changed.
As for humans, the changes happen too gradually for a new label to be useful.
This is also why we have such a hard time assigning the label 'grownup' to someone (when exactly do you change from child to grownup?).
Hell it gets even more fun when looking at evolution and naming species.
This makes me think of the 1st episode of doctor who S8.
very very very very very good
"Indian head-shake intensifies*
How science is done by conspiracy theorist looking up in the sky and seeing things;
Something bright:
1. ufo
2. ufo
3. ufo
4. uh, must be ufo man
Well I'm guessing "game hypothesis" just didn't sound as good.
Amazing job on the video, Joe. This very topic is something I come across the lot when dealing with semantics and linguistics in and around the field of anthropology. Within different contexts, words like theory have a very different meaning and often I find individuals who try to devalue anything that has the term "theory" in it very often don't understand the complexity of the terminology. This is probably one of my favorite videos you and your team have made. I was going to make my own version but it seems you hit the nail right on the head! Great work, have a good one!
+Think Fact Thank you! That was my motivation as well, we can't get to a point where we all accept science until we make sure everyone is speaking the same language. Keep up the good work yourself!
+Think Fact Totally agree the word theory is thrown around in a derogatory way especially when it comes to things with political or religious interest I can't tell you how many times I have heard people call evolution or climate change "just a theory". I would say make a video anyway the more videos explaining this on the internet the better.
+It's Okay To Be Smart science.......science always changes (._. )
I was going to write a book about how Darwin's Hypothesis fails as a theory but Joseph Anderson beat me to it with his book, 'Debunking Darwin ; Natural Selection Is Not Science'! Seem's he hit the nail on the fuckin head, but I'll probably write a book myself to seal up the coffin good and tight!
Personally, this suggests that arguing the semantics is pointless in many situations where the concern is whether or not a "fact" (observation/prediction) exists. By discarding your meaning in favor of their context. I find it's much easier to make convincing arguments because now the data and its interpretation for or against your stance is in focus. Don't get me wrong semantic is important when you're writing a paper or something. So that anyone who picks it up can grasp what is being discussed, but it becomes little more than a distraction from what we're trying to talk about in the real world. Here's a nice shorthand I thought up. You wouldn't waste time telling someone calling their car "she" isn't appropriate. While trying to convince them that driving the car off the cliff will probably kill both of you!
The best video I have seen on UA-cam on this topic. I was really confused about this for two hours.
I really loved your style of teaching like it's fun and easy to understand !
Now send this video to all evolution-deniers you know. To Facebook!
Sadly they will either refuse to watch it - make up some shit about evolution not being a scientific theory or even claim that it's all part of a bigger conspiracy and this is propaganda....
They will take their ignorance to the grave. Frustrating, I know.
This video doesn't demonstrate that evolution is fact. However, evolution isn't the topic of this video. But to clear up your confusion, there are actually two types of evolution: microevolution and macroevolution. Micro is a theory, macro isn't. Look them up! :)
+Martin Lamb "Micro is a theory, macro isn't. Look them up! :)"
I did and found they were the exact same thing. That was very informative, I'm glad I looked them up!
Martin Lamb I'm aware it doesn't demonstrate evolution. I was referring to those who deny evolution based on the idea that, "it's just a theory."
I swear, some of these videos (this one included) should be required to watch before voting for anything.
How come? Choosing a political leaders had little to nothing to do with science. Ha, like our vote matters.
The car analogy was great.
"We did a science!"
Yay!!! :D
Shut up
@@ghostface5559 u mad bro? :D
Isn't the last thing you said, about the future being brighter if we all accept science, a hypothesis, and not a theory? I love the video, and it was very informative, but that last bit confused me a little.
+Donald Hobbs It was a joke :)
Wow. Here I thought all of your jokes were just puns :P
+Donald Hobbs How can you test it though? How can you get all people to accept science and how long do you wait for the bright future and what defines a bright future?
Or is it only about that you can theoretically test it. It doesn't matter if it is practically impossible.
The latter. It is technically possible to test that, nothing supernatural involved. But it is as close to impossible as a white hole.
+Dorian Hunter It is generally tested by demonstrating the positive effect science has on lives as people do embrace it. You can look at existing data on the rise of scientific literacy and acceptance and compare it to existing trends in "brightness" which you'd have to define more rigidly before beginning your study. Perhaps you could isolate these in chucks:one study on rise of science vs murder rates, another against disease, another against individual happiness, or economic strength. Assuming these metrics apply to "brightness" as defined for the study these relationships could possibly account for evidence. Enough of this kind of evidence, and variants there in could support or disprove a hypothesis. There becomes more that you could do over long terms of isolating human populations for observation but you start getting into unethical territory at that point.
Every educational UA-camr should have a video about this topic. I still hear waaay too many people say, "that's just a theory." We need to educate the next few generations about this until it's drilled into humanity's minds. Thanks for making this awesome video so easy to understand!! Also, you know how there's Black History Month, Shark Week, Father's Day... we need a day, a week, or a month just for celebrating theories and the scientific experts that confirmed them.
The issue is that evolution shouldnt be a theory until it has proven hypothesis on "change of kind" dont tell me birds grew bigger picks, i mean birds becoming lions or bears becoming whatever... thats the only way you can put it in "Theory" label i believe
@@amafragartamafraggart9975But evolution also just simply means: “Evolution is any change in the heritable traits within a population across generations.”
This can be observed when say a white cat mates with a black cat. The new spotted cat is evolution occurring. It can be observed. The problem is they take this factual term “evolution” and get wild with it saying anything can become anything pretty much.
Man, I wish I could explain this as fluent as you when the subject comes up in a conversation. I think I understand it well enough. In the end if I can't I will show them this video.
I love the video, including the one doing the talk. Thanks a lot!
I think someone should send this video to Mike Rugnetta
+Gabriel Rangel Don't worry, I made sure he saw it :)
+Gabriel Rangel Why? So he can talk about it? Or is there a reason I'm missing? :P
MagicTurtle643 there's an Idea Channel video about (internet) laws and I think he doesn't quite understand what scientific laws are.
Gabriel Rangel Ah. I've seen it. I don't really think that definition affects the argument of the episode, does it? He's just listing the funny things people have noticed on the internet. Picking apart a side point about science laws seems like a waste of time.
MagicTurtle643 yes, I'm being pedantic.
However, it does affect the argument of the video somewhat. He bases his arguments on laws being somehow prescriptive (authoritative) and, I suppose unwilling, falsely equivocate two definitions of law. It's flawed in other ways too but I've been picky enough.
Very good video i can use to explain people i know who misunderstand this. I am a defender of science surrounded by religious people and i'm always getting this "just a theory" as an argument to disprove everything i come out with.
It’s because you don’t have faith which is why you fail to acknowledge God, but it’s ok try living successfully without God and see how far you get
You try to find excuses to run from God but you know deep inside that you can’t
@@nioxdie9985 I have lived successfully without god for 62 years so far. In fact, it wasn't until I jettisoned god from my life, that I started doing well. The belief that a god controlled the universe, and that I could rely on god's love, turned out to be a delusion, resulting from being told fairy tales as a child, which were created to control my behavior in order to benefit others.
@@nioxdie9985 ...Of course there are total nuts like you in this comment section. Your primitive myths not only redundant, but dying out - and that's a bloody good thing too!
D.E.B. B this depends on how God is placed into your life he gives us freedom to make our own decisions. This reason you so called didn’t benefit from God is because you lack faith and you already had doubts. Just cause you feel that you are prospering in this life doesn’t mean the same will happen for the next good luck. By the way I’m 16 ironically I’m the one teaching should be the other way around.
Why does the background music makes me feel like I understood everything even though I might have not. Lol
So instead of just saying “to the best of are knowledge “ say “theory” so people think it’s fact / absolute.
so basically
Fact = what
law = how
hypothesis = why
theory = because
or something like that..?
+BearWindAppleyard Not quite. Both theory and hypothesis explain the why hypotheses are potentials, and theories have withstood scrutiny. Unless you meant "why?" as in a question, then essentially yes, but not quite, since a hypothesis is not the question, it's a possible answer.
+BearWindAppleyard
Hypothesis = what may be
Theory = what, how and why it may be
Law = The what, but not the why. Often a specific mathematical formula that always appears. Often times, we have found these patterns before we understood why they are there. Gravitation, for instance. We didn't know what caused it, and we still don't fully understand it, but we can describe what it does in great detail.
Hypothesis = Possible reason why.
Theory = Tested and proven reason why.
Actually, I'll do gravity specifically:
LAW:
F = G*m1*m2/r^2
This is observed everywhere, and is consistent and precise. But it says nothing about "Why" this occurs.
HYPOTHESES:
Gravitons:
"Particles yet-to-be-known exist in all matter and attract each other."
General Relativity:
"The energy stored in matter causes space-time to warp. The force is actually acceleration outwards"
God: (Fake hypothesis)
"God makes it so" This does not actually qualify as a hypothesis. It is not specific, testable, provable, nor disprovable. It is merely conjecture.
THEORY:
General Relativity: The hypothesis most tested and proven true. General Relativity is one of the most widely tested and challenged theories, and wins every time. Not only that, but it is necessary to calibrate GPS, and gravitational lensing is used, for instance, to locate dense or invisible sources of mass, such as dark matter or black holes.
Jonathan Weber hi which came first a law or theory?
Quite sure you meant is a good Hypothesis there at the end... right?
+Julian Alberto Arce Sánchez ;-) wondering if anyone would catch that, it was on purpose!
+Julian Alberto Arce Sánchez i didn't dare say it ^^
+Contevent the same ^^
Definitions:
Fact 1:04
Hypothesis 1:20
Theory 2:10
Law 4:16
Thank you for this video, I have learned a bunch of stuff for my linguistic exam. Keep up the good work :)
*Gives us a definition of a theory.*
*Mis-uses it in the last sentence.*
+Mark1nc He did it on purpose to see if the smarter folk would notice ;)
+Jordan O'C (Xenro66) Nice hypothesis you got there.
+U Wot M8 It is a fact: he wrote it in the comments
+Mark1nc I think it's OK if people use it "wrong" in regular conversation and not when they're talking about actual scientific theories. Words are allowed to have multiple meanings.
As far as my knowledge is concerned this is my view on postulate, hypothesis, theory and fact that I have stated below:
While studying the phenomena of the motion of earth around the sun, scientists go through a systematic scientific method study. Through which they postulate(i.e. some assumptions) that earth rotates about its axis & revolves around the sun. Then they make some hypothesis that If earth rotates and revolves around the sun then we will have day and night on either side of our planet. After that they test their hypothesis through repeated experiments. If their hypothesis survives or suits the experiment, the hypothesis is accepted and considered as theory. If it fails then they change their postulates. Here what I'm trying to say that a "theory" is an idea that is dynamic. It changes over a period of time. But the old theory is not wrong. Instead the old theory needs to be modified to become a new theory for a better understanding of a "fact". When an old theory cannot explain new observations it will be (eventually) replaced by a new theory. This does not mean that the old ones are ``wrong'' or ``untrue'', it only means that the old theory had a limited applicability and could not explain all current data. The only certain thing about currently accepted theories is that they explain all available data, which, of course, does not imply that they will explains all future experiments. Some scientific theories are nearer the top than others, but none of them ever actually reach it. Theories are used to describe the facts that we can't see directly. For example if we postulate that earth "only revolves" around the sun and hence produces day and night then this theory is still correct but is incomplete and need to be modified by adding extra information to it, that is, the earth "rotates and revolves" around the sun. And thus it becomes a new modified theory about the "fact" that we can't see directly. A fact that we can see directly need not have a theory to explain it like an apple falling on the ground since it's a direct observation or perception. At last i could say that a fact is a phenomena that is happening around us which we can perceive directly or indirectly. We perceive indirect fact through evidences and theories. If we gather more evidences, our theorys on "indirect perceiving facts" will get more firm and more will we be close in knowing the fact of a phenomena. Generally a theory is made to describe "indirect perceiving facts" like atomic theory or facts related to planetary motion. Also a theory describes the cause and effect of direct perceiving facts like "why and how apple falls on earth"( described by Einstein gravitation theory ; space-time curvature).
But this conflicts with all the science in my bible? None of the 17 Republican candidates believe in evolution so how can they all be wrong ? Help I'm confused.....
P.S. Please see my sarcasm
+Ted LeMoine I'm not religious or a republican, but I fail to see how a person's views on one area of science correlates to them being a better or worse president. Ben Carson (not my pick) is a genius in neurosurgery and probably has the most scientific knowledge of anyone running on either side, so shouldn't all of us science-lovers vote for him?
A genius in neurological surgery yes.......the most scientific knowledge when he denies evolution and believes the earth is 6000 years old? Not so much
+Ted LeMoine So one wrong viewpoint on one area of science discredits his scientific knowledge and expertise on everything else he's learned? So what presidential candidate would you say has more scientific knowledge? Again, I don't believe any of this matters, because I vote for a candidate based on what his views are on immigration, foreign policy, and taxation, not whether he can tell me the difference between a homo habilis and a homo erectus.
Scientific knowledge is a very broad question. Knowledge and intelligence takes what you've learned and puts it into reality. I don't expect him to be an evolutionary biologist........I expect a man of science who knows the peer reviewed process of his craft to not deny the basis for all of the biological sciences. Some may consider it irrelevant . I don't. He is either ignorant of willfully ignorant. A great brain surgeon but certainly has no intellectual honesty or leadership skills
Who said he was a genius ? Why is he retired so young?
Love that new intro! And I completely agree that this should be required in school
I'm so tired of trying to explain to people that just because something is a theory doesn't mean it's unproven.
Sure, this video seems smart and everything. But evolution is still only a theory.
*stab stab stab stab stab*. Even my fake example annoys me. Theory is not a four letter word, I love this video for saying that. It's just so damn annoying when some people ignore all of the scientific information. And say "evolution is only a theory". Damn right it's a theory, and that's a good thing. Not a four letter word. Props to this video :)
What kind of evolution are you talking about? Because there are two kinds of evolution, and one kind he is talking about is actually proven...
Did you actually watch the video ?
"The people"? What people? What are you talking about? Laws and theories are distinct concepts, and both are necessary to facilitate greater understanding of the world and provide guidance about how we should behave as a species. One is not better or more important than the other; they function together as part of an inextricable whole.
Watch the video!
From where then ? Please enlighten us !!!!
Send this to Ken Ham and Zakir Naik.
Samir naik will eat this guy up
@@OG-ds4iy oh hey religious dude
@@OG-ds4iy wtf is he cannibal
Lol, Zakir Naik certainly needs to see this.
Send it to the dumbasses on this video's comment section:
ua-cam.com/video/9sKjFjNnoaI/v-deo.html
It was really interesting.. thank you!
Could someone please tell me the differences between a theory and a principle??
This is awesome! Wish I understood the differences years ago, but late is better than never.
So going through the comments I keep seeing a lot of people make the distinction between micro and macro evolution and believing in one but not the other. Which makes no sense to me because it is like saying you believe in inches but not miles...even though it takes several inches (63360 to be exact) to make a mile. And while walking that mile inch by inch the individual inches would seem initially indistinguishable from each other eventually they would all start to add up.
Kinda amazing that some people don't understand such basic concepts isn't it?
i personally find it quite sad, and terrifying.
Not to mention that science doesn't really distinguish between micro and macro-evolution because it's just... Evolution. The fact is that things change over time. We can spot this.
Actually, I think the normal stride would encompass about 24 inches each step, more or less. So more ground is covered step by step rather than inch by inch.
Sorry my explanation is a bit cumbersome.
@@fondazionespartaco4271
Ya gotta start with what you have. If they have to repeat Newton's light experiments with prisms, then they will go from there.
And a lot of science is done by trying to prove the opposite is true and finding it false and observing evidence that the original hypothesis explains the observations much better, like the Michaelson-Morley gravitational null result.
you can hear the passion in his voice when he talks about science. :)
Everyone should watch this. How much I hate it when someone says ‚It‘s just a theory‘
i think this is by far your best and most important video yet!
very good job!!
I think you hinted at an important point
People look for truths and often even look to science for it
But in science THERE IS NO TRUTH
there is ONLY Best Estimate/Evidence
since Science is the practice of humility in admitting that not only do we not truly know, but not understand, and not unbiased
+Gabriel Rangel The point is, since there is no absolute truth, absolute truth describes well proven theories based on evidenced facts and numerous tested hypotheses. For example, the theory of magnetism or the theory of celestial orbit.
Cryptid what does absolute truth even mean?
Unless you're a platonist, then I suppose you're lost beyond all hope, truth is just a word. It's usually used as a value assigned to some claim.
To be precise it's a value given to the relationship between two propositions by a truth assignment function. In science it's by the scientific method.
Gabriel Rangel I meant since there was no absolute truth, there is no reason using that phrase to describe something. Because there never will be one.
Instead, highly evidenced truth replaces this idea of absolute truth. I meant the idea of truth, not the word, but I understand how that wasn't clear.
+Gabriel Rangel i am unsure if you intentionally put "masturbate" instead of "meditate". i just cant get over that
finally some one else that gets it. science is so full of lies deception and half truths.some science is true but when it comes to theories, I'm not going to believe it.
Perfect explanation. The misuse of the word "theory" bothers me so.
4:08 “The THEORY of the FACT of evolution” is an opinion-statement of direct contradiction to the definitions he *just* gave for *each* of those words. He did *not* “do a science” by saying that. My HYPOTHESIS is someone forgot to FACT-check the script.
This is exactly what I was thinking thank you for putting it to words!
He didn’t claim to do a science tho he just said for people to understand it better
The evolution is a fact, observable even in real time at lab experiments, the _Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection_ just explains *how* it works. Come on! It's not that hard.
When evolution deniers ask for an explanation of evolution, they don't actually want you to explain it to them or show them actual proof, they just wanna see a cat magically turning into a lion because they think evolution works like in Pokemon.
Damn!
I'm an AGNOSTiC and I NEEDED this lesson.
I would argue that everyone in the world is agnostic. People seem to think that agnosticism and Atheism are mutually exclusive. But they're not. If you believe in a god then you are a theist if you do not believe in a God that you are atheist. If you don't know, then that means you are atheist. Agnosticism deals with knowledge whereas deism and Atheism deal with beliefs. Atheism does not mean there is no God. It is a response to the claim from theist that there is. They are saying there is a God and atheists are saying we don't believe,you provide evidence. So for example, I am an agnostic atheist. That means I do not believe that there is a God but I don't know for sure. A gnostic atheist Is I do not believe in a God and I know there is no God. An agnostic theist is I believe in God but I don't know and a gnostic theist is I believe in a God and I know there is one. Now I would argue that every single person is agnostic On both sides. Because no one actually knows if there is or is not a god. They can claim to know but they really don't. They either believe or they don't believe. So if you are undecided then you are an atheist. It's as simple as that. If you believe in a God you are theist if you do not believe in a God or you don't know then you are an atheist. I'm an atheist but I never say that a God does not exist. That is anti-theist. Here is an analogy, you and I walk up on a pool filled with gumballs. we have never seen the pool or gumballs before. I say to you the number of gumballs in that pool is even if you say I don't believe you does that mean that you automatically think the number of gumballs in the pool is odd? Know you are just saying I don't believe you prove it. Hope that helps
@@thickerconstrictor9037 while based on your writing i would believe to be a Gnostic theist, thus meaning we don't agree in our points of view, I really appreciate the way you explained this thought journey
!
Agnostic theist or agnostic atheist?
Wow!!! This was by far the best explanation of what a theory, hypothesis, and law is, thus far! Better than my chem, physics, geology, environmental, and biology teachers could ever do! :D
Its better to have questions that cannot be answered than to have answers that cannot be questioned .
human dropped the hardest quote
my teacher linked this video to us... great teaching, thanks :)
After watching countless of debates about evolution, it's my hypothesis that many people need to watch this video...
Yeah so they can know how much atheists are out their and maybe start taking some actions
The information presented in this video is an interesting hypothesis.
Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky it's a fact
They're definitions
I'd say is more a representation of a (Scientific) Model - not totally sure though, as this word has different uses.
If an alien who doesn't speak english watches this video...
2:26 It should be noted that there are often multiple possible theories that we pick between (somewhat arbitrarily - but often using rules like simplicity amongst rules)
Very good video I can show to my parents who keep confusing hypothesis and theory.
Last one (about future) was a hypothesis.
I was thinking that too. It is funny how someone can make a lecture video on something (a fairly decent one) and then end it with a proof that he does not yet completely understand what he lectured. And according to a lack of comments like this and likes on it how so many viewers who 'understood' the subject missed this. This happens to everyone (myself included) and I am puzzled by it. It is like the difference between eating something and digesting it. Like he ate the info on this subject matter, but did not digest and absorbed it.
actually, we had a living experiment to prove that hypothosis long ago in history...i just hope we dont make that mistake the romans did, especially now. heres a link to a video to show it ua-cam.com/video/8e1XX-ngJcc/v-deo.html
I kinda blame the Game Theorist guys for "diluting" the word "theory".
+Ritchie Chavez much of game theory's idea could plausibly be called theories. Mattpat presents an idea (Hypothesis), then the rest of the episode showing how it fits with the evidence, debunking criticism and showing the predictive power of his theory. Sure its not science, and many of his theories have problems but he uses the word pretty well if you ask me
+Ritchie Chavez Theory has had that colloquial usage for a long ass time.
+Ritchie Chavez The word Theory's original meaning is just that. So it is not that he is misusing it, it is just that he is obviously not using the scientific method, so he has no reason to use the meaning of the word in a scientific context.
I remember Mat admitting in one of his videos that he knows that he's misusing the word "theory".
"A Summary of Scientific Method" by Peter Kosso is a brilliant 50-page summary read on this topic, published by Springer in 2011 (SpringerBriefs in Philosophy). He explains all these terms: fact, hypothesis, theory and law. There's a brief mention of how Popperian Model of scientific method is incorrect, and why we don't go about discarding theories even if they're falsified. Overall, science is a knowledge enterprise whose engine is inductive reasoning. We develop hypothesis, test them, make predictions through them and try to confirm and disconfirm them, while always taking into consideration auxiliary theories and experimental conditions.
Thank you. I will look it up. I enjoy going into some depth on the philosophy of science with my high school students. I don't know that they enjoy it, but I try my best.
very well done, production , content and presentation. Quite entertaining as well
Excellent video! I'm definitely passing this one around where I can.
The summary I often use when explaining the nature of science being flexible to people is: "The goal of scientific inquiry is not to be correct, but to be progressively less wrong."
Definitely sharing this with my 9th grade science class!
It’s amazing some of the things that people didn’t pay attention to in science class.
Not me here at 12:00pm trying to study for my science test tomorrow ._.
I think that the analogy of a car with a flat tire is misleading. That suggests that general relativity theory had a flaw in it. That's not the case.
Rather, it'd be like saying, "A train can move you from one place to another place" and then correcting, "Well, it can't walk stairs for you." That doesn't mean that we stop using trains just because we can't apply it's use everywhere in our lives.
It's not because the train is flawed, but because the train isn't to be applied like an elevator.
Hahahaha I liked when you crossed out gluten and chemtrails at 3:20 XD
This is a very important video IMO. This should be slightly edited and set for schools to allow teachers to better convey this explanation.
Please send this to our public officials, many, but not all, either know this, are ignorant or brush it aside for politics (sadly).
We did a science
3:19 lol gluten
“ThankYou!!!”, For This Breakdown, Much Appreciated 👍🏾
A person told me about this and now I have subscribed. 😇 I'm 💯 greatful for his knowledge. 💯💯
The best video ive seen in a while on theory
"If you change the tire, is your car a different car all of a sudden?"
The philosophical community would like a word.
it gets pretty confusing on these parts
correction-
1:10 it's PROPOSED and not PROSOSED
ooh wow..... i was confused about to know this . i was making hypothesis about the definitions of theories and laws..... really thanks a lot
THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS NOW I CAN SHOW MY MOM THAT EVOLUTION ISN'T "JUST A THEORY"
hey it's been 5 years is she reasonable now
@@RichConnerGMN yes
IT'S A SCIENTIFIC THEORY
Thanks for reading.
Another punk kid lecturing an adult!
I'm so sick of people saying that evolution is "just a theory". They're pretty content with the *theory* of gravity!
Well gravity has been proven with experiments and it is something we can actually experience, but evolution is similar to the big bang theory, we arent completely certain about if it is true or not.
@@valizawesome796 Firstly, the theory of evolution has more than 160 years of accumulated evidence backing it up. There is no evidence that disproves the theory of evolution. Meanwhile, the theory of gravity has only 100 years of evidence to back it up, and unlike evolution is challenged by another whole branch of science: quantum physics. And secondly, in science nothing is ever proven, only disproven, and so far evolution has not been disproven.
@@Ngamotu83 Neither has gravity been disproven. And quantum physics does not challenge gravity. Its just that at such a small scale, gravity is so miniscule and the effects are barely felt that it can be completely ignored simply because we have no way to measure such a small gravitational force. Also, evolution is divided into 2 branches. We still dont know which branch (adaptations or selection) is right. Perhaps both are correct or both are wrong. You can never say for sure
@@valizawesome796 You clearly don't understand the problems that physicists have identified between quantum mechanics and general relativity. They do represent significant challenges to one another.
On the one hand, quantum mechanics says that everything, including the fundamental forces, are the result of particles; that everything is reducible to quantum phenomena. That principle has stood up so well that the force carrying particle for three of the four fundamental forces have been identified. The gluon for the strong force, the W and Z bosons for the weak force, and the photon for electromagnetism. But when it comes to gravity, physicists have been unable to identify the force carrying particle for gravity, even though quantum mechanics says there should be one. There are several different hypotheses, one of which is string theory, and another which proposes the hypothetical graviton as the force carrying particle for gravity. So far however, quantum mechanics has not been able to explain gravity.
But then on the other hand, you have the current theory of gravity, better known as the general theory of relativity. According to that theory, gravity is result of objects with mass curving the fabric of space in such a way that anything else moving through that curved space has its trajectory altered by that curvature. So what general relativity is essentially saying is that gravity is really just motion through curved space.
The thing is, both quantum mechanics and general relativity have withstood numerous tests, and have come out the other side as stronger theories. Yet despite neither being disproven, they are at this point mutually exclusive. One says that gravity is the result of a particle or some other quantum phenomenon, while the other says that gravity is basically motion through curved space. This is actually one of the biggest problems facing physicists, that is, producing a quantum theory of gravity which accounts for everything that general relativity beautifully explains. So contrary to what you claim, general relativity and quantum mechanics do represent significant challenges for one another, so significant in fact that aside from the nature of dark energy and dark matter, it is the biggest problem in physics.
This is all in contrast to evolution, where there is no other theory or large body of evidence which represents a challenge to the validity of the theory of evolution and/or its ability to explain the diversity and distribution of life on Earth. These apparent branches you speak of, adaptation, by which I assume you mean genetics; and natural selection, are not two separate and competing paradigms within evolutionary biology, or branches as you call them. The theory of evolution as it is understood today is a synthesis of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, and genetics.
The modern theory of evolution as we know it today, is not the same as Darwin's theory. Natural selection has been reconciled with genetics into one modern evolutionary theory, and it so comprehensively explains all of biology that it lead Theodosius Dobzhansky to state that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." The fact is the synthesis of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection with genetics into the modern theory of evolution, has produced by far the most robust and comprehensive theory in all of science. That it has been used to predict so much, from the discovery of fused chromosomes in the human genome, to the location of intermediate fossils for specific stages in the history of life, and is able to explain so much, such as the design of the human body for example, is what makes it so much more sound and powerful than any other theory in all of science. You would have to be a fool to have serious doubts about it.
@@Ngamotu83 Well im not exactly well versed in this topic, but i always thought relativity and quantum mechanics work on different levels? Relativity only really works in the planetary and stellar level while quantum mechanics work in small particles?
Thank you for all your amazing videos, I love em all!
I wanted to ask if Darwin's theory about life is more correct than the other theories challenging Darwin's theory?
Like Lemarkism? I don't know if they can be considered theories since they were generally wrong. They are especially not accecpted now because we know how they were incorrect.
Darwin's theory stood thentest of scrutiny over time even correlating with modern genetic evidence, it is absolutely correct, although it didn't answer everything.
@@whatabouttheearth Hold on, you cannot say any theory is absolutely correct.
Ok...I understood
Fact:- WHAT happens
Hypothesis :- MAYBE it happens because.....
Law:- HOW it happens
Theory:- Why it happens
Im showing this to everyone who says "just a theory"
So basically, a hypothesis is a guess
close enough, to make it not hard for the scientists, a hypothesis is an 'educated guess'
Thanks, I was confused about these till now.
146 creationists and counting.
595 right now.
the creationists actually like this video cause they can say that gravity is a "theory" and doesn't actually describe or explain what is causing it, so then the earth must be flat.
Patricio Ansaldi creationist don’t believe the earth is flat
@@1tsjaboisam973 prove it!
@@Strike-1
You can't prove a negative.
Putrid humours, demonic possession, sunspots, chemtrails, and. . . gluten! Thanks for that, it made my day. :)
The evolution of homework to games could be even cooler.
There is a typo error on 1:21 where proposed is spelt prososed. Hope this already wasn't pointed out :/
Well that's just a hypothesis A GAME HYPOTHESIS! Thanks for watching!