As the writer for this TED-Ed script, l’d like to like to thank all the people who have taken the time to comment on this lesson. I find the comment threads to be a great place to gauge the different ways people interpret the lesson in specific and the topic in general. For example, in my previous TED-Ed on ‘Precision v. Accuracy’, I learned a lot about the role of different languages in influencing their understanding of the terms. I don't want to muddle up the comment thread, but I do want to address one point which has come up in multiple comments: hypotheses - both its omission from the video and its role in the scientific endeavor. ‘Hypothesis’ would have been a natural addition, as the ‘scientific trilogy’ normally is recited as ‘hypothesis, theory, and law’. However, one of the guiding philosophies at TED-Ed is that these lessons be concise. ‘Bite-size’ might seem a little too trivial of a descriptor; ‘snack-size’ might fit better as long as we’re assuming it is a healthy, brain-stimulating, perhaps perspective-altering snack. As such, TED-Ed lessons are tightly-framed on a specific goals and writers are held to a strict word count for the script. When this topic was approved and drafted out earlier this year (the process began back in May with a bulk of the script work in June/July), I and my ‘TED-Ed’itor wrestled with what to include. We opted to omit ‘hypothesis’ to free up space to discuss the relationship of theories and laws - hinging on that key phrase ‘It’s just a theory’. So let’s imagine this to be a ‘DVD extra’; if I HAD included hypotheses in the script, what would be MY take? I think hypotheses are a reflection of the role and importance of the experiment. An experiment is an organized attempt to collect data which we can use to further refine our understanding of the topic of interest. (Yes, there are many ways to define ‘experiment’ - this is mine.) A hypothesis is determined before the data is collected and makes and effort to predict how the experimental results will turn out as informed by our current understanding of the science behind the experiment. While technically, there is no mandate for any background knowledge before making a hypothesis, random wild guesses on them would suggest either total ignorance on the subject or blatant disregard for matters of funding and resources in determining which experiments to pursue. While hypotheses are popularly described as an ‘educated guess’, I am more partial to ‘testable prediction’. If you cannot imagine a scenario where your prediction is proven wrong by the results of the experiment, then you’re probably stepping out of the realm of science-as-we-know-it. This nuance about hypotheses does a nice job of filtering non-science topics from trying to be studied with the tools of science. For example, “Bigfoot exists” is not a good scientific hypothesis since it is not falsifiable. No matter how many experiments fail to detect Bigfoot, believers could still argue that you just haven’t found the right one yet. Instead, “Bigfoot does not exist” is an actual scientific hypothesis. You can imagine a scenario that successfully disproves this: conclusive evidence of Bigfoot. Full disclosure: there are camps that do not feel the needs be a requirement of ‘falsifiability’. Again, I just share my opinion here, with apologies to Bigfoot if you're reading this comment. A hypothesis guides an individual experiment. The results of multiple experiments inform our understanding of theories and laws. I do not feel that hypotheses ‘grow up’ into a theory, since their roles are dissimilar. However, the way in which hypotheses are phrased and their resulting experiments are conducted can have important influence on the acceptance of a theory (or law). David Buschhorn’s comment, “A scientist never tries to find evidence to support their theory. They try to disprove their hypothesis,” is absolutely correct in the idea about disproving a hypothesis. Remember, in science we can never prove something is absolutely true; we can only support or challenge our understanding. However, I suspect scientists frequently engage in an experiment and frame their hypothesis, knowing that they can’t PROVE that they are right, but hoping to find that the results support and tighten the theory. This is not the same as proving, but the difference is nuanced and worth noting. So, in summary, hypothesis are very important in the process of doing science, since they frame our experimental expectations and our understanding of the results. When hypothesis partner with well-designed experiments, we make progress on understanding our theories and laws! Thanks for your interest in TED-Ed!
These video's tickle my interest and lay a little foundation of knowledge, but the most I get out of these are from the comment section. I love to read how passionately people explain, defend or refute ideas and share what they have learned; so people like me, who have no scientific base to fall back upon, get a little bit smarter.
3:34 To explain some of these rejected theories: Miasma was an explanation of the transmission of diseases. Instead of harmful bacteria and viruses causing sickness, it was believed that clouds of "bad air" (called Miasma), which originated from grave yards and pools of sewage, caused disease. Doctors would literally wave a bunch of herbs in front of people to clear out the miasma. Interstellar Aether was an ancient theory originating from Aristotle. He proposed that the universe hates vacuums. No matter what where you were in the universe, you were always surrounded by SOME kind of material. So, instead of being a vacuum as we understand it, the area outside of the atmosphere was filled with a divine substance called Aether. This held even after Europe converted to Christianity and stopped believing that the planets were literally gods. The Four Humors is another idea from the ancient Greeks. The human body was of four substances, blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm. If the body had an excess of one, the person would either become ill, grow angry, fall into depression, or be insane. Unlike the Miasma preventing herbs, which basically didn't do anything positive or negative to the patients, the best way to rebalance the four humors was to bleed a person of the offending substance. No, not bleed them in any metaphorical way, I mean take a knife and cut an artery open until the person was "cured." Martian Canals was mostly the result of bad images from telescopes. At around the turn of the 19th century, astronomers looked up at Mars and thought they were seeing lines crossing the martian surface. They concluded that Mars had life, intelligent life, but the planet was dying. So, the Martians were building huge canals to tightly control the little water that was left. HG Welles believed this theory when he wrote "War of the Worlds." However, the lines the astronomers thought they were seeing were actually just distortions caused by Earth's atmosphere. Hollow Earth is pretty straight forward, the Earth is hollow. No lava or rocks, inside the Earth there is an entire world inside our own, with oceans, and maybe extinct creatures live there. Some even claimed WE were the ones on the inside of a sphere. Lysenkoism was actually a state sponsored "scientific" theory. Trofim Lysenko proposed the theory in the Lenin controlled USSR as an alternate to the "capitalist" ideas of Darwinian natural selection (particularly the whole "survival of the fittest"). Trofim made all kinds of claims, that wheat could transform into Rye. His ideas became popular as Stalin literally rounded up and shot/imprisoned Trofim's scientific opponents (although Stalin didn't trust anyone smarter than him anyway).
Thank you for explaining these theories, i had no idea some of these even existed, but i'd like to pitch in and say that i think the scientists that discovered the lines thought they were natural and caused by erosion and not artificial, but instead of calling them canals, the word for natural trench in which water passes, they called them channels, aka man made trenches made to convoy water (or maybe it's the opposite, i'm not a native speaker so it could be channels natural and canals artificial. Not sure which) thus making people believe in aliens and fear them. I don't actually know if this is true, i think i heard it in a documentary a while back but i could be wrong.
notbobby125 ... Good read. On interstellar aether ... Sounds very similar to the theory of dark matter. I'm guessing Aristotle's theory was debunked on the realisation space is indeed a vacuum? ... Incredible thinking for the time.
I thought the Mars Canals were mostly a result of various optical illusions, e.g. seeing lines that were actually just a set of disconnected points, or staring through your telescope so hard for so long that you started to see the blood vessels in your eye. Also, the miasma theory was one of those theories that, while not necessarily accurate, was still useful, for sanitation if not medicine, since it fairly accurately described the behavior of airborne diseases. It was only brought into question when waterborne diseases like cholera started becoming prevalent.
+You're offended? I don't give a shit! Hi! Why would people mix up "theory" and "game theory"? English is not my native, but for me "theory", "scientific theory" and "game theory" are 3 different things.
+You're offended? I don't give a shit! There's a layman interpretation of the word "Theory" to mean "guesswork" and the scientific model that gives us insight.
Hypothesis: Is an educated guess about an explanation for a set of observations. Theory: Is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested and not dis-proven. Law: Is an obvious fact recorded after observation.
+Tyler Durden A "law" is not a "fact". A "fact" is an observation, a record; a "law" is a description of what happens, happened, or will happen. EDIT: Upon looking at a graph, a "law" seems to count as a "fact", but I stand that your description of a law was inefficient.
Tyler Durden No, I meant laws. Laws many times crumble when newer concepts & theories arise. For example, the Ideal gas law & any Newton law is an approximation. General relativity shows us that many laws are wrong.
+michelle fanter Well not really. Most of those laws were find inefficient or not enough complexe. For exemple, the newton law are right, they just don't account for everything. Same with ideal gas law. They were never wrong, they just didn't know about some variable.
This definition of theory seems to have more overlap with that of hypothesis than it should, particularly at 2:51. To my understanding, a theory is something with substantial evidence, while a hypothesis is an educated guess. The "theory" at 2:51 is really just a hypothesis, and a horrible one at that.
+Yaranaika 'Hypothesis' is a subcategory of 'theory'. 'Theory' is any explanation that has the potential to be the true explanation. It is based on these theories that we attempt to create laws, and if, from that theory, we ever create a law that accurately predicts results, then the theory is considered to be confirmed (not proven, but confirmed). The weakest of theories are the ones that are born from educated guesses but haven't been tested or confirmed. These weak theories are called hypotheses. Once confirmed by some testing, this theory gains strength in its confirmation. The more confirmation, the stronger the theory. However, a single counter-example can upheave a theory and require that a new theory be created then tested and confirmed. In fact, even the laws can be upheaved because even they aren't "proven", just confirmed. The greatest example is when Newton's gravitation theory and laws were replaced by Einstein's theory and subsequent laws. Who knows, maybe there is something Einstein missed that will require that the theory and math be completely rewritten?
+Yaranaika well, it was a theory. as I understand, it got published in precisely one journal, and was shot down by the rest of the scientific community, with even the original researcher eventually discrediting his research. in any case, with the medical sciences, the line between "theory" and "hypothesis" will always be more blurred than in, say, physics.
+Yaranaika i believe he did not diferenciate between "theory" in common language, and scientific. "We have a theory of why people get sick, is because they inhale "miasma" and when they do, they get sick", "I have a theory of my dog spinnin before taking a dump" VS Germ Theory of Disease I guess...
There is a huge confusion in what theory and hypothesis are supposed to mean. The sad truth is that even TED is now using 'theory' incorrectly and it seems unavoidable that soon there will be no clear boundary between theory and hypothesis even among scientists. There is no such thing as a 'weak theory'. What do exist are discarded/disproved hypotheses. In essence a 'theory' is a hypothesis that has survived many rounds of testing and has compiled evidence supporting it. If one is to be STRICT, a hypothesis is a possible explanation that is yet to be tested, whereas a true theory is a hypothesis that has been tested has not been disproved and has gained evidence to support it as a viable explanation for a given phenomenon. A scientific law is in essence a theory that has been sufficiently confirmed to work in all cases. The Newtonian laws for motion for example almost ALWAYS work (except when you get close to the speed of light, in which case you need to consider relativity). Plate tectonics is a robust theory because it explains a wide range of phenomena BUT it is now a law because there are aspects and mechanisms to clearly understood. Same with evolution, a very robust theory that explains life diversity, even diseases extremely well BUT that remains a theory (maybe a biologist could explain why still remains a theory). I have no idea why TED-Ed decided to completely omit the word hypothesis from a video like this. That only serves to weaken the meaning of 'theory' to the common usage that essentially merges robust theories (such as evolution and plate tectonics) with mere speculations (i.e. the colloquial, but inadequate use of 'theory').
THANK YOU TED ED! I don't really know why people don't understand this but thanks for making another awesome video. I often get a bit annoyed when people say things like it is just a theory because they clearly don't understand what SCIENTIFIC theories have to go through to have a consensus. keep up the good work.
Wow. All this time wasted on confusing the words *theory* and *hypothesis*. A scientist _never_ tries to find evidence to support their theory. They try to *_disprove_* their _hypothesis_.
+chasem007ify A scientist proposes something, than the scientific community tries in every way to disprove it, if they cant the theory becomes stronger. That way flawed theorys can be regected soon and only the best ones remains. And if i remember correctly a hypothesis that stands experiments becomes a theory, but i might be wrong.
UMADBRO? Generally informally too, the words aren't differentiated especially well technically either, but (at least in modern terms, from the 20th century) theories require a certain amount of supporting empirical evidence, but at a certain point, hypotheses also require some amount of observational basis
A comparison with hypothesis was sorely needed here (~99% of people informally use the term theory when they really mean hypothesis). Theories have strong and varied evidential support and utility, while hypotheses don't (at least not yet).
Yessss Difference between “hypothesis” and “theory”: Think of a hypothesis as a new idea that needs to be tested, while a scientific theory is an established idea that has been proven to work many times.
Good explanation for kids, but they could've mentioned hypothesis too. There should've been more emphasize that theory is not just a guess but rather *the highest grade* of scientific explanation in its field. As if hollow earth etc. "theories" were well established. Those were more just hypothesis. Also, even if our current laws are disproven in some scenarios, that only narrows the domain. If it's a law, it still works within its limits by which it was established, just like classical mechanics.
I feel like I've been misled. I was always told that a theory BECOMES a law when it's reached a certain point of maturity where there is overwhelming evidence supporting it. That's how it has always been described to me in science classes and in other materials.
in my eyes, scientific laws are DISCOVERED as nature's constants or patterns, such as gravity. we might not know why they're there, but their mechanisms or principles are set in stone. no matter how many times you throw up a rock, it falls back down. A leads to B, always. i think some 'laws' are called 'laws' as a reflection of the researcher's status or its appeal, but they are not actual laws. A leads to B, because prof. said so and I can't prove otherwise.
Natalia D Do laws include the mathematics describing them, or just the general concept? Because the math of Gravity has changed some over time, if I'm not mistaken; Newton's original formulas were very good for most purposes, but they're not precise enough for landing on the moon, for instance. Again, so I've heard.
+CybeargPlays That's a good point. It depends on whether you believe how specific a law needs to be before it is considered a law. If the law of gravity is good enough for the moon but not for Mars, is it a law? While I'm sure philosophers love to debate such issues, most practicing scientists keep it simple, as in: "Do I have to account for this phenomenon in my research in order to be published or can I ignore/challenge/twist it to my benefit?" If you disagree with the string THEORY, you're still safe from ridicule. If you ignore the LAW of gravity in your rocket design, you're a fool.
+CybeargPlays Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is precise enough for landing on the moon. It's a little bit off when describing the orbits of the planets, especially Mercury: io9.com/the-200-year-old-mystery-of-mercurys-orbit-solved-1458642219
Wow, this explanation is actually detrimental! Expressing how a theory *must* predict new evidence: failed. Expressing how a scientific theory must be the simplest possible: failed. Expressing the difference between scientific theory and hypothesis: failed. Expressing the relativity of error, and how error diminishes with every new theory: failed. Expressing how theories are tested *against*: failed. Way to confuse everyone and to legitimise who mistakenly misunderstands a scientific theory for _just a theory_. Nice job!
***** I don't agree. Well of course I don't, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. Why should an educational video convey wrong, partial or inaccurate information, when the length of said video is more than enough to give said information, if you bothered to keep it accurate and complete?
+Jeesaf Oceanleft Video makers seldom read or take into account personal emails, on the other hand people do read the comment section. I figured the second method would entail the most advantage for the greatest number I was capable of reaching.
***** That people oppose and criticize what I say is not a problem really, on the contrary it helps me check my ideas. And my experience disagrees with yours on the mail and comments thing.
+Robert Fletcher A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
+Robert Fletcher Order in which the scientific method works: First: 1 )Conjecture (an idea, hunch, guess). 2) Hypothesis: a testable (falsifiable) idea, hunch, guess. 3) Theory: Hypothesis that wasn't falsified, and has predictive capability in results during tests. Often has convergent testing that backup the model such as many different seemingly unrelated fields affirm the particular theory; scientific theory is as high as you can go in science. 4) Then its all about making it more accurate, or finding a much better one if one exists, means going back to step 1; constantly trying to poke holes in the theories, or figure out holes that do exist in the theory.
The video is about the difference between theory and law.... You decided to ignore law? Not a word about it? Why? There has never been a science law has has been proven wrong...in history...never....it is possible...but it has never happened... There are thousand of theories...very few laws...
Consider also that people confuse the word “theory” for “hypothesis.” When they say ‘it’s just a theory’ they usually refer as ‘it’s just a hypothesis.’
+Brandon Driver Huh? I am a creationist and I do not scuff science. Quite contrary. Creationist scoff SCIENTISM, and that's the diffrence. Creationist scoff the dogmas in science because dogmas like this video presented are stopper of progress in science.
I think simple word be Theory : an undergoing studies of a certain thing, events in trying to understand why or is it true Law: Thing that are definite and can predict with great or 100% accuracy about certain things, events like gravitational force, water pressure
Let me clarify the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Hypothesis: An initial explanation for a natural phenomenon that has yet to have any scientific credence in terms of experimental and observational data. Theory: A scientific explanation that has substantial evidence to support its claims in terms of experimental and observational scientific data. Additionally, it's falsifiable, but has yet to be falsified.
Difference between “hypothesis” and “theory”: Think of a hypothesis as a new idea that needs to be tested, while a scientific theory is an established idea that has been proven to work many times.
I suspect its also important to differentiate between 'theories' that developed when science was relatively young (i.e. before the scientific method was widely adopted and the invention of things like telescopes, microscropes and computing) and modern theories today. Alchemy, for example, was more folk law, symbolism and mysticism than hard experimentation - it's true that it was the origin of modern chemistry, but it wasn't exactly scientific itself. Climate change, the big bang and evolution, on the other hand, were developed in the context of rigorous scientific enquiry and have survived as explanations in the face of a relatively vast amount of data and scientific debate. Sure, they could still be discredited, but it feels unfair to say 'alchemy was wrong so evolution might be too'. To me, it's a bit like doubting your doctors medical advice because a little girl when you were eight told you babies come out of a woman's belly button.
tpespos Vs How. JK, actually in one of the more famous RF interviews he explained why science isn't suited to answer why questions, only how questions. He went on further to explain that ultimately why questions aren't useful at all in explaining the world, because they imply the presence of purpose or intention, where in fact it's not a given that those things are always true or present.
+Pasxali K Maybe depends on what's being studied? Some things may need Why questions and will only stay as Theories while others can become Laws with more information.
+Pasxali K As much as I enjoy listening to Feynman's answer, science only answers why-questions. When we engage in attempting to provide an explanation for some observed phenomena we remain within the framework of theories constructed to provide a satisfactory answer that is good enough to predict, retrodict, etc. We do not aim at discovering or explaining the "true" nature of the world. Science is context-dependent. Why is my finger bleeding? Depends on the type of explanation you are looking for. There is nothing more to it.
Me: wait what this video abt?? Someone: Umm, it's abt difference between theories and laws Me: Oh, all I was hearing chants from the video telling me sleep, sleep, sleep!! Lol haha xD
Did this video leave out the explanation of hypothesis all together? And also have said theory when it should have said hypothesis on multiple occasions?
I hate that the film community has something called Murphy's Law, and they go around describing that what can go wrong will go wrong...That's not a Law! it's just an assumption! a Probability! A Probability of 50-50!
"Part of the joke is calling it a law in the first place." True, but in some ways it really almost is a law. If you look at it from a statistics perspective, generally speaking there are _way_ more ways that things can go wrong than right. That's the fundamental problem of creating order out of chaos in this universe. Thus, things tend to go wrong more often due to basic probability. Is that a law? Not yet, but maybe some day after we have a more developed theory of information we'll have a precise way to describe it. Then again, maybe the laws of thermodynamics already do?
I originally stated, “What about a hypothesis?”, because I considered this to be an omission. When you raise the statement, “It's only a theory”, you are directing this to the lay community as surly kids would have this explained to them in school. So it's important to explain hypothesis, theory and laws.
Law predicts what happens. Theory how it happens. Laws wouldn't get revised since they have more harsh ruling. 2:30. 3:00. 7ata maktob bl hadith he writes. 4:20. Theories aren't hypothesis
A potential problem with this explanation is that sometimes a law is called a theory just because it is, welp you know, once called a theory. For example, the theory of general and special relativity is not a theory, but an accepted scientific law, it is called a theory because it is started that way, the paper Einstein published in 1905 title is such, and the theory took too long to confirm. So what's the difference between a law and theory, well it's just that, a name, their boundary can be blur, you have to get to know the field to truly distinguish the difference.
Every time I think I have it down, I see another comment laying it out and someone saying they’re wrong. I’m still not clear on hypothesis vs theory vs law. Can someone use gravity as an example? Like a hypothesis about gravity, a theory about gravity, and the law of gravity?
nah man, you got it upside down. people talking about shit they don't understand is step one to them gaining an understanding: if they don't try out their knowledge, how will anyone correct their lack of knowledge? hugs
Callsign Vega - People using the word cringe-worthy as some sort of trump card - is proof positive of a wanna-be-pseudo-intellectual who hasn't hit puberty yet!
Countering Vega's presumption, that this particular ignorance is cringe worthy, with another presumption, that Vega's youth and pseudo intellectualism are both objective facts, is a little hypocritical don't you think?
Great. Now can someone explain the difference between a scientific theory and a religious "theory"? And then go explain to these christians that they're not even is the same ballpark when it comes to plausible explanations of the world around us?
+Thurgor Supreme Hear hear! To all the people who for instance doubt evolution, you're allowed to, but please do come up with a counterargument that doesn't boil down to "because my storybook says something else"
***** I quite often hear similar things, "if you're an atheist, why don't you just go around murdering people, since there is no one saying anything against it" Well, because I'm not a total douchebag, and because I want to be nice to people so they're happy, not because that's how to get Heaven Points...
+metallsnubben I'll preface this by saying while I am a Christian, I believe in evolution. I think it's pure idiotic not to at least look at the evidence and say "Yea, I can see how that's possible". However, if someone refuses to believe it, that doesn't mean they are automatically discredited because they haven't dedicated their entire life to researching other possibilities. An insane amount of time, research, and field work would be needed to provided a case against evolution and I don't think it can be done in a single lifetime, especially by a single average Joe. Also, while I don't take the Bible literally and am fully aware of it's flaws, calling it a "storybook" is incredibly disrespectful and makes you no better than the bigoted religious nuts who insist you're some sort of wild heathen. You're both two sides of the same coin.
+Spera TV You do realize how much of an impossible question that is, right? It's the same as me asking you why you exist and you wiffing it off by saying because you just do.Either literally or philosophically, there is no answer to that sort of question.
They should change its name to the Laws of Evolution instead of the Theory of Evolution ; a proven fact shouldn't be regarded as a theory. I just can't stand Creationists saying 'It is just a theory!'.
Except its not "proven." You can't guarantee me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the universe 37 seconds ago, and that her evil counterpart Garden Salad Ghost didn't just seed the rest of the world with dinosaur bones and sediment layers and your TH-cam comment from 24 hours ago in order to confuse us all. Of course, there's very strong evidence that evolution is a thing, and that the world has been around more than 6000 years and so forth (as opposed to the creationist model where the evidence is "well my preferred interpretation of some ancient and multiply-translated book says so!") But evidence is not proof, no matter how much of it there is or how strong it is. In fact no matter how much evidence you have, you can _never_ fully rule out a supreme being having created the universe 37 seconds ago and just coincidentally happening to be in the exact state we see it at this very moment. Hell if you want to get philosophical, you can't prove that you're not just dreaming the universe and none of it even exists in whatever reality you really exist in when you wake up, essentially making you the (perhaps unwitting) supreme being. That's also why creationism or any other supreme being model is entirely useless to science -- it can never be challenged (scientifically speaking, at least.) So if you want to start from that assumption then you may as well just give up your science career since the only answer you can ever really arrive at is "because God made it that way." Which is a fine argument for a preacher's sermon but a lousy one for advancing human knowledge.
Dude, when you get it wrong you really do a bang up job! Who ever said that the scientific community and the religious community are even, at a fundamental level, discussing or exploring the same things - the seeking out of evidence for their respective beliefs? Science and faith do not even ask the same questions, let alone seek the same end. You, and your fellow troglodytes (pun intended, couldn't help it) want that argument, you need that argument, to sustain the insatiable need you have to remind the rest of the human race how much more advanced (whatever that means) you are and how indebted they should feel towards you ... it's an ego-maniacal complex that has existed since the dawn of humanity, and your nothing but the latest Toad to squat under a mushroom and bitch about the realities of a rain forest that doesn't give a shit about you... Any discussion about faith and science is little more than a trap that will serve neither and provoke vitriol and scorn from both ranks. And this has happened because people who have claimed a faith, whatever it might be, have more likely than not abused their influence and power and wrought all manner of evil and horrors upon their fellow man. But it's not like the scientific community has always been illustrious and above reproach. I dare you to approach the Bayer company in Germany and ask them if they really built their pharmaceutical empire in part by experimenting on prisoners during WW ll ... go ahead and see if you can get a straight up yes or no. Ask the media, who just love to promote every scientific advancement coming down the pipeline, to investigate this and see where it leads. Ask the families of the scientists who worked there, if they used their intellectual capabilities, and the scientific method, to serve humanity or cause unknown suffering and death to those unfortunate few. Don't assume to lecture anyone about realities you know nothing of, especially while living in your vacuous, insipid little self-centered world. Just go play with yourself and your games and leave the real world to real people, you know, those that actually do the heavy lifting ...
shadowdawg04 Is this a response to my comment - probably not - ? because I just wanted to point out that I dislike Creationism - in part because I already had a few discussions with Creationists about this and they didn't end well at all.
In that case, nobody still knows wtf you're talking about. I was discussing the simple definition of words -- absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you believe the truth of those words. A scientific theory, by definition, is something with strong evidence but not strict proof. Which is all of science because strict proof is the realm of mathematics and does not apply to the real world, ever. But what that definition does NOT make them, is necessarily wrong -- they could be 100% right and still never be considered "proven" because there's always an unknown element. Even if that element is "God finally decides to show his face tomorrow and tells us that everything we've ever done, religious or scientific, is stupid." A very unlikely element, but not entirely something we can ever rule out. But just to feed your trolling (I'm guessing that's the troglodyte "pun?" You'd think a creationist would be better at differentiating fictional characters..) Yes science and faith "explore" different things. Science explores the world around us. Faith explores how many ways they can figure out to reinterpret a 2000 year old book to their advantage. And I don't think there are many scientists (never mind myself, who is not a scientist but just tends to believe things with evidence over things with none) who feel humanity should be "indebted" to them. I mean there's asshats in every profession (including religious professions,) but for the most part, science is about _evidence_ above all else. What people do with the evidence once we've discovered it, as alluded to by your Godwin injection, is not always good to be sure. But that goes for anything. People have used religion as an excuse to be horrific as well. The Crusades, the witch hunts and countless other atrocities over the centuries all well before modern science was a thing. I'm not lecturing people on realities I don't understand. I'm lecturing people on a word you can look up at dictionary.com or any of a thousand other websites. Not that I expect you to have read this far -- your original response looked like you just something canned and copypastad it on the first comment that even vaguely sounded like it might be anti-religious (it wasn't. I'm anti-zealotry and I believe faith needs to come after evidence if we want to continue advancing as a race and not descend into ISIS-style insanity, but I'm not against religion in general.) So I'm expecting a great new rant only tangentially related to the first sentence or two of this comment. Troglodyte away!
As the writer for this TED-Ed script, l’d like to like to thank all the people who have taken the time to comment on this lesson. I find the comment threads to be a great place to gauge the different ways people interpret the lesson in specific and the topic in general. For example, in my previous TED-Ed on ‘Precision v. Accuracy’, I learned a lot about the role of different languages in influencing their understanding of the terms.
I don't want to muddle up the comment thread, but I do want to address one point which has come up in multiple comments: hypotheses - both its omission from the video and its role in the scientific endeavor.
‘Hypothesis’ would have been a natural addition, as the ‘scientific trilogy’ normally is recited as ‘hypothesis, theory, and law’. However, one of the guiding philosophies at TED-Ed is that these lessons be concise. ‘Bite-size’ might seem a little too trivial of a descriptor; ‘snack-size’ might fit better as long as we’re assuming it is a healthy, brain-stimulating, perhaps perspective-altering snack. As such, TED-Ed lessons are tightly-framed on a specific goals and writers are held to a strict word count for the script. When this topic was approved and drafted out earlier this year (the process began back in May with a bulk of the script work in June/July), I and my ‘TED-Ed’itor wrestled with what to include. We opted to omit ‘hypothesis’ to free up space to discuss the relationship of theories and laws - hinging on that key phrase ‘It’s just a theory’.
So let’s imagine this to be a ‘DVD extra’; if I HAD included hypotheses in the script, what would be MY take?
I think hypotheses are a reflection of the role and importance of the experiment. An experiment is an organized attempt to collect data which we can use to further refine our understanding of the topic of interest. (Yes, there are many ways to define ‘experiment’ - this is mine.) A hypothesis is determined before the data is collected and makes and effort to predict how the experimental results will turn out as informed by our current understanding of the science behind the experiment. While technically, there is no mandate for any background knowledge before making a hypothesis, random wild guesses on them would suggest either total ignorance on the subject or blatant disregard for matters of funding and resources in determining which experiments to pursue.
While hypotheses are popularly described as an ‘educated guess’, I am more partial to ‘testable prediction’. If you cannot imagine a scenario where your prediction is proven wrong by the results of the experiment, then you’re probably stepping out of the realm of science-as-we-know-it. This nuance about hypotheses does a nice job of filtering non-science topics from trying to be studied with the tools of science. For example, “Bigfoot exists” is not a good scientific hypothesis since it is not falsifiable. No matter how many experiments fail to detect Bigfoot, believers could still argue that you just haven’t found the right one yet. Instead, “Bigfoot does not exist” is an actual scientific hypothesis. You can imagine a scenario that successfully disproves this: conclusive evidence of Bigfoot. Full disclosure: there are camps that do not feel the needs be a requirement of ‘falsifiability’. Again, I just share my opinion here, with apologies to Bigfoot if you're reading this comment.
A hypothesis guides an individual experiment. The results of multiple experiments inform our understanding of theories and laws. I do not feel that hypotheses ‘grow up’ into a theory, since their roles are dissimilar. However, the way in which hypotheses are phrased and their resulting experiments are conducted can have important influence on the acceptance of a theory (or law).
David Buschhorn’s comment, “A scientist never tries to find evidence to support their theory. They try to disprove their hypothesis,” is absolutely correct in the idea about disproving a hypothesis. Remember, in science we can never prove something is absolutely true; we can only support or challenge our understanding. However, I suspect scientists frequently engage in an experiment and frame their hypothesis, knowing that they can’t PROVE that they are right, but hoping to find that the results support and tighten the theory. This is not the same as proving, but the difference is nuanced and worth noting.
So, in summary, hypothesis are very important in the process of doing science, since they frame our experimental expectations and our understanding of the results. When hypothesis partner with well-designed experiments, we make progress on understanding our theories and laws!
Thanks for your interest in TED-Ed!
Swag
@@Tower_Swagmanindeed
Well, this was a fun little surprise in the comments.
The very reason i rushed down to comments 😂
The difference between Theory and Law is that Theories are spherically shaped and Laws are cube shaped.
+The Real PyroManiac It all makes sense now
and theories are middle fingers while laws are a pain in the arse
I was about to say that
The Real PyroManiac A brilliant observation, a brilliant observation.
This is true.
These video's tickle my interest and lay a little foundation of knowledge, but the most I get out of these are from the comment section. I love to read how passionately people explain, defend or refute ideas and share what they have learned; so people like me, who have no scientific base to fall back upon, get a little bit smarter.
+Fabienne G. (Fabi) At least half the reason to use TH-cam is the comments section.
The most humble comment ive ever seen in youtube.
Your comment should have more attention than some of those passionate comments.
Same
See this is what I like to see
3:34
To explain some of these rejected theories:
Miasma was an explanation of the transmission of diseases. Instead of harmful bacteria and viruses causing sickness, it was believed that clouds of "bad air" (called Miasma), which originated from grave yards and pools of sewage, caused disease. Doctors would literally wave a bunch of herbs in front of people to clear out the miasma.
Interstellar Aether was an ancient theory originating from Aristotle. He proposed that the universe hates vacuums. No matter what where you were in the universe, you were always surrounded by SOME kind of material. So, instead of being a vacuum as we understand it, the area outside of the atmosphere was filled with a divine substance called Aether. This held even after Europe converted to Christianity and stopped believing that the planets were literally gods.
The Four Humors is another idea from the ancient Greeks. The human body was of four substances, blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm. If the body had an excess of one, the person would either become ill, grow angry, fall into depression, or be insane. Unlike the Miasma preventing herbs, which basically didn't do anything positive or negative to the patients, the best way to rebalance the four humors was to bleed a person of the offending substance. No, not bleed them in any metaphorical way, I mean take a knife and cut an artery open until the person was "cured."
Martian Canals was mostly the result of bad images from telescopes. At around the turn of the 19th century, astronomers looked up at Mars and thought they were seeing lines crossing the martian surface. They concluded that Mars had life, intelligent life, but the planet was dying. So, the Martians were building huge canals to tightly control the little water that was left. HG Welles believed this theory when he wrote "War of the Worlds." However, the lines the astronomers thought they were seeing were actually just distortions caused by Earth's atmosphere.
Hollow Earth is pretty straight forward, the Earth is hollow. No lava or rocks, inside the Earth there is an entire world inside our own, with oceans, and maybe extinct creatures live there. Some even claimed WE were the ones on the inside of a sphere.
Lysenkoism was actually a state sponsored "scientific" theory. Trofim Lysenko proposed the theory in the Lenin controlled USSR as an alternate to the "capitalist" ideas of Darwinian natural selection (particularly the whole "survival of the fittest"). Trofim made all kinds of claims, that wheat could transform into Rye. His ideas became popular as Stalin literally rounded up and shot/imprisoned Trofim's scientific opponents (although Stalin didn't trust anyone smarter than him anyway).
Thank you for explaining these theories, i had no idea some of these even existed, but i'd like to pitch in and say that i think the scientists that discovered the lines thought they were natural and caused by erosion and not artificial, but instead of calling them canals, the word for natural trench in which water passes, they called them channels, aka man made trenches made to convoy water (or maybe it's the opposite, i'm not a native speaker so it could be channels natural and canals artificial. Not sure which) thus making people believe in aliens and fear them. I don't actually know if this is true, i think i heard it in a documentary a while back but i could be wrong.
notbobby125 ... Good read. On interstellar aether ... Sounds very similar to the theory of dark matter. I'm guessing Aristotle's theory was debunked on the realisation space is indeed a vacuum? ... Incredible thinking for the time.
*notbobby125* That was very helpful. Thanks a lot and Salaam.
WAT??
I thought the Mars Canals were mostly a result of various optical illusions, e.g. seeing lines that were actually just a set of disconnected points, or staring through your telescope so hard for so long that you started to see the blood vessels in your eye. Also, the miasma theory was one of those theories that, while not necessarily accurate, was still useful, for sanitation if not medicine, since it fairly accurately described the behavior of airborne diseases. It was only brought into question when waterborne diseases like cholera started becoming prevalent.
0:14 thats just a theory! A GAME THEORY. Thanks for watching :)
It's funny how the word,"Scientific Theory" and "Theory" have two completely different definitions. Alot of people tend to not know that.
+You're offended? I don't give a shit! Hi! Why would people mix up "theory" and "game theory"? English is not my native, but for me "theory", "scientific theory" and "game theory" are 3 different things.
+tankigamer200 That's what I thought xD
+You're offended? I don't give a shit! There's a layman interpretation of the word "Theory" to mean "guesswork" and the scientific model that gives us insight.
+Сергей Панкратов If English is not your native language, you sure can cuss very well.
People confuse theories with hypotheses way too often
True
Did you watch the video?
Like this video did?
Yeah. The "theory" they mean in their minds is actually hypothesis, more often than not.
Just because the majority of scientist favor a theory, doesn't mean everyone else is bound to believe it is True.
Science is not perfect, but its the best way to describe the world.
nor is religion
she\he didn't said anything about religion tho.So why bring it up?
He/She said that science was the best way to describe the world, not religion.
Great words
God is the best way to explain it
Hypothesis: Is an educated guess about an explanation for a set of observations.
Theory: Is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested and not dis-proven.
Law: Is an obvious fact recorded after observation.
+Tyler Durden A "law" is not a "fact". A "fact" is an observation, a record; a "law" is a description of what happens, happened, or will happen.
EDIT: Upon looking at a graph, a "law" seems to count as a "fact", but I stand that your description of a law was inefficient.
+Tyler Durden Some laws are wrong, though.
michelle fanter "Some laws are wrong." Do you mean "Some theories are wrong" ? ---- Which Law in physics that's been proven false?
Tyler Durden No, I meant laws. Laws many times crumble when newer concepts & theories arise.
For example, the Ideal gas law & any Newton law is an approximation. General relativity shows us that many laws are wrong.
+michelle fanter
Well not really. Most of those laws were find inefficient or not enough complexe. For exemple, the newton law are right, they just don't account for everything. Same with ideal gas law. They were never wrong, they just didn't know about some variable.
Law=What happens.
Theory=But how?
Theories never become law but they often rise or fall together.
tl;dr version
Law: This will haopen.
Theory: OK... Y tho?
this helped my confusion. where do i pay
and the hypothesis is just the theory but it's still not ripe enough
@@butterskywalker8785 also, a hypothesis could be a Law if is backed up enough
thank you I understand now
@@갱갱항상 go sub to him if u want to pay him that badly lol
This definition of theory seems to have more overlap with that of hypothesis than it should, particularly at 2:51. To my understanding, a theory is something with substantial evidence, while a hypothesis is an educated guess. The "theory" at 2:51 is really just a hypothesis, and a horrible one at that.
+Yaranaika 'Hypothesis' is a subcategory of 'theory'. 'Theory' is any explanation that has the potential to be the true explanation. It is based on these theories that we attempt to create laws, and if, from that theory, we ever create a law that accurately predicts results, then the theory is considered to be confirmed (not proven, but confirmed). The weakest of theories are the ones that are born from educated guesses but haven't been tested or confirmed. These weak theories are called hypotheses. Once confirmed by some testing, this theory gains strength in its confirmation. The more confirmation, the stronger the theory. However, a single counter-example can upheave a theory and require that a new theory be created then tested and confirmed. In fact, even the laws can be upheaved because even they aren't "proven", just confirmed. The greatest example is when Newton's gravitation theory and laws were replaced by Einstein's theory and subsequent laws. Who knows, maybe there is something Einstein missed that will require that the theory and math be completely rewritten?
2 men 1 fist.
+Yaranaika well, it was a theory. as I understand, it got published in precisely one journal, and was shot down by the rest of the scientific community, with even the original researcher eventually discrediting his research. in any case, with the medical sciences, the line between "theory" and "hypothesis" will always be more blurred than in, say, physics.
+Yaranaika i believe he did not diferenciate between "theory" in common language, and scientific.
"We have a theory of why people get sick, is because they inhale "miasma" and when they do, they get sick",
"I have a theory of my dog spinnin before taking a dump"
VS
Germ Theory of Disease
I guess...
There is a huge confusion in what theory and hypothesis are supposed to mean. The sad truth is that even TED is now using 'theory' incorrectly and it seems unavoidable that soon there will be no clear boundary between theory and hypothesis even among scientists. There is no such thing as a 'weak theory'. What do exist are discarded/disproved hypotheses. In essence a 'theory' is a hypothesis that has survived many rounds of testing and has compiled evidence supporting it. If one is to be STRICT, a hypothesis is a possible explanation that is yet to be tested, whereas a true theory is a hypothesis that has been tested has not been disproved and has gained evidence to support it as a viable explanation for a given phenomenon. A scientific law is in essence a theory that has been sufficiently confirmed to work in all cases. The Newtonian laws for motion for example almost ALWAYS work (except when you get close to the speed of light, in which case you need to consider relativity). Plate tectonics is a robust theory because it explains a wide range of phenomena BUT it is now a law because there are aspects and mechanisms to clearly understood. Same with evolution, a very robust theory that explains life diversity, even diseases extremely well BUT that remains a theory (maybe a biologist could explain why still remains a theory).
I have no idea why TED-Ed decided to completely omit the word hypothesis from a video like this. That only serves to weaken the meaning of 'theory' to the common usage that essentially merges robust theories (such as evolution and plate tectonics) with mere speculations (i.e. the colloquial, but inadequate use of 'theory').
"Well, that’s just a theory" your friend must be a creationist
Lol
@林 Your parents sound like my parents =0 are you my twin!?
must be the game theorist
Said by someone who believes in evolution yet uses biomimetics 😏 Ok.
@林 My grandma, seems like everyone has one in the family, eh?
THANK YOU TED ED!
I don't really know why people don't understand this but thanks for making another awesome video. I often get a bit annoyed when people say things like it is just a theory because they clearly don't understand what SCIENTIFIC theories have to go through to have a consensus. keep up the good work.
Wow. All this time wasted on confusing the words *theory* and *hypothesis*.
A scientist _never_ tries to find evidence to support their theory. They try to *_disprove_* their _hypothesis_.
+David Buschhorn what?
+chasem007ify A scientist proposes something, than the scientific community tries in every way to disprove it, if they cant the theory becomes stronger. That way flawed theorys can be regected soon and only the best ones remains.
And if i remember correctly a hypothesis that stands experiments becomes a theory, but i might be wrong.
UMADBRO? Theory and hypothesis are pretty interchangeable, hypothesis is normally used with smaller scope though
chasem007ify thx for clarifying that for me
UMADBRO? Generally informally too, the words aren't differentiated especially well technically either, but (at least in modern terms, from the 20th century) theories require a certain amount of supporting empirical evidence, but at a certain point, hypotheses also require some amount of observational basis
A comparison with hypothesis was sorely needed here (~99% of people informally use the term theory when they really mean hypothesis). Theories have strong and varied evidential support and utility, while hypotheses don't (at least not yet).
Yessss Difference between “hypothesis” and “theory”:
Think of a hypothesis as a new idea that needs to be tested, while a scientific theory is an established idea that has been proven to work many times.
2:37 wat da heck is the baseball doing to her??
hehe
+boy638 Pulling on her coat to get her attention.
+Thomas S hey! stop being all reasonable when we are trying to be smutty!
+boy638 Whatever you were thinking - it's just a theory...
+boy638
This world... it disappoints me with it's "intelectuality."
0:14 A *_GAME_* THEORY!
2:30 -_____________________-
+Rippertear - Gaming Videos AKA SDL Benjii TGPASOTSISAPROA(THR)STTLOYTYVM
>.> why
Dj Starbuck
why at 2:30? just look at it.
Rippertear - Gaming Videos AKA SDL Benjii TGPASOTSISAPROA(THR)STTLOYTYVM
I'm good just knowing it's a thing is all the pain I need
v BackLogger
I know. has to do with strategy.
*+Rippertear* Pardon my ignorance brah, but what are referring to - some pop culture meme I'm not aware of?
Good explanation for kids, but they could've mentioned hypothesis too. There should've been more emphasize that theory is not just a guess but rather *the highest grade* of scientific explanation in its field. As if hollow earth etc. "theories" were well established. Those were more just hypothesis.
Also, even if our current laws are disproven in some scenarios, that only narrows the domain. If it's a law, it still works within its limits by which it was established, just like classical mechanics.
So many people need to see this video, thank you for making it.
InMaTeofDeath sadly, those people dont like to be educated
I feel like I've been misled. I was always told that a theory BECOMES a law when it's reached a certain point of maturity where there is overwhelming evidence supporting it. That's how it has always been described to me in science classes and in other materials.
in my eyes, scientific laws are DISCOVERED as nature's constants or patterns, such as gravity. we might not know why they're there, but their mechanisms or principles are set in stone. no matter how many times you throw up a rock, it falls back down. A leads to B, always. i think some 'laws' are called 'laws' as a reflection of the researcher's status or its appeal, but they are not actual laws. A leads to B, because prof. said so and I can't prove otherwise.
Natalia D Do laws include the mathematics describing them, or just the general concept? Because the math of Gravity has changed some over time, if I'm not mistaken; Newton's original formulas were very good for most purposes, but they're not precise enough for landing on the moon, for instance. Again, so I've heard.
+CybeargPlays I was taught the same thing.
+CybeargPlays That's a good point. It depends on whether you believe how specific a law needs to be before it is considered a law. If the law of gravity is good enough for the moon but not for Mars, is it a law? While I'm sure philosophers love to debate such issues, most practicing scientists keep it simple, as in: "Do I have to account for this phenomenon in my research in order to be published or can I ignore/challenge/twist it to my benefit?" If you disagree with the string THEORY, you're still safe from ridicule. If you ignore the LAW of gravity in your rocket design, you're a fool.
+CybeargPlays Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is precise enough for landing on the moon. It's a little bit off when describing the orbits of the planets, especially Mercury:
io9.com/the-200-year-old-mystery-of-mercurys-orbit-solved-1458642219
Brilliant content... thank you for producing this clarifying and concise material!!!
Wow, this explanation is actually detrimental!
Expressing how a theory *must* predict new evidence: failed.
Expressing how a scientific theory must be the simplest possible: failed.
Expressing the difference between scientific theory and hypothesis: failed.
Expressing the relativity of error, and how error diminishes with every new theory: failed.
Expressing how theories are tested *against*: failed.
Way to confuse everyone and to legitimise who mistakenly misunderstands a scientific theory for _just a theory_. Nice job!
***** They mentioned it en passant. It doesn't exactly give justice to the pivoting importance it has.
***** I'm not talking about detail, I'm talking about emphasis.
***** I don't agree. Well of course I don't, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. Why should an educational video convey wrong, partial or inaccurate information, when the length of said video is more than enough to give said information, if you bothered to keep it accurate and complete?
+Jeesaf Oceanleft Video makers seldom read or take into account personal emails, on the other hand people do read the comment section. I figured the second method would entail the most advantage for the greatest number I was capable of reaching.
***** That people oppose and criticize what I say is not a problem really, on the contrary it helps me check my ideas. And my experience disagrees with yours on the mail and comments thing.
I think everyone should watch this channel
+Guilherme Ferrão I think everyone should watch you poop
+Dark Seid
Oh.
Agree, from now on, im going to show this video before entering a debate!
Yah
yo im JUST seeing this rn in 2020-
I am viewing this in 2021
@@Maya-xx5jc damn.
I came from the future and watched it in 2583.
@@saitama22 im actually from ur future bro. it's 2024444 😭
"Well, that's Just a theory."
Me: A GAME THEORY
lol
lmao I had to prevent myself from saying that in the middle of online class
Brasileiro?
@@pedrosabbi Nope, Italian
I like the visual analogy of throwing data and tests at theories and seeing which remain standing.
What about a hypothesis?
+Robert Fletcher A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
+Robert Fletcher exactly, It is necessary a video about that
+Robert Fletcher Order in which the scientific method works:
First:
1 )Conjecture (an idea, hunch, guess).
2) Hypothesis: a testable (falsifiable) idea, hunch, guess.
3) Theory: Hypothesis that wasn't falsified, and has predictive capability in results during tests. Often has convergent testing that backup the model such as many different seemingly unrelated fields affirm the particular theory; scientific theory is as high as you can go in science.
4) Then its all about making it more accurate, or finding a much better one if one exists, means going back to step 1; constantly trying to poke holes in the theories, or figure out holes that do exist in the theory.
A theory is not a hypothesis that wasn't falsified. It is the prediction of many hypothesis that imply that theory is plausible.
The video is about the difference between theory and law....
You decided to ignore law? Not a word about it? Why?
There has never been a science law has has been proven wrong...in history...never....it is possible...but it has never happened...
There are thousand of theories...very few laws...
Consider also that people confuse the word “theory” for “hypothesis.” When they say ‘it’s just a theory’ they usually refer as ‘it’s just a hypothesis.’
4:34
A good scientific theory is like Captain America saying, "I can do this all day." 😂😂
This animation was seriously so good !
I wasn't even paying attention to the lesson bc that cube and ball ARE CUTE
one of the best videos so far. thanks!
send this video to every creationist that likes to scoff at science because of the "theories"
You can't argue with a crazy person. So it would be pointless.
+Brandon Driver Huh? I am a creationist and I do not scuff science. Quite contrary. Creationist scoff SCIENTISM, and that's the diffrence. Creationist scoff the dogmas in science because dogmas like this video presented are stopper of progress in science.
+FredJoidstersberg but EVILoution is just a theory right?
+FredJoidstersberg Well, science says that most everything you believe in is wrong. And unlike your beliefs, science is based on solid evidence.
+FredJoidstersberg Could you please explain how this video represents dogma that stops progress?
Thanks for the amazing ppt!!
0:14 but hey thats just a theory!!! A GAME THEORY
THANKS FOR WATCHING!!!
Thanks for the video I am going to show this video to my students thankyou!😉💯
I think simple word be
Theory : an undergoing studies of a certain thing, events in trying to understand why or is it true
Law: Thing that are definite and can predict with great or 100% accuracy about certain things, events like gravitational force, water pressure
This helped me so much! thank you!
Imagine game theory saying “That’s just a law, a game law. Thanks for watching!”
More people need to watch this.
But hey, thats just a theory, A GAME THEORY!
awesome!!! Thanks for the explanation and upload.
Let me clarify the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.
Hypothesis: An initial explanation for a natural phenomenon that has yet to have any scientific credence in terms of experimental and observational data.
Theory: A scientific explanation that has substantial evidence to support its claims in terms of experimental and observational scientific data. Additionally, it's falsifiable, but has yet to be falsified.
Difference between “hypothesis” and “theory”:
Think of a hypothesis as a new idea that needs to be tested, while a scientific theory is an established idea that has been proven to work many times.
BUT HEY, THAT'S JUST A THEORY, A SCIENCE THEORY! THANKS FOR WATCHING.
someone:gravity is just a theory
me:go fight 9 rounds with john cena
Who else is watching this only because our teachers assigned it.
me
and im highkey confused
@Dank Farrik i was not anymore lol
I know that theories play a significant role in science but for 15 years in school I never have ever known that theory is not just an unproven law.
A theory and a hypothesis are often used interchangeably to the point that people don't know what each of them mean
0:12 A fiiilm theory, aaaaand cut
who had to watch this for class
I suspect its also important to differentiate between 'theories' that developed when science was relatively young (i.e. before the scientific method was widely adopted and the invention of things like telescopes, microscropes and computing) and modern theories today.
Alchemy, for example, was more folk law, symbolism and mysticism than hard experimentation - it's true that it was the origin of modern chemistry, but it wasn't exactly scientific itself.
Climate change, the big bang and evolution, on the other hand, were developed in the context of rigorous scientific enquiry and have survived as explanations in the face of a relatively vast amount of data and scientific debate. Sure, they could still be discredited, but it feels unfair to say 'alchemy was wrong so evolution might be too'.
To me, it's a bit like doubting your doctors medical advice because a little girl when you were eight told you babies come out of a woman's belly button.
Splendid and insightful!
who else is confused?
Me
@@pancakewaffle8121 Hello, Confused. I'm Dad.
Bro. Theory, law and hypothesis. Still can't understand things
@@guacamoleniqqapeniss7317 Hypotheses - idea about a thing.
Law - observing a thing.
Theory - explaining a thing.
@@Chebab-Chebab not rlly
GREAT PIECE!
POV: Your teacher put this video link somewhere and made you watch this.
So true!
Yes, she told me to watch this video and make a summary
In short, a theory explains while a law predicts!
"well that's just a theory"
Me: A GAME THEORY!!!!
His voice is really soothing
Let's hope Richard Feynman never see's this video...
Why Vs How
Why?
+Pasxali K I noticed that too.
tpespos Vs How.
JK, actually in one of the more famous RF interviews he explained why science isn't suited to answer why questions, only how questions.
He went on further to explain that ultimately why questions aren't useful at all in explaining the world, because they imply the presence of purpose or intention, where in fact it's not a given that those things are always true or present.
+Pasxali K Maybe depends on what's being studied? Some things may need Why questions and will only stay as Theories while others can become Laws with more information.
+Pasxali K As much as I enjoy listening to Feynman's answer, science only answers why-questions. When we engage in attempting to provide an explanation for some observed phenomena we remain within the framework of theories constructed to provide a satisfactory answer that is good enough to predict, retrodict, etc. We do not aim at discovering or explaining the "true" nature of the world. Science is context-dependent. Why is my finger bleeding? Depends on the type of explanation you are looking for. There is nothing more to it.
Is there a reference to 'in the night garden' in this video? The train??
Me: wait what this video abt??
Someone: Umm, it's abt difference between theories and laws
Me: Oh, all I was hearing chants from the video telling me sleep, sleep, sleep!!
Lol haha xD
@Adrian Budde lol it's true
very helpful, thanks
if only normal education was presented like this---
When its science we dont get many hypothesis but when it comes to anime we predict things that is unimaginable
that's just a theory a film theory
Did this video leave out the explanation of hypothesis all together? And also have said theory when it should have said hypothesis on multiple occasions?
I hate that the film community has something called Murphy's Law, and they go around describing that what can go wrong will go wrong...That's not a Law! it's just an assumption! a Probability! A Probability of 50-50!
Murphy's law is supposed to be a humorous adage, not an actual scientific law. Part of the joke is calling it a law in the first place.
***** Okay. And thanks for teaching me a new word.
"Part of the joke is calling it a law in the first place."
True, but in some ways it really almost is a law. If you look at it from a statistics perspective, generally speaking there are _way_ more ways that things can go wrong than right. That's the fundamental problem of creating order out of chaos in this universe. Thus, things tend to go wrong more often due to basic probability. Is that a law? Not yet, but maybe some day after we have a more developed theory of information we'll have a precise way to describe it. Then again, maybe the laws of thermodynamics already do?
Well put.
Well, theory is round, and law is a cube.
It made me think of when characters in a movie go "that's a terrible idea" "Well, do you have a better one?"
I asked someone to challenge the "theory" he so meagerly dismiss, he ends up saying "I'm not a scientist"
There are cool they answer are questions and make us think more ☺☺☺☺
I originally stated, “What about a hypothesis?”, because I considered this to be an omission. When you raise the statement, “It's only a theory”, you are directing this to the lay community as surly kids would have this explained to them in school. So it's important to explain hypothesis, theory and laws.
*BUT THAT’S JUST A THEORY, A GAMMEEE THEORY*
If someone said the phrase "is just a theory", you leave, you don't need that kind of negativity and stupidity in your life, you served better.
wait. so whats a hypothesis? and an inference? Damn, my whole high school education just fade off like that.
Law predicts what happens. Theory how it happens. Laws wouldn't get revised since they have more harsh ruling. 2:30. 3:00. 7ata maktob bl hadith he writes. 4:20. Theories aren't hypothesis
A potential problem with this explanation is that sometimes a law is called a theory just because it is, welp you know, once called a theory. For example, the theory of general and special relativity is not a theory, but an accepted scientific law, it is called a theory because it is started that way, the paper Einstein published in 1905 title is such, and the theory took too long to confirm. So what's the difference between a law and theory, well it's just that, a name, their boundary can be blur, you have to get to know the field to truly distinguish the difference.
Why do you say that they are laws?
Every time I think I have it down, I see another comment laying it out and someone saying they’re wrong. I’m still not clear on hypothesis vs theory vs law.
Can someone use gravity as an example? Like a hypothesis about gravity, a theory about gravity, and the law of gravity?
People talking about science and don't even know what a theory is cringe-worthy.
nah man, you got it upside down. people talking about shit they don't understand is step one to them gaining an understanding: if they don't try out their knowledge, how will anyone correct their lack of knowledge? hugs
talking CAN be a sympton of thinking ;)
Callsign Vega - People using the word cringe-worthy as some sort of trump card - is proof positive of a wanna-be-pseudo-intellectual who hasn't hit puberty yet!
Countering Vega's presumption, that this particular ignorance is cringe worthy, with another presumption, that Vega's youth and pseudo intellectualism are both objective facts, is a little hypocritical don't you think?
+Callsign Vega
You mean when someone says "theories are fact"?
excellent video, it was recommended to me by my scientific thought teacher
But Heyyy!That's just a theory, a FILM THEORY!
"well thats just a theory" ... A GAME THEORY
i laughed when they knocked down the cold fusion dummy... i guess all the folks in MIT are wasting their time..
+Renegade Zed that's for the cold fusion from the 80's...
But that's just a law!
A GAME LAW!
Thanks for watching!
4:48 A GAME THEORY!
THANK YOU.
So theories are spheres and laws are cubes....
Is there a transcript of this that I can use in my classroom?
What do you call toast, eggs, ham, turkey, and another slice of toast?
Hang on, I'm eating a sandwich.
but what do you call Toast Ham Eggs Onion Radish & Yogurt?
Hang on, I'm watching GTlive!
hahahahahahahhahahaahhahhahhhahhah
Thank you
Great. Now can someone explain the difference between a scientific theory and a religious "theory"? And then go explain to these christians that they're not even is the same ballpark when it comes to plausible explanations of the world around us?
They won't listen. They will just repeat theirselves.
+Thurgor Supreme Hear hear! To all the people who for instance doubt evolution, you're allowed to, but please do come up with a counterargument that doesn't boil down to "because my storybook says something else"
*****
I quite often hear similar things, "if you're an atheist, why don't you just go around murdering people, since there is no one saying anything against it"
Well, because I'm not a total douchebag, and because I want to be nice to people so they're happy, not because that's how to get Heaven Points...
+metallsnubben I'll preface this by saying while I am a Christian, I believe in evolution. I think it's pure idiotic not to at least look at the evidence and say "Yea, I can see how that's possible". However, if someone refuses to believe it, that doesn't mean they are automatically discredited because they haven't dedicated their entire life to researching other possibilities. An insane amount of time, research, and field work would be needed to provided a case against evolution and I don't think it can be done in a single lifetime, especially by a single average Joe. Also, while I don't take the Bible literally and am fully aware of it's flaws, calling it a "storybook" is incredibly disrespectful and makes you no better than the bigoted religious nuts who insist you're some sort of wild heathen. You're both two sides of the same coin.
+Spera TV You do realize how much of an impossible question that is, right? It's the same as me asking you why you exist and you wiffing it off by saying because you just do.Either literally or philosophically, there is no answer to that sort of question.
To be fair the discarded theories listed were discarded before the advent of the scientific method which is fundamental to our modern understanding
It's just a theory... A GAME THEORY
There was no mention of Hypothesis (unproven theory) while it was spoken around of
"Evolution is just a theory." Says my friend who I cannot challenge because he is a creationist.
@rent a shill and I tell you that the theory isn't if something exists or not, but rather HOW it works
In which program do they do animations like these? Anybody know??? Im curious
I prefer how to why.
+CommonSense well that's subjective
+selvmordspilot You and no one else
Could you please bring back the quotes at the end of your videos?
They should change its name to the Laws of Evolution instead of the Theory of Evolution ; a proven fact shouldn't be regarded as a theory. I just can't stand Creationists saying 'It is just a theory!'.
Except its not "proven." You can't guarantee me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the universe 37 seconds ago, and that her evil counterpart Garden Salad Ghost didn't just seed the rest of the world with dinosaur bones and sediment layers and your TH-cam comment from 24 hours ago in order to confuse us all.
Of course, there's very strong evidence that evolution is a thing, and that the world has been around more than 6000 years and so forth (as opposed to the creationist model where the evidence is "well my preferred interpretation of some ancient and multiply-translated book says so!") But evidence is not proof, no matter how much of it there is or how strong it is.
In fact no matter how much evidence you have, you can _never_ fully rule out a supreme being having created the universe 37 seconds ago and just coincidentally happening to be in the exact state we see it at this very moment. Hell if you want to get philosophical, you can't prove that you're not just dreaming the universe and none of it even exists in whatever reality you really exist in when you wake up, essentially making you the (perhaps unwitting) supreme being.
That's also why creationism or any other supreme being model is entirely useless to science -- it can never be challenged (scientifically speaking, at least.) So if you want to start from that assumption then you may as well just give up your science career since the only answer you can ever really arrive at is "because God made it that way." Which is a fine argument for a preacher's sermon but a lousy one for advancing human knowledge.
Dude, when you get it wrong you really do a bang up job! Who ever said that the scientific community and the religious community are even, at a fundamental level, discussing or exploring the same things - the seeking out of evidence for their respective beliefs?
Science and faith do not even ask the same questions, let alone seek the same end. You, and your fellow troglodytes (pun intended, couldn't help it) want that argument, you need that argument, to sustain the insatiable need you have to remind the rest of the human race how much more advanced (whatever that means) you are and how indebted they should feel towards you ... it's an ego-maniacal complex that has existed since the dawn of humanity, and your nothing but the latest Toad to squat under a mushroom and bitch about the realities of a rain forest that doesn't give a shit about you...
Any discussion about faith and science is little more than a trap that will serve neither and provoke vitriol and scorn from both ranks. And this has happened because people who have claimed a faith, whatever it might be, have more likely than not abused their influence and power and wrought all manner of evil and horrors upon their fellow man.
But it's not like the scientific community has always been illustrious and above reproach. I dare you to approach the Bayer company in Germany and ask them if they really built their pharmaceutical empire in part by experimenting on prisoners during WW ll ... go ahead and see if you can get a straight up yes or no. Ask the media, who just love to promote every scientific advancement coming down the pipeline, to investigate this and see where it leads. Ask the families of the scientists who worked there, if they used their intellectual capabilities, and the scientific method, to serve humanity or cause unknown suffering and death to those unfortunate few.
Don't assume to lecture anyone about realities you know nothing of, especially while living in your vacuous, insipid little self-centered world. Just go play with yourself and your games and leave the real world to real people, you know, those that actually do the heavy lifting ...
shadowdawg04
Is this a response to my comment - probably not - ? because I just wanted to point out that I dislike Creationism - in part because I already had a few discussions with Creationists about this and they didn't end well at all.
Sorry, no it is response to 'altrag' and his comments.
In that case, nobody still knows wtf you're talking about. I was discussing the simple definition of words -- absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you believe the truth of those words. A scientific theory, by definition, is something with strong evidence but not strict proof. Which is all of science because strict proof is the realm of mathematics and does not apply to the real world, ever. But what that definition does NOT make them, is necessarily wrong -- they could be 100% right and still never be considered "proven" because there's always an unknown element. Even if that element is "God finally decides to show his face tomorrow and tells us that everything we've ever done, religious or scientific, is stupid." A very unlikely element, but not entirely something we can ever rule out.
But just to feed your trolling (I'm guessing that's the troglodyte "pun?" You'd think a creationist would be better at differentiating fictional characters..) Yes science and faith "explore" different things. Science explores the world around us. Faith explores how many ways they can figure out to reinterpret a 2000 year old book to their advantage.
And I don't think there are many scientists (never mind myself, who is not a scientist but just tends to believe things with evidence over things with none) who feel humanity should be "indebted" to them. I mean there's asshats in every profession (including religious professions,) but for the most part, science is about _evidence_ above all else. What people do with the evidence once we've discovered it, as alluded to by your Godwin injection, is not always good to be sure. But that goes for anything. People have used religion as an excuse to be horrific as well. The Crusades, the witch hunts and countless other atrocities over the centuries all well before modern science was a thing.
I'm not lecturing people on realities I don't understand. I'm lecturing people on a word you can look up at dictionary.com or any of a thousand other websites. Not that I expect you to have read this far -- your original response looked like you just something canned and copypastad it on the first comment that even vaguely sounded like it might be anti-religious (it wasn't. I'm anti-zealotry and I believe faith needs to come after evidence if we want to continue advancing as a race and not descend into ISIS-style insanity, but I'm not against religion in general.) So I'm expecting a great new rant only tangentially related to the first sentence or two of this comment. Troglodyte away!
Wao, for me this is the one most interesting videos that I watched in this channel