@@metaforth But Matt doesn't use the scientific term for his word "theory". He uses it in the way it is most commonly used since he isn't a science channel, but a games and movie channel to which he thinks up theories. Matt Patt isn't a scientist but a speculator and so in this case the word theory would be correct for the word speculation. In science though you would indeed use hypothesis.
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your comprehensive model based on empirical evidence which has eliminated practically all other variables and is consistent beyond reasonable doubt, man.
The greek word "Theory" means "to view from the highest or most powerful viewpoint". It is used in Science to describe the best possible understanding the human mind can have on a subject.
whatisdoneinthedark willbebroughttothelight What is your problem with this channel? He is talking about the same theories and experiments done in history, so the "work" that must be shown was shown hundreds of years ago.
A part of me wishes science would just understand idiots are idiots, and call scientific theories something different, like “well understood and accepted way this works” of gravity. Or “the Flerbert of Evolution”
My friend just told me that a Scientific Theory is just an opinion just because it says theory, I wanted to cry so hard, man, why do they had to call it theory...? :'(
I would say that since a good scientist hedges their bets “theory” as in “the best damn guess you’ll get but new data can always change my understanding though that’s low risk, I’m not a raging nutter that’s comfortable making absolute statements so theory works” really takes a long time to say.
It's not so much that scientists screwed up by using the word theory, it's that people bugger up the meanings of words when they use them inappropriately. People say "I have a theory" when they mean "I have a hypothesis" - probably because "theory" is shorter and easy to say.
I was one of those persons who used to say “ it’s just a theory”. Thank you for making this video, it has shown light on how science regards law and theory. I learned something today.😊
It should be beaten into children's brains so they don't grow up to say ridiculous things like Eric and Kent Hovind. Repeated once a day in science class so they will never forget what a theory is.
I disagree. The ONLY people who think like this are the ones who DIDN'T take science as a subject in school. They are the ONLY ones that make all these stupid statements.
I be a DOCTOR ” Bodily exersise when compulsory does no harm to the body; but knowledge which is acuierd under complusion obtains no hold on the mind” ” education is teaching our children to desire the right things” -Plato They shouldent be forced to learn it, they should be taught it in such a way that they want to lern it.
I say this with conviction. When my son gets a little older I will be using your content as well as scishow to support my sons education. When that happens, I’ll be a patreon👍 I hope your still around next year✊
Professor Dave Explains ❤️. Just shared your Covid update video. Unfortunately even this side of the pond (U.K.) we have our shared of cognitive dissonance, science denial and even some of the stupidest flat earthers. Nathan oakly and sleepingwarrior🤦♂️. Big big fan!
This really opened my eyes the first time my physics teacher told us about this. I can see exactly HOW this misunderstanding came to be, but I can also see just how damaging to the spread of knowledge that it is.
@@epsteindidntkillhimself69 are you seriously thinking that we humans will survive until the end of the universe? Humanity will be wiped out from existence after at least 2000 years. Look at everything... climate change, atomic weapons, etc... and when there's no more humans, there's no one who will answer scientific questions that humanity still has to answer.
1:23 “It’s just a theory” 4:19 Taking data and explain it with a good formula or equation 5:14 Theory can be shown to be consistent beyond a reasonable doubt. 5:43 Law= A Summary of observations, of what happens.
@Bill Wilson macro evolution doesnt exist in science, all is just evolution (the macro-micro thing is an outdated concept that creatards latched on to sound scientific) And no scientist have ever claimed to have seen the origin of the universe or figured out how it happened (it's still being studied)
@Bill Wilson Nope, the belief that we came from a rock is the christian myth. Dont worry, that sillyness is the standard answer from creationist. Also evolution doesnt try to explain abiogenesis.
@Bill Wilson Actually, that is what science can back up, and as is demonstrable is not madness (just research how gestation works and you will see how we can emerge from a single cell organism). BTW "also madness" glad to see you agre the christian myth is madness.
When the physics community apologizes for the term "String Theory" and starts replacing it with "String Hypothesis" then we can talk about the average joe never saying "It's just a theory."
The unfortunate thing is that you need a half-competent understanding of particle physics in the first place to be able to understand why string theory doesn't have the scientific rigor of things we usually use the label "theory" for in science.
String Theory reproduces QM and GR at low energies or long distances so it must be at least as valid as those two theories. As for experimental evidence, current experiments cannot yet probe Planck scale so obviously there’s a lack of experimental evidence at that scale lol.
@@chukyuniqul I don’t know why the average Joe would need to know about string theory/hypothesis. The point was that scientists are also using the word theory wrong, by their own definition.
@@chaotickreg7024 And you have proof that evolution doesn't exist? Do tell. I can't wait to be proven wrong. Because that's a good thing. It means you know more now. Don't you agree?
@@PaulTheSkeptic I agree. If there was proof that a scientific theory was false then I would consider it EXTREMELY important that the information was shared as quickly as possible.
I've had to explain what a Scientific Theory is every year for 6 years to my family over Thanksgiving dinner. The only reason I sometimes get through to them, is because they all remember learning about this in their own way during middle school. "Oh yeah, Isaak Newton, Gravity, The Scientific method. Maybe he's not lying." Now imagine the people who never hear about any of that growing up, who only know Theocracy and creations myths. It terrifies me to think of the places around the world that are in favor of this knowledge becoming lost. Sorry about the rant.
@@randybonner9870 the scientific theory and "a theory" are different things. But flat earthers don't know that and they love using "theory" as a derogatory term
I'm actually surprised at how much I learned from this video despite reading out of all of my textbooks in grade school. I didn't realize the *actual* differences between a theory and a law, I just knew they were similar in some way but not the same. The differences were just not explained in such a way that made sense. It does now, thanks Prof. Dave!
My biology teacher for junior high always stated that everything she taught us is “just a theory”, every time she would start a new project. She was most definitely a creationist, and played religious music while we did our work. Good thing she didn’t destroy my love for science and biology.
@@tanyanguyen3704 Exactly. --- 'Perspective' is my flat-earth idiot, go-to word. (Better known as 'flerfspective'.) Flat-Earthers love to say "don't believe NASA (authority), ONLY believe what you can personally observe." Well, I tell the idiot flat-Earther "Each day here in Florida, I PERSONALLY OBSERVE the sun setting BEHIND the Gulf of Mexico in the west, and that doesn't happen on a flat Earth." And then the idiot says "Oh no, the sun doesn't really set, it just gets farther and farther away until you can't see it anymore. Perspective just makes it look like it is setting.'" ---- And I say, "So let me get this straight. I am not supposed rely on authority, I am supposed to only believe in what I can personally observe. Yet I personally observe the sun setting, but YOU are telling me it really ISN'T setting, and YOU want me to believe what YOU are saying, and not what I PERSONALLY OBSERVE? Really???" ---- Idiots. ----- If they can show me on a flat Earth, the sun rising and setting for EVERYONE, EVERY DAY, then you can call me a flat-Earth believer.
@@kathleenr4047 Many if not most flerthers are fundamentalist Christians, so we note they already have a propensity for irrationality and gullibility. So if we move from a 'flat earth observation' to a 'god observation', we note a full flip in the observable evidence they require for that particular crock of shit.
I saw your title and had a compulsive need to reply aloud, “A GAME THEORY”. But yes, this video is fantastic. As someone with degrees in chemistry, biochemistry, and cell biology, the “oh it’s just a theory” argument makes me see red lol. My dad’s favorite response is “gravity is just a theory, too, but feel free to step off a cliff and test it if you want”
Saying "it's just a theory" immediately proves the person has no understanding of scientific terminology. Why do so many people not understand that some words have different meanings in science than they do in real life? A great example is the word "weight". In science, "weight" is defined as the gravitational force acting on an object, and is measured in Newtons (N). In everyday use, "weight" is used to describe how heavy something is, and is measured in kilograms (kg). In both cases, "weight" is being used in roughly the same way, but it's use in science is much more specific, and different units are used.
My favorite fact far as this goes is that for once the Americans have something right. Stones and pounds are a measure of force, the measure of mass being slugs. It gets ugly when you try to do physics with it though, so I’ll stay metric.
"Why do so many people not understand that some words have different meanings in science than they do in real life?" Idk... probably because we use them in real life all the time assuming the meaning we learned from the people surrounding us is the true meaning, and need explanation to use the actual true meaning? It's a bit more complicated than "people are dumb"
@@SewerTapes A predictive model that can also be proven to be wrong, aka, disprovable and as such technically just "the most well-educated guess a person could make at any given time, which hasn't been wrong so far".
I love this video so much. I taught High School Science for a few years, and it was SOOO HARD to get people to accept the validity of "scientific method" because the idea of a "theory" was misconstrued to mean "hypothesis", sayings like "you can make anything into a theory", and "I have a theory, but it goes against science". So frustrating! But I'm relieved Prof. Dave here breaks it down so well! Thanks so much!
Honestly this is one of those cases where I think the wise solution to this problem would just be to switch the definitions of theory and hypothesis, or at least use some other word for "theory." I'm sorry, you can't win. The word has been ruined by decades, if not centuries, of linguistic misuse and no amount of lecturing and "well, actually" essays will ever change that. Just call it something else. Use something from the legal world. You already have scientific "laws", which very, very few people ever argue with. Sure, there's flat Earthers and new mexico crystal magic hippies arguing against the laws of physics, but you weren't ever going to convince them, anyways. IDK, you could go full Douglas Adams and call them scientific "regulations" lmao. Or maybe a "treaty." Then when people argue against them you can say you're "sanctioning" their intelligence :D
It is heartening to know that some have an interest in science. I dropped science and physics at school, catching up with it now 40 yrs later. I am learning so much more about science as I chuckle at flat earthers. Hope your education went/is going well.
I blame misinformation towards scientific theories in the past that the phrase, "just a theory" or "theory equals guess" is embedded into society so much that it became an everyday occurrence.
@@CloudeAytr because when a word has different meanings we should use context to determine what the likely definition is rather than force niche definitions on other people for no reason.
@@ROFT it's not for no reason, it's to prevent the confusion and misunderstanding of scientific theories. In this case the word has gained a new meaning through incorrect usage, and this is causing a problem in comprehension. Alternatively science could use a new/different word instead of theory.
@@CloudeAytr it doesn't cause me any confusion. if people aren't aware you can explain it and then it's solved. Were you planning on creating new words for every word which has multiple definitions? Set has 430 of them, maybe you could start with that one. Also that is for no reason; we already have context to allow people to infer the meaning and not be confused. Didn't I mention this?
Despite having gone through science classes, I have seen some of my professors and teachers teach this in a way that someone like me can ambiguously take away that "theories aren't true." Thank you for clearing it up for me
This is THE most important science video on the internet (or any other video that explains what the language of the scientific method means). You can't do science without knowing this first.
Thankfully, this comes intuitively to probably 90% of people. It's the 10% (the flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, etc.) with personality issues that truly need to watch this. I feel so glad that I don't know any of those 10% in person. Life is good.
@@pranavlimaye I would say that it doesn't come intuitively, it has to be taught to people, especially given the number of people in America who don't accept evolution. Teaching children just the basic terminology of science is being overlooked, and is leading to misunderstandings.
@Dirk Knight I agree with you that most of us simply forget the little details that make science more concrete, logical, and awesome. Sadly we humans can't remember stuff well unless it interests us. But I also agree with Hareecio that Americans are worse off than the rest of the bunch. I'm no expert, but I think the two-wing politics has significantly divided them into two separate bubbles. Two big echo chambers that have little influence over each other. A lot of stupidity is born from these echo chambers.
I once explained the difference between hypothesis and theory to 12yo in class like this: The life of an hypothesis is short and ends usually in „filing tray P“, the paper basket. Those that survive are then exposed to permanent assault by experimental data, leaving most of them dead an buried. The theories are the fortresses that remain afterwards, where you usually only have to do a paint job to the outside walls once your opponent runs out of ammo.
I actually struggled trying to beat into some thick heads that theory is not a fact or an absolute truth, even the ones as well established as the theory of gravity, so it works both ways.
@@nukedispenser349 and every fortress has its weak spots. They are simply hard to find in good theories. I always point out that all theories are wrong in some sense - but their purpose is not to be exact but an as-good-as-possible (or as good as necessary) description of observations.
It's 2022,...and "evolution is jUsT a tHeOreeeeeeee" is still in their playbook. How can such ignorance be so pervasive year after decade?! This is still one of my favourite videos, Dave.
Great video! The most memorable science course I remember from college is physics 101. It started out by explaining the scientific method, and influenced my thinking more than any other class! Thanks for the GREAT refresher!
I have similar experience. I never had a clue what science really is until college. I took an intro geography class (physical geography), which was basically the same thing as geology 101. Which I took the following semester, followed by several more geology classes and other science classes. Loved it, though I couldn’t keep up once I started taking more advanced classes. I never had any interest in science prior to this because high school never taught me what science really is. To me, in high school, it was just a bunch of boring facts to memorize and regurgitate, like everything else in high school. But after being exposed to what science really is, I realized science is basically problem-solving, using the same thought processes I already used. Even though I didn’t end up going very far in science, it still made a huge impact. It bothers me how often the word science is misused in today’s world. Especially by doctors. Who all seem to believe they are scientists even though they don’t have to take science classes (and obviously don’t know what science is).
SO well said, so relatable, and yet so elegant a presentation. I will be trying to get some family and loved ones to spend 10 min with this wonderful video.
I wish my science teachers had been as passionate and clear as prof.Dave but my physics teacher was so dull he could make an insomniac fall asleep.Pity he was a nice guy but so boring
I get so mad when people say “it’s just a theory” NO! That’s like a doctor saying “it’s just open brain surgery, while riding a bike, blindfolded.” NBD!
Your channel is just amazing! I can't support you financially yet but in the meantime I will click multiple times on your ads! Thank you for the time and effort you put in this project
Whilst I understand what Professor Dave is getting at, that scientific theories can't just be ignored as they are empirical, it doesn't mean that it can't be disproven, it just means it hasn't yet been disproven. For example, we can rearrange theoretical equations to interpret different meanings but the maths can still hold up. Take the equation PE = mgh and rearrange it h = mg/PE. The first says the potential energy is the product of an objects mass, the gravitational constant and the height from the ground, where as the last says the height is the product of the mass and gravity of the object divided by it's PE. We can empirically test that this correct, but is it fair to say that give an object with mass a potential energy and it will gain height? I'm being disingenuous here, I admit, I know that there's more to what I just wrote, but I wanted to discuss how empiricism is not entirely without criticism.
Even disproven theories are still theories. They're just bad theories. It's not about what's right or wrong, this video is just about clarifying basic scientific terminology.
The epistemology of knowledge is that it evolves as we observe more. Theories replace one another over time, so theories are not true, only true as we know things now. As we know more things over time we need better theory. This is the great strength of the scientific method. It evolves and changes as we ask new and better questions of our universe. Even general relativity will one day be replaced by a better theory.
I had to explain this to my Dad. He was arguing that general relativity and the Big Bang defies God. He’s Catholic. The Catholic Church accepts science, including evolution and the Big Bang.
@@graybonesau So you're saying you believe blasphemy just because the church has to pretend it doesn't defy god to keep any semblance of credibility. Catholicism is anti-science inherently. If you strip away the parts that aren't, you're left with literally nothing.
@@dandynoble2875 I mean, it isn't inherently anti-science. Catholicism is one of the most science-accepting denominations. If you think religion is only fancy stories about the man in the sky who created the universe somehow, you've got a lot to learn. Also, 'defying' God? According to who's denomination?
@@graybonesau Believing in the resurrection is inherently anti-science. Seeing as that's a core belief of the religion, then it can be said that it is anti-science. It's not up to them to accept or reject reality. The fact they accept it in some areas and reject it in others has no effect on it.
In short: Law: statement that sums up a certain observable phonomenon. E.g.: "Objects fall down to earth" Theory: model that explains a certain observable phonomenon. E.g.: "Objects in the universe curve the space and that causes them to attract towards each other".
Thank you! I HATE it when people say, "It's just a theory." When it should mean, just a hunch or guess, or when they use it to denounce evolution or a spherical Earth.
I think people use the "it's just a theory" so much when trying to disprove something, that I think it's more practical to change the term of theory in science to another word When so many people get it wrong, is more a problem of the concept that allows so many people to misunderstand it
So to sum it all up in maybe like 2nd grade logic, a Law is the solid What in terms of concepts. A Theory is the Why of the What. The Law is fact, and Theory is explanation. Would that be accurate?
To anyone who's ever criticized Bill Nye for 'not being a scientist', make sure you watch this whole video. At no point does Dave say "to do science, you need to have Master's degrees from University." All you really need for science is an ability to observe, an ability to admit when you are wrong (and more importantly, when you DON'T KNOW), and a desire to understand the world around you. If you have those 3 things, you are a scientist. You might not be a rocket scientist, or a nuclear scientist, or a chemical scientist, but you are still a scientist.
Excellent explanation. I am seeing this late in 2021, just over 50 years after Apollo 15, when Astronaut (and Mission Commander) Dave Scott did his own version of Galileo’s experiment on the lunar surface, where he dropped a geology tool and a falcon feather (the Lunar Module was named “Falcon”). Because of the absence of an atmosphere, both hit the ground at exactly the same time, though they accelerated much more slowly in the Moon’s lower gravity field. That certainly holds the long distance record for that particular experiment, and CDR Scott gave full credit to Galileo. Apollo 15 was the first of the three “J” Missions, where science became the primary focus, with more extended time on the surface, with new EVA suits and the use of a lunar rover, allowing much more extensive EVA’s, which allowed the crew to cover more ground, and allowed viewers on Earth to see much more, as a television camera could be mounted on the rover.
I've seen lots of muslim apologetics use these "It's just a theory" to muddy the water and hide in it. It's really frustrating. Scientific theories are the best possible explanations we have for how the world works. When someone dismisses them as "just theories," they're not just denying science, they're also refusing to engage with reality on its own terms.
nothing absolute in science, science is ever-changing so yea, ofc everything is just a theory for example; Einstein-Rosen back in 1935 wrote a paper that says "neutrons are elementary particles", it turns out they're wrong, neutrons are made of quarks, they're not elementary particles even then, it's possible that scientists in the future would find that even quarks are actually not elementary particles, even then, it's still possible that scientists in the far future would find things that even more elementary than the quarks and so on ad infinitum science is ever changing, nothing absolute in science that's why everything is just a theory
@@aiya5777you are kinda wrong. Even when better theories emerge that won't make the old ones wrong. When a new theory gets established the old theories still have the ability to explain and predict stuff the only difference is that the new theory can explain and predict more stuff. For example, the theory of relativity can explain and can also predict more stuff where as newtons laws can only predict. This doesn't make them wrong and in fact they are pretty handy to this day. Also i believe that the Einstein example wasnt a theory but just a hypothesis he had made not sure tho
@@mirage8164 who told you that newton laws Can Only predict and they Don't Explain things? you're wrong newton laws explain why the planets move in elliptical orbits around the Sun, and why the periods and the lengths of their orbits are related in the way they are while yes, the theory of special relativity does explain how space and time are linked for objects that are moving at a consistent speed in a straight line however, it also states that all observers, no matter what their state of motion relative to any other objects or observers may be, will always measure the same value of the speed of light in a vacuum. the theory of relativity gives NO Explanation for this fact in summary, both laws and theories describe some things Without explanation and give explanations for other things that's why it's more appropriate to Re-label everything i.e > newton’s law of gravitation and theory of motion under the influence of the gravitational force > Einstein’s law of the constancy of the speed of light and theory of how space and time are linked for moving objects
The scientific method is brilliant, and while theory’s often hold far more weight than a lot of people perceive, there is also issues with having a dogmatic approach to theories (not saying this video does). A lot of people approach certain theories as true without a doubt when by it’s very nature science can never really have religious like ‘truths’ and theories (even ones people have considered concrete) are disproven and disputed all the time.
´have religious like ‘truths’ and theories (even ones people have considered concrete) are disproven and disputed all the time.´ not in science... the acual problem is that news reporters say stuff like ´this dicorver truns science on its head´ the simple fact is that its not and the few times it was like the black holes which einstein believed couldnt exist Scieence solved the question
great explanation . . . i really wish you would have been one of my junior high school teachers . 😁🤒😄😄 And even more, I wish people would have learned this AT ALL, in their junior high and / or high school science classes. its really amazing how many people i come across, (just here on TH-cam) , that cannot grasp this. Pecae, Eric
"It's just a theory"... "OK, well if the theory of evolution is 'just a theory' then the bible/koran/torah is just a book, and your god is just one of many. My favourite god is Thor, he could totally beat up your god." For some reason the religionists don't like it when their misunderstanding is turned back against them.
Exactly. If I was forced to pick one god/group of gods to worship, I'd choose the Greek gods. They're the most interesting, and the stories are way more entertaining.
I'm Muslim and you are completely right I believe in the big bang theory not very sure about evolution but yeah there is no such thing as "its just a theory"
I've always like Richard Feynman's explanation. th-cam.com/video/OL6-x0modwY/w-d-xo.html While a person shouldn't say "It's just a theory", we should also remember that a "theory" is still just an idea we haven't proved wrong yet. Really it's the idea of falsification, actively attempting to prove the theory wrong, that sets the scientific method apart from previous forms of thought.
Bro I fucking love you so much. It has always made me furious to hear people say "it's just a theory" and I would struggle to explain to them in a simple way why that statement is completely weightless. Seriously man, thank you so much.
Just to clear things up, flat-earthers use “it’s just a theory” as an excuse for their belief. Matpat does not use “it’s just a theory” as an excuse. The whole point of his channel is to make theories about games, not science.
Arguing evolution with creationists 15 years ago, I got the "just a theory" argument all the time. Now, I almost never hear that. So that's progress of a kind, I suppose. Now if only we could get creationists to understand that beliefs are not facts, we might get somewhere.
Retroactive-facing theories are inherently weaker, though, due to their inherent minimal predictive qualities and falsifiabilities. We will be waiting hundreds, if not *thousands* of years before we can sufficiently document speciation to support the theory on the scale of mammals, and more importantly document the creation of new anatomical developments such as the observed creation of a new organ. Instead we rely on fossil record which, while convincing, is infamously prone to wildly incorrect and speculative interpretations. Consider the case of the Neanderthal, believed to be a separate species of the Homo genus, except recent evidence has shown that they have a presence in European human DNA. If a species is defined by the inability to produce fertile offspring, then the existence of European humans at all disqualies them as a separate species at all as their hybrids were clearly fertile. So if it's so difficult to classify the existence of species and draw a hard line, can we really call the theory airtight, as safe from serious threats as it is? I'm not saying we have to even entertain creationist theory, but we CAN acknowledge there is serious flaws in evolutionary theory that the consensus consistently neglects and refuses to acknowledge its weak points.
@@NotAGoodUsername360 Actually speciation events have been observed and in less than a single human lifetime. In the lab, bacterial cultures have been observed to branch into separate species and in the field, salamanders in California have been observed to speciate as well. There are clear examples of new species being evolved throughout the fossil record and written in the molecular record. Factually, Neanderthals are part of the genus Homo. Homo neanderthalensis, to be precise. They are human cousins. True that the fossil record is prone to "wildly incorrect and speculative interpretations" but those are almost always creationists distorting data they don't understand. The actual fossil record, factually examined, is a rich resource of accurate data. There are indeed blank spots in the evolutionary theory, as you correctly point out. That is why there are still so many labs and field projects out collecting more data, working to fill in those blanks. But as for flaws, I think that is misleading a bit. The information that we do have, gathered from so many discrepant avenues of investigation, clearly converge on evolution as the explanation for how life became so diverse. I'm sorry to say it but so far evolution's weakest point is your flawed understanding of it.
@@orduenshambe4891 First, evolution is not "just" a theory. It is the factual explanation of how life on Earth became so diverse. You see, in science, theory, is a higher order of understanding than a fact. Second, it seems you are trying to conflate evolution with the big bang. Other than both being demonstrably real, they are unrelated avenues of investigation.
@@orduenshambe4891 You are right! Claims do not make reality. On this we agree! The demonstration of the veracity of evolution is in the academic record. There is literally (yes literally) a library full of evidence that all point to evolution as the one and only explanation for how life on Earth became so diverse. The fact that you ignore all of the evidence that points to evolution does not mean they are not there. All the information you could ever want on the matter is right here at your fingertips but you still ignore it and claim there is no evidence. Well, as you stated earlier, claims do not make reality. Evolution is a fact supported by so much irrefutable evidence that it is perverse to deny it.
@@orduenshambe4891 The big bang and evolution... Both have undeniable evidence that supports them and the evidence is from such discrepant avenues of investigation that they are utterly unrelated.
I especially cringe when I see scientists/engineers use the word "theory" colloquially. Like nails on a chalkboard. Also, wrt to String Theory shouldn't it be something like "String Hypothesis" rather than being called String Theory, since empirical experiments haven't even been conceived (as far as I know) that could test/validate the concept?
When they are talking about colloquial everyday stuff or explaining things to the layperson to teach them I think that they're justified. They don't need to use scientific terminology in everyday stuff.
I always respond with saying "is it a successful theory"?.That usually shuts them up or they respond by saying "no",without any reason as to why they said it.
It so interesting to see how our misuse of the simple word theory and the likes could spread so much misinformation since we just assume we know what it means in every context
You are ok with what happened, losing, imperfection of a craft. When you stop getting angry after testing hypotheses, you’ve lost twice. There’s always something to learn, and always room for science, never settle.
"Why you should never say 'it's just a theory'"
Game Theory: *heavy breathing*
But hey... Thad just a unconfirmed suggestion of what might have happened and how j it t worked... A GAME what I just said
@@mangobaby_videos 😂
Lmao
A GAME THEORY
But Hey! That's just a Hypothesis. A Film Hypothesis!
MatPat: *sweats intensely
Well his theories aren't as old and well tested as the majority of scientific theories, so he can get away with it.
I was just about to comment this
@@aynonymos his "theories" are also not even theories, since they are only developed by one person and aren't peer reviewed.
@@aynonymos woooosh
@@dylanfernandez1510 "But that's just a hypothesis. A game hypothesis! Thanks for watching"
It's just a hypothesis, a GAME HYPOTHESIS
I knew someone would say that
I was thinking that too, lol.
Thats the first thing I thought of lol
I find it annoying he calls it theories but tbh, theory IS more catchy
@@metaforth But Matt doesn't use the scientific term for his word "theory". He uses it in the way it is most commonly used since he isn't a science channel, but a games and movie channel to which he thinks up theories. Matt Patt isn't a scientist but a speculator and so in this case the word theory would be correct for the word speculation. In science though you would indeed use hypothesis.
Game Theory: "It's just a theory, a game theory"
Professor Dave Explains: "I'm about to end this man's whole career"
It’s just a hypothesis, a game hypothesis
yeah that is why🤣
top right corner
Nice job, you copied the top comment
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your comprehensive model based on empirical evidence which has eliminated practically all other variables and is consistent beyond reasonable doubt, man.
Don't mess with the Jesus!
@@ProfessorDaveExplains
Pfft! Lmao! You actually said this.
Yeah. Don't mess with Jesus. When the day comes you'll see his power.
Tehehehe!
@Paul learn to take a joke man
The greek word "Theory" means "to view from the highest or most powerful viewpoint".
It is used in Science to describe the best possible understanding the human mind can have on a subject.
That's just narcissist talk.
@@MetaKnight964 Logical talk, too.
lots of scientific word came from Greek
Physicists just HAD to use Greek letters everywhere
@@aaronrashid2075 No, but since we did, it makes things a lot clearer, especially for figuring out constants or not confusing things for letters.
_"Just a Theory"_ ... a favorite claim of flat earthers when they don't understand or cannot comprehend a scientific theory.
Also mat pat uses this.
And creatards.
@@warlordofvideogameglitches
*_"But that's just a theory, a GAME theory!"_*
@@ansh6370 I don't get it
@@mahirkanani2921 it was at the end of a* show....a really good show 😂
If you ever come across a situation where you say "It's just a theory", _ALWAYS_ follow it up with "a GAME theory."
now that's just good manners
What about FILM theory or FOOD theory?
@@juliamaria3807 That's how you get punched.
@@Alzuki. no
Even though your talking about who murdered your brother with an ice pick
I wish that people who said "well it's just a theory" would be forced to watch this video.
me toooooo!
*cough* MatPat *cough*
I'm sure a lot of them will... For example my friend who always says that to me... :)
whatisdoneinthedark willbebroughttothelight
What is your problem with this channel? He is talking about the same theories and experiments done in history, so the "work" that must be shown was shown hundreds of years ago.
A part of me wishes science would just understand idiots are idiots, and call scientific theories something different, like “well understood and accepted way this works” of gravity. Or “the Flerbert of Evolution”
My friend just told me that a Scientific Theory is just an opinion just because it says theory, I wanted to cry so hard, man, why do they had to call it theory...? :'(
yeah, it's really a shame that the colloquial connotation of the word has made it difficult for people to understand what a theory is in science.
I would say that since a good scientist hedges their bets “theory” as in “the best damn guess you’ll get but new data can always change my understanding though that’s low risk, I’m not a raging nutter that’s comfortable making absolute statements so theory works” really takes a long time to say.
@@jasonlueker3032 "Theory" is not "guess", not in the slightest.
Wolf NZ Outdoors, in point of case it can be. Hence ppl often confusing the scientific vs common use/meaning.
It's not so much that scientists screwed up by using the word theory, it's that people bugger up the meanings of words when they use them inappropriately. People say "I have a theory" when they mean "I have a hypothesis" - probably because "theory" is shorter and easy to say.
I was one of those persons who used to say “ it’s just a theory”. Thank you for making this video, it has shown light on how science regards law and theory. I learned something today.😊
Matpat: BUT that's JUST a-
Professor Dave: * heavy breathing *
Matpat: Ahem, *and that is a theory. A game theory.*
thanks for watching
@@MistakennJ HERE COMES THE SPONS-
Nice job, you copied the top comment
Teachers in all elementary and middle schools everywhere should incorporate this into their science classes.
It should be beaten into children's brains so they don't grow up to say ridiculous things like Eric and Kent Hovind. Repeated once a day in science class so they will never forget what a theory is.
I disagree. The ONLY people who think like this are the ones who DIDN'T take science as a subject in school. They are the ONLY ones that make all these stupid statements.
Mine did, thankfully. Not all were paying attention, clearly.
I be a DOCTOR ” Bodily exersise when compulsory does no harm to the body; but knowledge which is acuierd under complusion obtains no hold on the mind” ” education is teaching our children to desire the right things”
-Plato
They shouldent be forced to learn it, they should be taught it in such a way that they want to lern it.
@@eliasjosephsson3994 Like English.
I say this with conviction. When my son gets a little older I will be using your content as well as scishow to support my sons education. When that happens, I’ll be a patreon👍 I hope your still around next year✊
I'm not going anywhere!
Professor Dave Explains ❤️. Just shared your Covid update video. Unfortunately even this side of the pond (U.K.) we have our shared of cognitive dissonance, science denial and even some of the stupidest flat earthers. Nathan oakly and sleepingwarrior🤦♂️. Big big fan!
Nice
@@ProfessorDaveExplains and then he didn’t go anywhere
@@_apsis god dammit I was gonna write that
This really opened my eyes the first time my physics teacher told us about this. I can see exactly HOW this misunderstanding came to be, but I can also see just how damaging to the spread of knowledge that it is.
The question "Can Science explain it?" has two possible answers :
-"Yes"
-"Not yet"
Well, when considering that humanity is destroying itself more and more as time goes on, there might be a third option:
-"no, it will never"
@@ferdinandkuhn6975 Wtf are you talking about?
@@epsteindidntkillhimself69 are you seriously thinking that we humans will survive until the end of the universe? Humanity will be wiped out from existence after at least 2000 years. Look at everything... climate change, atomic weapons, etc... and when there's no more humans, there's no one who will answer scientific questions that humanity still has to answer.
@@ferdinandkuhn6975 It's just a theory though
@@Maurricent a game theory ;)
1:23 “It’s just a theory”
4:19 Taking data and explain it with a good formula or equation
5:14 Theory can be shown to be consistent beyond a reasonable doubt.
5:43 Law= A Summary of observations, of what happens.
Yeah and we’ve never seen quarks in isolation but that doesn’t stop us from knowing they exist
All Just a theory
@Bill Wilson macro evolution doesnt exist in science, all is just evolution (the macro-micro thing is an outdated concept that creatards latched on to sound scientific)
And no scientist have ever claimed to have seen the origin of the universe or figured out how it happened (it's still being studied)
@Bill Wilson Nope, the belief that we came from a rock is the christian myth. Dont worry, that sillyness is the standard answer from creationist.
Also evolution doesnt try to explain abiogenesis.
@Bill Wilson Actually, that is what science can back up, and as is demonstrable is not madness (just research how gestation works and you will see how we can emerge from a single cell organism).
BTW "also madness" glad to see you agre the christian myth is madness.
When the physics community apologizes for the term "String Theory" and starts replacing it with "String Hypothesis" then we can talk about the average joe never saying "It's just a theory."
The unfortunate thing is that you need a half-competent understanding of particle physics in the first place to be able to understand why string theory doesn't have the scientific rigor of things we usually use the label "theory" for in science.
But yes, "string theory" is technically an inaccurate name.
String Theory reproduces QM and GR at low energies or long distances so it must be at least as valid as those two theories. As for experimental evidence, current experiments cannot yet probe Planck scale so obviously there’s a lack of experimental evidence at that scale lol.
"the average joe never saying "It's just a theory."" You don't know how many thousands of people talk along with the Game Theory outro.
@@chukyuniqul I don’t know why the average Joe would need to know about string theory/hypothesis. The point was that scientists are also using the word theory wrong, by their own definition.
Now I feel silly for walking into music class and yelling "You can't prove music. It's only a theory.".
I mean, I would have laughed at that.
Also, you don't have any proof that music *doesn't* exist.
@@chaotickreg7024 And you have proof that evolution doesn't exist? Do tell. I can't wait to be proven wrong. Because that's a good thing. It means you know more now. Don't you agree?
@@PaulTheSkeptic I agree. If there was proof that a scientific theory was false then I would consider it EXTREMELY important that the information was shared as quickly as possible.
@@chaotickreg7024 I'm glad. So nothing else then?
@@PaulTheSkeptic idk what else there would be. I thought we were both just joking.
I've had to explain what a Scientific Theory is every year for 6 years to my family over Thanksgiving dinner. The only reason I sometimes get through to them, is because they all remember learning about this in their own way during middle school. "Oh yeah, Isaak Newton, Gravity, The Scientific method. Maybe he's not lying." Now imagine the people who never hear about any of that growing up, who only know Theocracy and creations myths. It terrifies me to think of the places around the world that are in favor of this knowledge becoming lost. Sorry about the rant.
@@randybonner9870 the scientific theory and "a theory" are different things. But flat earthers don't know that and they love using "theory" as a derogatory term
finally a comment that isnt matpat
yeah, it's scary
It's Isaac not Isaak
Gravity is just a theory!
That's what I told my dad when he slipped on the floor.
He's a young earth creationist.
“It’s just a theory, A game theory” -matpat in literally every one of his videos
lol
Film Theory, Food Theory: ...
He should rename his channel to game hypothesis
@@saadmaansaakib2567 and channels to ____ hypothesisers or ____ hypothesies
@@saadmaansaakib2567 why
Someone: says it’s just a theory. Me: don’t say it, don’t say it. My brain: A GAME THEORY
I'm actually surprised at how much I learned from this video despite reading out of all of my textbooks in grade school. I didn't realize the *actual* differences between a theory and a law, I just knew they were similar in some way but not the same. The differences were just not explained in such a way that made sense. It does now, thanks Prof. Dave!
My biology teacher for junior high always stated that everything she taught us is “just a theory”, every time she would start a new project. She was most definitely a creationist, and played religious music while we did our work. Good thing she didn’t destroy my love for science and biology.
Flat earthers: Gravity is just a theory.
Scientists: You're right! Gravity is really a theory!
A FILM THEORY! AAAAAANNNNNNDDDDDDDDD CUT!
I mean it is not really a theory since the phenomenon does exist. Like you wouldn't call mirage a theory.
@@someonestolemyname well its a law, I guess
@@IdaeChop if it were a law that’s what it would be called. It’s still a theory, however it’s one with a *lot* of evidence supporting it
@@apollo1573 it’s a valid theory, still a theory but a proven theory nonetheless
Flat earther watches this video and then says "b-b-b-but . . . perspective!"
Kathleen R - Anti evo says “fine, but Darwin recanted, so your whole theory I wrong”
@@tanyanguyen3704 Exactly. --- 'Perspective' is my flat-earth idiot, go-to word. (Better known as 'flerfspective'.) Flat-Earthers love to say "don't believe NASA (authority), ONLY believe what you can personally observe." Well, I tell the idiot flat-Earther "Each day here in Florida, I PERSONALLY OBSERVE the sun setting BEHIND the Gulf of Mexico in the west, and that doesn't happen on a flat Earth." And then the idiot says "Oh no, the sun doesn't really set, it just gets farther and farther away until you can't see it anymore. Perspective just makes it look like it is setting.'" ---- And I say, "So let me get this straight. I am not supposed rely on authority, I am supposed to only believe in what I can personally observe. Yet I personally observe the sun setting, but YOU are telling me it really ISN'T setting, and YOU want me to believe what YOU are saying, and not what I PERSONALLY OBSERVE? Really???" ---- Idiots. ----- If they can show me on a flat Earth, the sun rising and setting for EVERYONE, EVERY DAY, then you can call me a flat-Earth believer.
@@kathleenr4047 Many if not most flerthers are fundamentalist Christians, so we note they already have a propensity for irrationality and gullibility. So if we move from a 'flat earth observation' to a 'god observation', we note a full flip in the observable evidence they require for that particular crock of shit.
@@briannewton3535 Many are Muslim as well.
Jonah S here in the USA most are Trump supporters as well.
Prof.Dave: Never say it's just a theory
Matpat: IT'S JUST A THEORY!!
*A GAME THEORY*
lol
_Thanks for watching_
I saw your title and had a compulsive need to reply aloud, “A GAME THEORY”.
But yes, this video is fantastic. As someone with degrees in chemistry, biochemistry, and cell biology, the “oh it’s just a theory” argument makes me see red lol. My dad’s favorite response is “gravity is just a theory, too, but feel free to step off a cliff and test it if you want”
Gotta love that he has the tone of a pissed off public school science teacher surrounded by a classroom full of flat earthers
Or Matpat fans. They both believe equally ridiculous assertions.
Game theory came from von Neumann who was also a physicist, mathematician, and engineer.
Saying "it's just a theory" immediately proves the person has no understanding of scientific terminology. Why do so many people not understand that some words have different meanings in science than they do in real life?
A great example is the word "weight". In science, "weight" is defined as the gravitational force acting on an object, and is measured in Newtons (N). In everyday use, "weight" is used to describe how heavy something is, and is measured in kilograms (kg). In both cases, "weight" is being used in roughly the same way, but it's use in science is much more specific, and different units are used.
My favorite fact far as this goes is that for once the Americans have something right. Stones and pounds are a measure of force, the measure of mass being slugs.
It gets ugly when you try to do physics with it though, so I’ll stay metric.
"Why do so many people not understand that some words have different meanings in science than they do in real life?"
Idk... probably because we use them in real life all the time assuming the meaning we learned from the people surrounding us is the true meaning, and need explanation to use the actual true meaning?
It's a bit more complicated than "people are dumb"
@@ViniSocramSaint ngl, you have a point.
@@ViniSocramSaint tbf the scientific definition of theory is taught in 3rd grade.
@@ViniSocramSaint Not really, you learn this shit in school, there is little excuse unless you did not attend.
Literally brought a tear to my eye, so well done. Seriously!
Totally agree on thet; happened to me too. I love it when a plan comes together*.
69th like muahahaha
Hope you're using literally right.
One of my friends tried to tell me the Big Bang was "just a theory". I told him, "so is music", and he absolutely lost his sh!t.
@mushroom
An educated guess is actually closer to a hypothesis. A scientific theory has major explanatory and predictive capabilities.
@@SewerTapes A predictive model that can also be proven to be wrong, aka, disprovable and as such technically just "the most well-educated guess a person could make at any given time, which hasn't been wrong so far".
I love this video so much. I taught High School Science for a few years, and it was SOOO HARD to get people to accept the validity of "scientific method" because the idea of a "theory" was misconstrued to mean "hypothesis", sayings like "you can make anything into a theory", and "I have a theory, but it goes against science". So frustrating! But I'm relieved Prof. Dave here breaks it down so well! Thanks so much!
Honestly this is one of those cases where I think the wise solution to this problem would just be to switch the definitions of theory and hypothesis, or at least use some other word for "theory." I'm sorry, you can't win. The word has been ruined by decades, if not centuries, of linguistic misuse and no amount of lecturing and "well, actually" essays will ever change that. Just call it something else.
Use something from the legal world. You already have scientific "laws", which very, very few people ever argue with. Sure, there's flat Earthers and new mexico crystal magic hippies arguing against the laws of physics, but you weren't ever going to convince them, anyways. IDK, you could go full Douglas Adams and call them scientific "regulations" lmao. Or maybe a "treaty."
Then when people argue against them you can say you're "sanctioning" their intelligence :D
@@Kevin-jb2pv nice “sanctioning intelligence” is my new defense against anti-intellectuals
@@Kevin-jb2pv yes, I like this.
Discovered your channel because of my chemistry teacher. Don't regret it. You have a great channel.
It is heartening to know that some have an interest in science. I dropped science and physics at school, catching up with it now 40 yrs later. I am learning so much more about science as I chuckle at flat earthers.
Hope your education went/is going well.
But hey, that's just a theory; a GAME theory. Thanks for watching xD
i don't get it
There is a channel called Game Theory and that's their outro
ah! i see. hopefully i get some spillover traffic from that channel then
i was just about to type that!
There is a real thing called «game theory» and it's not «just a theory».
I blame misinformation towards scientific theories in the past that the phrase, "just a theory" or "theory equals guess" is embedded into society so much that it became an everyday occurrence.
When people use the word "theory" casually to mean guess or assumption they should be corrected to "hypothesis".
No they shouldn't.
@@ROFT and why is that?
@@CloudeAytr because when a word has different meanings we should use context to determine what the likely definition is rather than force niche definitions on other people for no reason.
@@ROFT it's not for no reason, it's to prevent the confusion and misunderstanding of scientific theories.
In this case the word has gained a new meaning through incorrect usage, and this is causing a problem in comprehension.
Alternatively science could use a new/different word instead of theory.
@@CloudeAytr it doesn't cause me any confusion. if people aren't aware you can explain it and then it's solved.
Were you planning on creating new words for every word which has multiple definitions? Set has 430 of them, maybe you could start with that one.
Also that is for no reason; we already have context to allow people to infer the meaning and not be confused. Didn't I mention this?
I think a lot of people these days use the "I heard about it on the internet/TH-cam/Twitter/Facebook/from my mate down the pub" method.
Despite having gone through science classes, I have seen some of my professors and teachers teach this in a way that someone like me can ambiguously take away that "theories aren't true." Thank you for clearing it up for me
Regrettably, not all science teachers should be teaching it.
It irks me so much when others say, "It's just a theory". Yes, it is a theory, that is the point. Excellent video!
This is THE most important science video on the internet (or any other video that explains what the language of the scientific method means). You can't do science without knowing this first.
Thankfully, this comes intuitively to probably 90% of people. It's the 10% (the flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, etc.) with personality issues that truly need to watch this.
I feel so glad that I don't know any of those 10% in person. Life is good.
@@pranavlimaye I would say that it doesn't come intuitively, it has to be taught to people, especially given the number of people in America who don't accept evolution.
Teaching children just the basic terminology of science is being overlooked, and is leading to misunderstandings.
@Dirk Knight I agree with you that most of us simply forget the little details that make science more concrete, logical, and awesome. Sadly we humans can't remember stuff well unless it interests us.
But I also agree with Hareecio that Americans are worse off than the rest of the bunch. I'm no expert, but I think the two-wing politics has significantly divided them into two separate bubbles. Two big echo chambers that have little influence over each other. A lot of stupidity is born from these echo chambers.
He's talking to you, Eric and Kent Hovind... and flat-earthers!
And mike pence and donald trump.
They already know all this. They don't care about truth, only adjenda
@@sladelefty Oh really? Care to explain?
mgmorgan0223 ?
@@mgmorgan0223 they're both anti vaxxers and Mike Pence believes in gay conversion therapy.
I have degrees in chemistry and pharmacy and never really thought about how inaccurate my understanding of these terms were until now. Thank you!
It’s even more inaccurate then many will admit. Evolution is not a theory in any sense the word.
@@xxsageonexx8910 Evolution is a fact. The mechanism by which that occurs (natural selection) is a Theory (scientific term, not colloquial).
Kirk Ryan Thank you. First one to ever to acknowledge this.
Kirk Ryan Prof Dave did not even acknowledge this.
Thanks!
I once explained the difference between hypothesis and theory to 12yo in class like this:
The life of an hypothesis is short and ends usually in „filing tray P“, the paper basket.
Those that survive are then exposed to permanent assault by experimental data, leaving most of them dead an buried.
The theories are the fortresses that remain afterwards, where you usually only have to do a paint job to the outside walls once your opponent runs out of ammo.
I actually love that, I'm stealing it! Smart way to present the process visually/in real world. Your students are/were very lucky. :)
thats a dumb way to explaij it to a 12 year old since they should be old enough to understand a direct explanation, no analogies required
@@harrietjameson You'd think that but human brains have a funny way of growing at different speeds, so that's not precisely a guarantee.
I actually struggled trying to beat into some thick heads that theory is not a fact or an absolute truth, even the ones as well established as the theory of gravity, so it works both ways.
@@nukedispenser349 and every fortress has its weak spots. They are simply hard to find in good theories.
I always point out that all theories are wrong in some sense - but their purpose is not to be exact but an as-good-as-possible (or as good as necessary) description of observations.
It's 2022,...and "evolution is jUsT a tHeOreeeeeeee" is still in their playbook. How can such ignorance be so pervasive year after decade?!
This is still one of my favourite videos, Dave.
Great video! The most memorable science course I remember from college is physics 101. It started out by explaining the scientific method, and influenced my thinking more than any other class! Thanks for the GREAT refresher!
I have similar experience. I never had a clue what science really is until college. I took an intro geography class (physical geography), which was basically the same thing as geology 101. Which I took the following semester, followed by several more geology classes and other science classes.
Loved it, though I couldn’t keep up once I started taking more advanced classes.
I never had any interest in science prior to this because high school never taught me what science really is. To me, in high school, it was just a bunch of boring facts to memorize and regurgitate, like everything else in high school. But after being exposed to what science really is, I realized science is basically problem-solving, using the same thought processes I already used.
Even though I didn’t end up going very far in science, it still made a huge impact. It bothers me how often the word science is misused in today’s world. Especially by doctors. Who all seem to believe they are scientists even though they don’t have to take science classes (and obviously don’t know what science is).
SO well said, so relatable, and yet so elegant a presentation. I will be trying to get some family and loved ones to spend 10 min with this wonderful video.
I still don't understand why people dislike educational videos. Do they like to be ignorant?
Ignorance loves to breed ignorance.
Bots.
Give enough people a choice (like or dislike) and someone will choose the unpopular one
yes, lol
I wish my science teachers had been as passionate and clear as prof.Dave but my physics teacher was so dull he could make an insomniac fall asleep.Pity he was a nice guy but so boring
I suspect that either you or he has learned a lot since then.
I get so mad when people say “it’s just a theory” NO! That’s like a doctor saying “it’s just open brain surgery, while riding a bike, blindfolded.” NBD!
I love fundamental videos like this.
Your channel is just amazing! I can't support you financially yet but in the meantime I will click multiple times on your ads! Thank you for the time and effort you put in this project
woohoo! ad clicks make my day!
Whilst I understand what Professor Dave is getting at, that scientific theories can't just be ignored as they are empirical, it doesn't mean that it can't be disproven, it just means it hasn't yet been disproven. For example, we can rearrange theoretical equations to interpret different meanings but the maths can still hold up. Take the equation PE = mgh and rearrange it h = mg/PE. The first says the potential energy is the product of an objects mass, the gravitational constant and the height from the ground, where as the last says the height is the product of the mass and gravity of the object divided by it's PE. We can empirically test that this correct, but is it fair to say that give an object with mass a potential energy and it will gain height? I'm being disingenuous here, I admit, I know that there's more to what I just wrote, but I wanted to discuss how empiricism is not entirely without criticism.
Even disproven theories are still theories. They're just bad theories. It's not about what's right or wrong, this video is just about clarifying basic scientific terminology.
This is so important.
The epistemology of knowledge is that it evolves as we observe more. Theories replace one another over time, so theories are not true, only true as we know things now. As we know more things over time we need better theory. This is the great strength of the scientific method. It evolves and changes as we ask new and better questions of our universe. Even general relativity will one day be replaced by a better theory.
"Daves a lumberjack and hes OK !"
i watched that skit just the other day, great comment
Super underrated comment.
"Why you should never say 'it's just a theory' "
MatPat: _sweats profusely_
I had to explain this to my Dad. He was arguing that general relativity and the Big Bang defies God. He’s Catholic. The Catholic Church accepts science, including evolution and the Big Bang.
THANK YOU. As a Catholic, I hate dealing with anti-science Catholics.
@@graybonesau So you're saying you believe blasphemy just because the church has to pretend it doesn't defy god to keep any semblance of credibility. Catholicism is anti-science inherently. If you strip away the parts that aren't, you're left with literally nothing.
@@dandynoble2875 I mean, it isn't inherently anti-science. Catholicism is one of the most science-accepting denominations. If you think religion is only fancy stories about the man in the sky who created the universe somehow, you've got a lot to learn. Also, 'defying' God? According to who's denomination?
@@graybonesau Believing in the resurrection is inherently anti-science. Seeing as that's a core belief of the religion, then it can be said that it is anti-science.
It's not up to them to accept or reject reality. The fact they accept it in some areas and reject it in others has no effect on it.
@@dandynoble2875 If that's your belief, then you can keep being the loud antitheist.
In short:
Law: statement that sums up a certain observable phonomenon. E.g.: "Objects fall down to earth"
Theory: model that explains a certain observable phonomenon. E.g.: "Objects in the universe curve the space and that causes them to attract towards each other".
You should do another video like this explaining how there's no such scientific label when it comes to biology called a "kind".
They're not going to listen to you.
Yes, sadly. They have their ears stuffed with horse manure.
@@pranavlimaye Ernie, you got a banana in your ear
th-cam.com/video/EJ1a0ymGCKA/w-d-xo.html
@@worfoz lol nice
Thank you! I HATE it when people say, "It's just a theory." When it should mean, just a hunch or guess, or when they use it to denounce evolution or a spherical Earth.
oh my god i love this!
Thank you for making this Dave
I've enough of pointing out this to religious folks, and now i can simply share a link! THANKS!
So much win in one video! Thanks Dave!
I think people use the "it's just a theory" so much when trying to disprove something, that I think it's more practical to change the term of theory in science to another word
When so many people get it wrong, is more a problem of the concept that allows so many people to misunderstand it
This video is beautiful. You can hear the frustration, I know it sucks that so many people failed basic science in school.
90%: game theory jokes
00000.1% flat earther joke
9%: other
1%:comments like this
So to sum it all up in maybe like 2nd grade logic, a Law is the solid What in terms of concepts. A Theory is the Why of the What. The Law is fact, and Theory is explanation. Would that be accurate?
Yes, a law is what happens, a theory is why it happens.
Keep doing great vids, you explain everything much better and easier than crash course in science.
To anyone who's ever criticized Bill Nye for 'not being a scientist', make sure you watch this whole video. At no point does Dave say "to do science, you need to have Master's degrees from University." All you really need for science is an ability to observe, an ability to admit when you are wrong (and more importantly, when you DON'T KNOW), and a desire to understand the world around you. If you have those 3 things, you are a scientist. You might not be a rocket scientist, or a nuclear scientist, or a chemical scientist, but you are still a scientist.
Excellent explanation. I am seeing this late in 2021, just over 50 years after Apollo 15, when Astronaut (and Mission Commander) Dave Scott did his own version of Galileo’s experiment on the lunar surface, where he dropped a geology tool and a falcon feather (the Lunar Module was named “Falcon”). Because of the absence of an atmosphere, both hit the ground at exactly the same time, though they accelerated much more slowly in the Moon’s lower gravity field.
That certainly holds the long distance record for that particular experiment, and CDR Scott gave full credit to Galileo. Apollo 15 was the first of the three “J” Missions, where science became the primary focus, with more extended time on the surface, with new EVA suits and the use of a lunar rover, allowing much more extensive EVA’s, which allowed the crew to cover more ground, and allowed viewers on Earth to see much more, as a television camera could be mounted on the rover.
I've seen lots of muslim apologetics use these "It's just a theory" to muddy the water and hide in it. It's really frustrating. Scientific theories are the best possible explanations we have for how the world works. When someone dismisses them as "just theories," they're not just denying science, they're also refusing to engage with reality on its own terms.
nothing absolute in science,
science is ever-changing
so yea, ofc everything is just a theory
for example; Einstein-Rosen back in 1935 wrote a paper that says "neutrons are elementary particles", it turns out they're wrong, neutrons are made of quarks, they're not elementary particles
even then, it's possible that scientists in the future would find that even quarks are actually not elementary particles, even then, it's still possible that scientists in the far future would find things that even more elementary than the quarks
and so on ad infinitum
science is ever changing,
nothing absolute in science
that's why everything is just a theory
@@aiya5777you are kinda wrong. Even when better theories emerge that won't make the old ones wrong. When a new theory gets established the old theories still have the ability to explain and predict stuff the only difference is that the new theory can explain and predict more stuff. For example, the theory of relativity can explain and can also predict more stuff where as newtons laws can only predict. This doesn't make them wrong and in fact they are pretty handy to this day. Also i believe that the Einstein example wasnt a theory but just a hypothesis he had made not sure tho
@@mirage8164 who told you that newton laws Can Only predict and they Don't Explain things?
you're wrong
newton laws explain why the planets move in elliptical orbits around the Sun, and why the periods and the lengths of their orbits are related in the way they are
while yes, the theory of special relativity does explain how space and time are linked for objects that are moving at a consistent speed in a straight line however, it also states that all observers, no matter what their state of motion relative to any other objects or observers may be, will always measure the same value of the speed of light in a vacuum. the theory of relativity gives NO Explanation for this fact
in summary, both laws and theories describe some things Without explanation and give explanations for other things
that's why it's more appropriate to Re-label everything i.e
> newton’s law of gravitation and theory of motion under the influence of the gravitational force
> Einstein’s law of the constancy of the speed of light and theory of how space and time are linked for moving objects
“The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you”
~Neil DeGrasse Tyson
A theory is just a theory. It isn't magic. Just science, the way things work. It is what is.
But flat-earthers continue to say "It's just a theory... in meaning that is it a guess."
I keep trying to get them to watch this video.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains :D Thumb up for that!
@@koganboss4874 Sadly, they won't leave their echo chamber.
The scientific method is brilliant, and while theory’s often hold far more weight than a lot of people perceive, there is also issues with having a dogmatic approach to theories (not saying this video does). A lot of people approach certain theories as true without a doubt when by it’s very nature science can never really have religious like ‘truths’ and theories (even ones people have considered concrete) are disproven and disputed all the time.
´have religious like ‘truths’ and theories (even ones people have considered concrete) are disproven and disputed all the time.´ not in science... the acual problem is that news reporters say stuff like ´this dicorver truns science on its head´ the simple fact is that its not and the few times it was like the black holes which einstein believed couldnt exist Scieence solved the question
But, but, but, what if it is "Just a theory... A FILM THEORY!!" 😂
A FOOD THEORY
Excellent summary.
great explanation . . .
i really wish you would have been one of my junior high school teachers . 😁🤒😄😄
And even more, I wish people would have learned this AT ALL, in their junior high and / or high school science classes.
its really amazing how many people i come across, (just here on TH-cam) , that cannot grasp this.
Pecae, Eric
I went to school in Dallas and we definitely learned this. They even used the feathers and bowling ball example.
10% Genuine comments
90% Repetitive Game Theory comments
this is the only channel they'd show in schools I'd willing search for outside of school
His explanations are what I think I would hate most about science classes but somehow he makes me want to listen
"It's just a theory"... "OK, well if the theory of evolution is 'just a theory' then the bible/koran/torah is just a book, and your god is just one of many. My favourite god is Thor, he could totally beat up your god."
For some reason the religionists don't like it when their misunderstanding is turned back against them.
Church really should teach all sides of the issue. Every Sunday also teach evolution and mythicism and alternative religions.
Exactly. If I was forced to pick one god/group of gods to worship, I'd choose the Greek gods. They're the most interesting, and the stories are way more entertaining.
Anzac-A1 I don’t think I’d worship the Greek Gods. Zeus is an idiot who can’t keep it in his pants
@@Enndorii True
I'm Muslim and you are completely right I believe in the big bang theory not very sure about evolution but yeah there is no such thing as "its just a theory"
Thanks professor Dave. I love your scientific work.
I've always like Richard Feynman's explanation. th-cam.com/video/OL6-x0modwY/w-d-xo.html
While a person shouldn't say "It's just a theory", we should also remember that a "theory" is still just an idea we haven't proved wrong yet. Really it's the idea of falsification, actively attempting to prove the theory wrong, that sets the scientific method apart from previous forms of thought.
Bro I fucking love you so much. It has always made me furious to hear people say "it's just a theory" and I would struggle to explain to them in a simple way why that statement is completely weightless. Seriously man, thank you so much.
Just to clear things up, flat-earthers use “it’s just a theory” as an excuse for their belief. Matpat does not use “it’s just a theory” as an excuse. The whole point of his channel is to make theories about games, not science.
But its just a theory
Arguing evolution with creationists 15 years ago, I got the "just a theory" argument all the time. Now, I almost never hear that. So that's progress of a kind, I suppose. Now if only we could get creationists to understand that beliefs are not facts, we might get somewhere.
Retroactive-facing theories are inherently weaker, though, due to their inherent minimal predictive qualities and falsifiabilities. We will be waiting hundreds, if not *thousands* of years before we can sufficiently document speciation to support the theory on the scale of mammals, and more importantly document the creation of new anatomical developments such as the observed creation of a new organ. Instead we rely on fossil record which, while convincing, is infamously prone to wildly incorrect and speculative interpretations. Consider the case of the Neanderthal, believed to be a separate species of the Homo genus, except recent evidence has shown that they have a presence in European human DNA. If a species is defined by the inability to produce fertile offspring, then the existence of European humans at all disqualies them as a separate species at all as their hybrids were clearly fertile. So if it's so difficult to classify the existence of species and draw a hard line, can we really call the theory airtight, as safe from serious threats as it is? I'm not saying we have to even entertain creationist theory, but we CAN acknowledge there is serious flaws in evolutionary theory that the consensus consistently neglects and refuses to acknowledge its weak points.
@@NotAGoodUsername360 Actually speciation events have been observed and in less than a single human lifetime. In the lab, bacterial cultures have been observed to branch into separate species and in the field, salamanders in California have been observed to speciate as well. There are clear examples of new species being evolved throughout the fossil record and written in the molecular record. Factually, Neanderthals are part of the genus Homo. Homo neanderthalensis, to be precise. They are human cousins. True that the fossil record is prone to "wildly incorrect and speculative interpretations" but those are almost always creationists distorting data they don't understand. The actual fossil record, factually examined, is a rich resource of accurate data. There are indeed blank spots in the evolutionary theory, as you correctly point out. That is why there are still so many labs and field projects out collecting more data, working to fill in those blanks. But as for flaws, I think that is misleading a bit. The information that we do have, gathered from so many discrepant avenues of investigation, clearly converge on evolution as the explanation for how life became so diverse. I'm sorry to say it but so far evolution's weakest point is your flawed understanding of it.
@@orduenshambe4891 First, evolution is not "just" a theory. It is the factual explanation of how life on Earth became so diverse. You see, in science, theory, is a higher order of understanding than a fact. Second, it seems you are trying to conflate evolution with the big bang. Other than both being demonstrably real, they are unrelated avenues of investigation.
@@orduenshambe4891 You are right! Claims do not make reality. On this we agree! The demonstration of the veracity of evolution is in the academic record. There is literally (yes literally) a library full of evidence that all point to evolution as the one and only explanation for how life on Earth became so diverse. The fact that you ignore all of the evidence that points to evolution does not mean they are not there. All the information you could ever want on the matter is right here at your fingertips but you still ignore it and claim there is no evidence. Well, as you stated earlier, claims do not make reality. Evolution is a fact supported by so much irrefutable evidence that it is perverse to deny it.
@@orduenshambe4891 The big bang and evolution... Both have undeniable evidence that supports them and the evidence is from such discrepant avenues of investigation that they are utterly unrelated.
I especially cringe when I see scientists/engineers use the word "theory" colloquially. Like nails on a chalkboard.
Also, wrt to String Theory shouldn't it be something like "String Hypothesis" rather than being called String Theory, since empirical experiments haven't even been conceived (as far as I know) that could test/validate the concept?
@mwstar Except theories are proven false all the time, if you did your research you'd know that. And I fail to see how evidence cna be indirect.
When they are talking about colloquial everyday stuff or explaining things to the layperson to teach them I think that they're justified. They don't need to use scientific terminology in everyday stuff.
I always respond with saying "is it a successful theory"?.That usually shuts them up or they respond by saying "no",without any reason as to why they said it.
That's why I hate the term "Conspiracy Theory" I prefer "Conspircay Belief"
Or hypothesis?
Using that phrase is just another way to “trigger” people. People who should know better say it to be annoying.
But a lot of people don't know! The majority of the public thinks that theory = guess. We have to actively counter this perception.
MatPat is fine, he's doing theory just fine, he isn't guessing, he's using info he has to build on
"When we do science," is a delightful sequence of words.
I thought theories grew up to be laws too. Thanks for making this.
But that's just a theory. A theory theory. And cut.
imagine everything going right for our species and then bam tiktok comes along
It so interesting to see how our misuse of the simple word theory and the likes could spread so much misinformation since we just assume we know what it means in every context
Saying "it's just a theory" is such a weak mindset
Not just a theory. A GAME THEORY
You are ok with what happened, losing, imperfection of a craft. When you stop getting angry after testing hypotheses, you’ve lost twice.
There’s always something to learn, and always room for science, never settle.
@@normanmai7865 you're fantastic