NationStates Jolt Archive

To be credible, a scientific theory must account for all relevant evidence, not just some of it. In science this requirement is known as the "requirement of total evidence" or the "burden of proof." A scientific theory that does not meet its burden of proof or its "requirement of total evidence" is simply not a credible scientific theory—it is an opinion. Though an opinion may be held by many people, and though it may have considerable emotional or political appeal, it simply cannot be considered good science if it ignores evidence, distorts evidence, or contains serious anomalies or contradictions.
Do you agree with this statement? If not, why not?

Is a scientific theory required to address ALL the evidence?

Is it no longer science if it doesn't?

(link to original article: http://americanbuddhist.net/node/2788)

I would say that a theory must ADDRESS all the available evidence. That's what I'm doing for a grant proposal I am writing.

I must include a literature review in which I discuss other work that has been done in my specific area of interest. I am allowed to criticize the findings of other groups, and I am allowed to propose a hypothesis that would directly conflict with some of these other findings, as long as I address the areas of conflict and explain myself clearly. I can't just pretend like certain evidence doesn't exist.

I'm also allowed to admit that I'm not sure how a certain piece of evidence might fit with my idea, as long as I propose one or more possible explanations that could be tested scientifically.

I think that's a fair standard to set, though obviously you'd have to enforce things more and more strictly as you get from "hypotheses by a grad student" to "accepted scientific theory to be included in middle school science textbooks."

I would say that a theory must ADDRESS all the available evidence. That's what I'm doing for a grant proposal I am writing.

I must include a literature review in which I discuss other work that has been done in my specific area of interest. I am allowed to criticize the findings of other groups, and I am allowed to propose a hypothesis that would directly conflict with some of these other findings, as long as I address the areas of conflict and explain myself clearly. I can't just pretend like certain evidence doesn't exist.

I'm also allowed to admit that I'm not sure how a certain piece of evidence might fit with my idea, as long as I propose one or more possible explanations that could be tested scientifically.

I think that's a fair standard to set, though obviously you'd have to enforce things more and more strictly as you get from "hypotheses by a grad student" to "accepted scientific theory to be included in middle school science textbooks."

... but that is the standard just to apply for the grant to start/continue your research. I would immagine that the standards of evidence must be much higher for completion/publication of any results you acchieve.

What I mean is, you can criticise the way other reasearchers have done their work if you are looking for different results and beginning your work, and applying for a grant, but in order for your research to be complete, wouldn't you have to actually show why their results differed from what you ended with? If you can't account for variances in results, you haven't completed your own work, have you?

There is not a whole lot room for opinion on this matter, is there? A credible scientific theory needs to be predictive, logical, testable, and in accordance to all observations on the subject matter. A scientific theory can hardly be credible if an existing observation invalidates it.

That has nothing to do with the actual article linked, however. It's just another person with no clue about the actual subject matter who's trying hard as hell to come up with his/her own variety of conspiracy theory and damn the facts.

That sounds about right. I wouldn't call it a burden of proof though. But a good scientific theory does have to explain all available, relevant evidence, theories such as gravitation, the big bang and evolution do this. "Theories" such as tired light do not.

Quote right and all, but simply saying that the evidence doesn't appear to fit the theory without providing an alternative theory is not science, either. It's not enough to say, "That doesn't work," you have to say, "But this does and here's why." The author of the linked article tiptoes around the subject but provides no alternative theory, though I think we can all guess what's in his or her mind (I forgot to look for the author's name).

Do you agree with this statement? If not, why not?

Is a scientific theory required to address ALL the evidence?

Is it no longer science if it doesn't?

(link to original article: http://americanbuddhist.net/node/2788)

I don't have a problem with incomplete proposals. Scientists should be free to contribute to a field by addressing only part of the accepted theory, if they have a good idea but haven't applied it to the entire field (yet.)

The best example I can think of is Einstein's Special Theory. He certainly didn't know the entire field of physics, didn't pretend to be explaining all the evidence. He had such an elegant idea, it could be done quite abstractly, in maths. There's plenty of experimentalists, plenty of naysayers, but without the 'grasshoppers' of theory, science would be a lot poorer.

But I guess to call a proposal a 'theory' it must address all the available evidence.

BTW, which witch do you mean, in your signature, when you say "that witch" ?

... but that is the standard just to apply for the grant to start/continue your research. I would immagine that the standards of evidence must be much higher for completion/publication of any results you acchieve.

What I mean is, you can criticise the way other reasearchers have done their work if you are looking for different results and beginning your work, and applying for a grant, but in order for your research to be complete, wouldn't you have to actually show why their results differed from what you ended with? If you can't account for variances in results, you haven't completed your own work, have you?
Ideally, yes, it would work that way. However, there are plenty of cases where you just don't have enough information to be sure why your results don't match up with another group's work. There are cases where you don't know how a certain piece of information fits into your theory (yet), even if you've come a really long way and have completed your current project.

Every scientific theory is a work in progress...that's the point! Evolutionary theory is a respected, established, accepted theory, but there are still little chunks of evidence that we haven't fully addressed yet (because it's a HUGE area to cover, and there are only so many scientists out there!). There are also plenty of "holes" where we just don't know what's going on yet. We have some guesses at what might be going on, but we don't know for sure. I think that's still okay for a scientific theory.

That has nothing to do with the actual article linked, however. It's just another person with no clue about the actual subject matter who's trying hard as hell to come up with his/her own variety of conspiracy theory and damn the facts.
Yeah; the article was just linked for a source. The topic is what I'm really interested in.

BTW, which witch do you mean, in your signature, when you say "that witch" ?
It's just a pun.

Depends on what is meant by account. A theory need not address all relevant evidence, provided it doesnt contradict any relevant evidence.

I would immagine that the standards of evidence must be much higher for completion/publication of any results you acchieve.
I dont think so, and I certainly hope not. In fact I very much suspect this cannot be the case as it would interfere with one of the most important aspects of modern scientific practise. Specifically 'correction and adjustment'.

For instance if someone decided to falsify their findings, and others try to replicate them and cant, yet cant explain why (because they dont automatically assume anyone with a different result is a lying fraud), and this information is published, the pattern (of other researchers not being able to replicate the fraudsters 'results') would become evident.

In fact a fraudster need not be involved, there might have been some inadvertantly included variable in the original experiments. If latter experiments arrive at contrary findings, by publishing the contrary findings, the original researchers can then return to their experiments in order to try to locate the over-looked variable. Further the publishing of the information opens up the field for other researchers to review the material and to suggest/investigate reasons why different findings were produced.

Basically it's a necessary and healthy component of the 'self-correcting' aspect of science. If we cant explain different findings, but still report them, we are closer to an explanation than if the different findings (which might well be the more valid) molder in the back of some filing cabinet in the 'grants that funded failed research' folder. Especially since the latter contrary findings might be more valid/accurate than the original.

First off, I think this discussion is using two different versions of the word "theory." In some cases, it is being used to describe the conclusions drawn from one or two scientists' work - a series of hypotheses and the evidence a couple of people gather from experimentation. In the other cases, it is being used to describe established and accepted scientific theory - such as evolutionary theory, gravitational theory, etc. The "burden of proof" for the latter is obviously greater than the formner. A single scientist will do what he can to take in the big picture and form conclusions that are consistent with it. He is expected to address any evidence he finds in the literature that appearst to contradict his own work. But his own ideas will likely be more focused than a large-scale theory.

In an established and accepted theory, we are talking about the work of numerous scientists brought together into a cohesive explanation of a phenomenon (usually on the large scale). Once established, further work will be based in this theory, so the amount and consistency of evidence needed is much higher.

As for the original quote, I think it would be more appropriate to say that a theory cannot remain as such if there is contradicting evidence. If a theory must actually explain or even directly address all relevant observations to be theory, then nothing at all in science is actually theory. It doesn't matter what area of science you are in, there are always those observations that we're still working on - that don't quite fit. They don't contradict the theory (if they did, we'd drop the theory), but we aren't yet sure how (or even if) they do fit in.