(March 30, 2021 at 3:20 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(March 30, 2021 at 1:09 pm)Angrboda Wrote: The role of a theory is to explain the evidence.

Right, theories are explanations of things. And explanations either give a causal account for phenomena, or a unification of them. All swans are X isn't a causal account for anything, or a unification of anything, it's simply a description of what all swans are. Such descriptions might instead fall under the category of laws. Consider the structural similarity between your phrase, and the first law of behavioral genetics: All human behavioral traits are heritable.

I agree with you about Swans.  I'm not sure that is similar to All human behavioral traits are heritable. 

The statement about Swans is simply a categorization.  The statement about behavioral genetics is testable.  It may be considered a law or axiom that is used as part of a more complex theory, but it can stand alone as a theory.

I'm not sure it even correct, depending on the meaning of the word "heritable".  If it includes genetics, epigenetics, and the effect of societal ideas, it may be correct.

I agree it's not a complex theory, but it is a theory that explains why we see mostly white swans in the world, just as the theory that ohm's law describes electrical quantities in a circuit explains why our measurements are what they are. A theory need not be complex to be explanatory. If you ask me why you got a green M&M I might explain that the bag contains only green M&Ms, or they stopped selling other kinds of M&Ms, or that all M&Ms are green. All three theories predict certain observations and explain why those observations occur.

Anyway, this is all beside the point. If I had a theory that the genetic material in a swan leads to the production of baby swans that are blue, and therefore all swans are blue, then you might point out that you've seen a white swan. At which point I might simply disregard it as an anomaly or incomplete branch of my blue swan theory, suggesting that the observation is defective in some way, or perhaps that blue swans appear white under certain conditions in spite of their being blue. After more white swans are observed, I might adjust the surrounding background knowledge by defining the reflection of all light waves equally as a form of blueness. Then someone will come along with an observation of a black swan and we'd do the dance all over again. The point being that some adjustments of surrounding background knowledge would be so dramatic as to qualify for an entirely new conception of the world. That there's no line or criteria you can posit to determine when this occurs seems as much a function of the vagueness of any theory, an implicit consequence of the underdetermination of theory, as it is of there being a similarity between intra-theoretic changes and inter-theoretic changes.

(March 30, 2021 at 4:59 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: I agree with you about Swans.  I'm not sure that is similar to All human behavioral traits are heritable. 

Hmm both statements have the structure All X are Y;  but perhaps the similarities end there. (Heritability generally refers to the differences between people that can be attributed to genetic differences.)

(March 30, 2021 at 5:27 pm)Angrboda Wrote: I agree it's not a complex theory, but it is a theory that explains why we see mostly white swans in the world, just as the theory that ohm's law describes electrical quantities in a circuit explains why our measurements are what they are. A theory need not be complex to be explanatory.

There's something odd about what you're saying. Laws in science are already inductive; they are descriptions of regularities and patterns writ large. But you are taking such laws and transforming them into theories of themselves: The law of behavioral genetics is thus the theory of behavioral genetics, because the claim that all behavioral traits are heritable "explains" why some behavioral traits are heritable. But I see no causal or unifying explanation here.

At work.

Wait?

Aren't 'Laws' more a subset of ''Theories'?

(March 30, 2021 at 7:51 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: Aren't 'Laws' more a subset of ''Theories'?

Laws and theories stem from two separate traditions, or perspectives, on science. One group thinks science should describe the universe, the other that it should explain the universe. The search for the "laws of nature" is a bit outdated, mostly because newer fields like biology have little use for them. Theories have, however, been used to explain scientific laws in the past; and I suppose that in this sense laws can be a subset of theories. But in general they are siblings of each other.

(March 30, 2021 at 8:26 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(March 30, 2021 at 7:51 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: Aren't 'Laws' more a subset of ''Theories'?

Laws and theories stem from two separate traditions, or perspectives, on science. One group thinks science should describe the universe, the other that it should explain the universe. The search for the "laws of nature" is a bit outdated, mostly because newer fields like biology have little use for them. Theories have, however, been used to explain scientific laws in the past; and I suppose that in this sense laws can be a subset of theories. But in general they are siblings of each other.

The terminology is anything but standardized.

There is certainly the sense that Laws are better than Theories, supposedly by being more reliable. So, Newton's laws of motion were seen as exact and inviolable, even necessary laws. His law of gravity was seen as universal and absolute. On the other hand, Snell's law of refraction only dealt with one topic: the refraction of light.

The view that Laws were inviolate and absolute, though, pretty much went out the window when Newton's laws were overturned for quantum theory and the theory of relativity. Those 'theories' were certainly more accurate than the older 'laws'. Since that time, physicists have been loathe to call anything a 'law', although the word is sometimes used for some 'rules of thumb' that are simple to memorize and are used to get first estimates.

These days, the term 'theory' is mostly used for an attempt to unify a large collection of phenomena in a single system. But even there, exceptions exist. The 'laws' tend to be more limited in use and more simplifications to help understanding.

Another issue is the describe/explain distinction. Take, for example, Newton's laws of motion and the law of gravity. Those can be used to 'explain' the motions of the planets, but there is no 'explanation' of why those particular laws are the 'right' ones. The same can be said, at a different level, for *all* 'theories' that attempt to be fundamental. In a sense, the only 'explanations' are those based on the fundamental theories, usually by simplifying them in particular cases.

So, for example, the properties of chemical binds are 'explained' by quantum mechanics. Those properties can then be used to 'explain' which chemical reactions occur. But there is no 'explanation' of why quantum mechanics works.

(March 30, 2021 at 9:32 pm)polymath257 Wrote: These days, the term 'theory' is mostly used for an attempt to unify a large collection of phenomena in a single system.

Right. Theories tend to either provide unification, or give a casual account of things. And perhaps the distinction is most notable across disciplines than within disciplines. Physics seems more interested in unification, thus you have things like the "theory of everything." But biology is more interested in casual theories. Thus why evolution explains the diversity of life on earth as resulting from changes in allele frequencies.

(March 31, 2021 at 3:41 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(March 30, 2021 at 9:32 pm)polymath257 Wrote: These days, the term 'theory' is mostly used for an attempt to unify a large collection of phenomena in a single system.

Right. Theories tend to either provide unification, or give a casual account of things. And perhaps the distinction is most notable across disciplines than within disciplines. Physics seems more interested in unification, thus you have things like the "theory of everything." But biology is more interested in casual theories. Thus why evolution explains the diversity of life on earth as resulting from changes in allele frequencies.

Should "casual" be "causal"? 

Damn autocorrect.

(March 31, 2021 at 3:51 am)Belacqua Wrote: Should "casual" be "causal"? 

Damn autocorrect.

Yes it should lol