The Nature of Scientific Theory
by Mark Stewart A.D.
The term "theory", in a scientific context, is frequently used in a rather broad and ill-defined manner. One common
use of the word is to describe anything within the body of scientific knowledge or activity, which is not
experimental. We speak of the experimental side of science, and the theoretical. Now this is not a good enough
definition for our present purpose. It has certain validity, but for one thing it is a negative definition - theory is that
which is not experiment - and a negative definition is not likely to help us very much. Secondly, it is too broad by
far. Much non-experimental work is done (e.g. the mathematical manipulation of quantities) simply to change
experimental data into a more usable form. Whether such "data processing" is done by computer or by a
mathematician, is immaterial. All that is done is to take the experimental data, the facts of observation, and put
them into a form that is more usable and more useful for the application of true scientific theory. So much work is
done in a laboratory, or in a scientific institution, which is not experimental but I would not call theoretical in the
true sense of that word. So to say that theory is that which is non-experimental is too broad a definition for our
purpose.
Then, of course, many people think of scientific theory as that which is mathematical. To me this is too narrow a
definition. In fact it is almost a false definition because mathematics differs from experimental science in one
important respect. In experimental science we begin with the facts of observation. This observation may be
common observation, or it may be some very careful experiment carried out in a laboratory, but it is nonetheless
observation. But mathematics contains no aspect of observation. In mathematics we start with a set of axioms or
assumptions. We assume that certain rules will govern our algebra; X x Y is going to equal Y x X for example. We
do not have to make this "commutative" assumption. In common algebra we choose to do so, but we can invent an
algebra in which it does not apply. We make certain assumptions, adopt certain axioms and then work out the
implications of those assumptions. The results obtained are implicit in the assumptions with which we begin. We
are not introducing any new factor, but simply making explicit what was originally implicit. That is not to say that
pure mathematics is of no use or interest. On the contrary it is a fascinating subject. But it is not scientific theory.
It is of tremendous use in science, and especially in the realm of scientific theory, but scientific theory is not to be
equated with that which is mathematical.
Having then rejected one definition which is too broad, and another definition which is too narrow, what are we to
understand by the word "theory" when applied to things scientific?
The word comes directly from a Greek word "theoreo" which means "I behold"; it is from the verb to "behold" or
"perceive", and a theory is therefore something conceptual. It is something I perceive, something that I behold in a
conceptual sense. A theory can thus be defined as a concept, which unifies and interrelates the facts of
observation. A theory is an understanding, a comprehension that imposes order or meaning upon the facts of
observation. As the scientist collects certain information or data, as he does experiments and makes
measurements, he assembles the data in front of him. Then as he looks at these data, he sees that they are not
independent or accidental results, but that they fit together in certain relationships. The facts of observation are
like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, and the theory is the picture that emerges when you fit all the pieces together.
More accurately, the picture is that which enables you to fit the pieces together. A theory enables the scientist to
interrelate, to bring together into some consistent whole, into some consistent story or picture, the facts of
observation.
We will next learn about interpreting the facts and examining the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
Once we have a better understanding of these things, we can then utilize a practical application of ghost theory,
as I slowly develop these ideas through a series of articles.
by Mark Stewart A.D.
The term "theory", in a scientific context, is frequently used in a rather broad and ill-defined manner. One common
use of the word is to describe anything within the body of scientific knowledge or activity, which is not
experimental. We speak of the experimental side of science, and the theoretical. Now this is not a good enough
definition for our present purpose. It has certain validity, but for one thing it is a negative definition - theory is that
which is not experiment - and a negative definition is not likely to help us very much. Secondly, it is too broad by
far. Much non-experimental work is done (e.g. the mathematical manipulation of quantities) simply to change
experimental data into a more usable form. Whether such "data processing" is done by computer or by a
mathematician, is immaterial. All that is done is to take the experimental data, the facts of observation, and put
them into a form that is more usable and more useful for the application of true scientific theory. So much work is
done in a laboratory, or in a scientific institution, which is not experimental but I would not call theoretical in the
true sense of that word. So to say that theory is that which is non-experimental is too broad a definition for our
purpose.
Then, of course, many people think of scientific theory as that which is mathematical. To me this is too narrow a
definition. In fact it is almost a false definition because mathematics differs from experimental science in one
important respect. In experimental science we begin with the facts of observation. This observation may be
common observation, or it may be some very careful experiment carried out in a laboratory, but it is nonetheless
observation. But mathematics contains no aspect of observation. In mathematics we start with a set of axioms or
assumptions. We assume that certain rules will govern our algebra; X x Y is going to equal Y x X for example. We
do not have to make this "commutative" assumption. In common algebra we choose to do so, but we can invent an
algebra in which it does not apply. We make certain assumptions, adopt certain axioms and then work out the
implications of those assumptions. The results obtained are implicit in the assumptions with which we begin. We
are not introducing any new factor, but simply making explicit what was originally implicit. That is not to say that
pure mathematics is of no use or interest. On the contrary it is a fascinating subject. But it is not scientific theory.
It is of tremendous use in science, and especially in the realm of scientific theory, but scientific theory is not to be
equated with that which is mathematical.
Having then rejected one definition which is too broad, and another definition which is too narrow, what are we to
understand by the word "theory" when applied to things scientific?
The word comes directly from a Greek word "theoreo" which means "I behold"; it is from the verb to "behold" or
"perceive", and a theory is therefore something conceptual. It is something I perceive, something that I behold in a
conceptual sense. A theory can thus be defined as a concept, which unifies and interrelates the facts of
observation. A theory is an understanding, a comprehension that imposes order or meaning upon the facts of
observation. As the scientist collects certain information or data, as he does experiments and makes
measurements, he assembles the data in front of him. Then as he looks at these data, he sees that they are not
independent or accidental results, but that they fit together in certain relationships. The facts of observation are
like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, and the theory is the picture that emerges when you fit all the pieces together.
More accurately, the picture is that which enables you to fit the pieces together. A theory enables the scientist to
interrelate, to bring together into some consistent whole, into some consistent story or picture, the facts of
observation.
We will next learn about interpreting the facts and examining the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
Once we have a better understanding of these things, we can then utilize a practical application of ghost theory,
as I slowly develop these ideas through a series of articles.
 |  |