Why a Theory Never Becomes a Fact

PSI Blog 20220711 Why a Theory Never Becomes a Fact

 

Pierre Berrigan writes:

 

“I came across this the other day:

"A highly corroborated or supported hypothesis is ... a fact"

On http://sociology.iresearchnet.com/sociology-of-science/fact-theory-and-hypothesis/

I would very much like to read what people think. How much "evidence" does a theory need in order to be promoted to "fact"? 

Regards,

Pierre”

 

[GB: Thanks Pierre for giving me a chance to clear up this extremely important question. The article you mentioned has a lot of the usual regressive obfuscation. Congrats on getting to the guts of what is being claimed: "A highly corroborated or supported hypothesis is ... a fact." This is clearly false. Here is why:

 

Facts are observations; theories are our fallible interpretations about the significance of those observations. Examples:

 

Gravitation is a fact obvious to most everyone who has ever dropped a pencil or cell phone onto the floor. Theories about why that occurred are plentiful. There is “attraction” and there is “space-time.” Both theories are false because they incorrectly interpret what is happening. Another fact is that gravitating objects exhibit acceleration. Going back to fundamentals, we must remember that all physical causes involve collisions per Newton's Second Law of Motion. The collidee in those collisions becomes accelerated, while the collider becomes decelerated. Any theory of gravitation that omits or denies the necessity for the existence of the collider is without merit despite its predictive capabilities. I resolved that problem in my recent paper on “The Physical Cause of Gravitation,”[1] which was rejected by three prominent journals edited by those who already know the cause of gravitation.

 

Cosmological redshift is a fact obvious to most astronomers. Again, theories about why that occurs are plentiful. The current theory accepted by cosmogonists uses that fact to incorrectly hypothesize that particular redshift is a result of galactic recession. What is generally not acknowledged is the underlying assumptions having to do with Einstein’s Untired Light Theory, which assumes massless particles containing perfectly empty space travel perpetually through perfectly empty space. There is no evidence for the religious assumption that perfectly empty space exists.[2] In line with this, we must reject the notion that anything, whether particle or wave, could travel from one point to another without losing energy. It is the height of idealism to believe waves could replicate perfectly without losses. According to the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things)[3], that would be as impossible as finding two identical snowflakes. The arrangement of the particles from one wave to the next within the medium could never be identical regardless of how small those differences might be. Thus, over extreme distances we must consider the cosmological redshift to dominate all other types of redshift.

 

In conclusion, facts are observations of the real world; while theories are what we think about those facts. Theories never can be facts no matter how many facts we choose in support. As Popper claimed, theories cannot be completely proven, although false theories can be disproven.[4] I don’t remember him mentioning it, but the reason for this is because the universe is infinite.[5] Furthermore, theories are dependent on fundamental assumptions that always have opposites and never can be completely proven.[6] No one can go to the “end of the universe” to see if finity or its opposite, infinity obtains. All we can do is assume one or the other. Big Bang theorists assume finity—we beg to differ.

 

Once we assume infinity, everything falls into place. Other consupponible assumptions start to make sense in the fact vs. theory debate. Per the Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it often is possible to know more about anything), working in conjunction with the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes) we can have no perfect theories. To think otherwise is akin to the equally subjective error demonstrated by “mathists” who hubristically claim the universe must follow their humanly devised, necessarily finite mathematical laws. Ultimately, the Infinite Universe has no such obligation. That is why no theories can be perfect and why any measurements of the facts used to support them always have a plus or minus heavily dependent on the constituents of the object being measured and the environment in which it exists. Theories have exceptions while properly measured facts do not. Light from distant elderly galaxies is either redshifted or it is not. The theory that water always runs downhill is true, except when it is not (Figure 1).]

 

Figure 1. Flowing artesian well.[7]

 

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2018, The Physical Cause of Gravitation: viXra:1806.0165 (“Aether Deceleration Theory”)

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [ https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk ]

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a New Scientific Worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.   [ https://go.glennborchardt.com/TTAOSfree  ].

[4] Popper, K.R., 2002, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (15th ed.): New York, Routledge, 544 p.

[5] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 337 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

[6] Collingwood, R.G., 1940, An Essay on Metaphysics: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 354 p.

[7] Milfred, C.J., and Hole, F.D., 1970, Soils of Jefferson County, Wisconsin: Madison, WI, State of Wisconsin, p. 58.