Scientific theory vs scientific fact

[fedr808]

Well for starters there is no scientific fact.
There are several levels of how sure a hypothesis is

There is hypothesis- this is the lowest, it is just a thought with little or no experimentation

The highest is THEORY- it is the highes, it is a hypothesis that has been tested thousands of times and has always turned out true. Keep in mind make believe tests, ie star trek ships going warp infinity or something are not actual tests they are make believe.

There is no fact. Everything around us that we think of as a fact is a theory.

Theory's can only be disproven when there is a well documented test where it has been proven false.

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC FACT.

 

[quantum_wave]

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC FACT.

And that's a FACT .

You are right about that though. Every theory, even those called laws have one thing in common in the scientific jargon ... tentativeness.

 

[electrafixtion]

This is a very rare perspective. It's exactly what I believe. There are NO scientific truths or facts. Just revisions waiting to be made. Even if we don't discover that the previously held "truth" is not a truth nor ever was for a millennium, what is the present "truth" will always be subject to revision.

I am very happy you posted this.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Well for starters there is no scientific fact.

Probably a true statement. No wonder they threw this in pseudoscience.

 

[fedr808]

thank you. Also, for the sake of realness don't question a theory unless your testing it. You should never make up a revision to a theory and make something based on it until you have revised the theory and proven that the original theory is wrong and yours is more accurate. For instance part of Einstein's theory was that there is no faster than light travel. I cannot design a mathmatical equation and make it into a theory based off of going faster than light until i have effectively and officially revised Einstein's theory to accomodate this.