Ask Science
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
view the rest of the comments
This. The concept of a "fact" doesn't work in science, because anything can theoretically be disproven.
The main concept of science is that we observe things and infer models and rules. Since we do not observe rules but only infer them, all is a theory, which means "This is our currently best understanding of things. We treat them as if they were fact. But we also understand that our current understanding might not be perfect and thus we call things theories instead of facts."
Calling something a "fact" means it's perfectly finished and there's nothing to add to it. That's inherently unscientific.
Btw, when a theory is replaced, it's hardly ever replaced with something entirely different. Usually it's just expounding. Newton's physics remain valid in almost all situations, but Einstein's relativity fixes the edge cases where Newton doesn't work.
Which is why when building a bridge you use Newton's physics to this day, and not Relativity (unless the bridge is moving at close to the speed of light).
I was using "fact" basically synonymously with "observation". It is a "fact" that the apple I dropped fell to the ground. It is my hypothesis that this apple I am about to let go of will also drop to the ground, based on the theory of gravity.
Not in a scientific sense. In a scientific sense an observation is just that: an observation. And an observation can be wrong. In fact, with more complex issues than apples dropping, it's a quite frequent thing that observations are wrong.
If, for example, the simulation hypothesis turned out to be correct, then not only did the apple not actually fall to the ground, but the apple actually never existed in the first place.
That's why "facts" have no place in science and why even something we are really really sure about is labelled as a "theory". Because nothing can be 100% verified and everything can hypothetically be subject of chance.
And that's the main difference between religion and science. With religion the premise is that you already know the truth in advance and you try to find evidence to support it. With science you begin with Sokrates ("I know that I know nothing") and work from that, trying to build models upon models to make sense of the world, fully understanding that the models might be flawed and will likely end up being changed in the future.