Browse hundreds of courses with a wide range of study options from online courses to diploma qualifications, training and full-time education. Learn more
A variety of scholarship opportunities are available for different areas of study, across the state. Learn more
View our news, press releases, videos, announcements and publications about TAFE NSW. Learn more
The term "theory" is used very differently by
scientists in a scientific framework, as opposed to how it's used by
The other day I participated in an interesting classroom discussion
about the word "theory" and how it differs from other terms
like "idea", "comment" and "law". What
does "theory" actually mean? The phrase "conspiracy
theory" suggests a bit of a screwball element, but is this fair?
Or just convenient?
The word "theory" can and does create misunderstandings.
Regarding the issue of climate change, the term "theory" is
used very differently by scientists in a scientific framework, as
opposed to how it's used by everyone else. Every field has its own
jargon, and this is commonly misused by people outside of that field.
For example, if someone says they weigh 70kgs, you and I would
interpret that to mean what the scales say when that person stands on
them. But a scientist would interpret that information differently.
They'd say that the person has a mass of 70kg which, when multiplied
by 9.81 m/s2 (which is the Earth's standard acceleration due to
gravity) gives that person's weight in Newtons. Therefore, the person
weighs 687 Newtons. (Confused yet?)
My point? The problem with the term "theory" is how people
Someone might have a "theory" that life is like a box
of chocolates. Someone else might have a "theory" that
aliens are coming down to earth to draw really cool crop circles just
to annoy us. A third person might have a "theory" that
climate change is caused not by human activity but by solar flares.
Technically these are not theories at all. Certainly not in scientific
terms. At the most, these are comments, and ones that aren't backed up
A theory, on the other hand, is an explanation that fits all the
Let's start with a simple fact. Maybe it's a piece of data from an
experiment. But what does the fact actually mean?
This is the basic problem, because the "fact" could be the
result of an error. Or a false reading. Or because someone stuffed up.
In science, this is why an experiment is repeated, often multiple
times. It's just to get more data to make sense of the
"fact". It's for clarity.
Now you need to find a theory that explains all the known facts. Some
people tend to trim their data to make it fit their theory, which is
the wrong way around. Often, people will choose the experiment that
provides data that only fits their theory. This is why scientists have
a peer review process - they present their data and people can
recreate their experiments to prove or disprove their work.
Ever heard the curious term "Occam's Razor"? It's a
principle used in logic and problem-solving. It states that when
confronted with different competing hypotheses, the one with the
fewest assumptions should be selected. In other words, the one that
explains all the facts in the simplest way. For example, if you hear
the beat of approaching hooves on the ground, think horses, rather
Therefore, as you carry out more experiments and get more data, you
can start to remove the theories that suddenly don't fit with the
known facts. This way you will end up with the one theory (or several)
that fits all the available data.
But how is a "theory" different to a "law" (as in
the "Law of Gravity")? Simply put, a theory is an
explanation that fits all the known facts; a law is a proven
Climate change due to carbon emissions caused by human activity is
also a theory. It keeps changing a bit round the edges as new data
comes in. Most of this research is new, and more research is still
being undertaken in fields never considered before.
In other words, a theory is something that evolves naturally. You
want scientists to change their thinking as new data comes in.