Name 1 valid scientific theory with no supporting evidence

The OP didn't define his rules of evidence. So let's define SCIENTIFIC evidence.

What is the criteria for scientific evidence:

1. It must be empirical. That means the evidence was acquired by objective observation.
2. The evidence must be testable. It cannot be speculation (like Creationist crap). If the evidence refutes some previously accepted model, then you better be loaded with bear to demonstrate that it was wrong.
3. Statitical analysis. That means that the numbers must demonstrate a high probability of "correctness" - like a Chi squared test or a "p" value test.
4. Controls. A control minimizes the effect of variables, known and unknown. For instance, if I'm testing for a known carcinogen in a sample, I would use a pure sample of that compound as a control to identify it.

About terminology:

1. There is no such thing as a "proof" in science. A proof suggests certainty and confirmation like mathematics. In science, the door is never closed. There can always be confirming evidence which provides more information or contradicting evidence which changes the original result. We use the term but not in the colloquial way.
2. The same goes for "laws". A scientific law is only a utility and a convenience based on prior research. The laws of thermodynamics are not set in stone. Quantum mechanics has changed our perspective of "laws". Here's an interesting article: phys.org...

Every science textbook should have a first page with bold letters explaining the above - because this is how all the false interpretations of science and scientific methods infiltrate and develop into false notions of how science works. And get rid of those words - PROOF and LAW.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Transpermia is a hypothesis, not a scientific theory.

a reply to: Phantom423
Thanks for this break down.

1. It must be empirical. That means the evidence was acquired by objective observation.

This is one I have issues with sometimes. How do we get "objective observations" from subjective entities? In other words, to obtain a truly "objective observation" wouldn't it have to be void of human observation and meaning? Because ultimately all observations are human experiences and thus are open to human interpretations. That goes for everything we encounter.

1. There is no such thing as a "proof" in science. A proof suggests certainty and confirmation like mathematics. In science, the door is never closed. There can always be confirming evidence which provides more information or contradicting evidence which changes the original result. We use the term but not in the colloquial way.

Every science textbook should have a first page with bold letters explaining the above - because this is how all the false interpretations of science and scientific methods infiltrate and develop into false notions of how science works. And get rid of those words - PROOF and LAW.

This is all very true. Too bad most folks ignore the very important fact that nothing, not even in light of the scientific method, is absolute.

We only approximate reality.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

In answer to your first question about objectivity, in the hard sciences like chemistry and physics, the design of the experiments usually involves a lot of instrumentation. So the data that you acquire is really only subject to mistakes in the materials and methods. For instance, if I selected to use an outdated method to analyze something, the results would suffer from that decision. Both positive and negative results of an experiment are relevant because it's just as important to know what doesn't work as what does work. Here's a research paper which has a very good description of how the analytical techniques were actually carried out to determine the result - www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I will note here that Creationists deliberately ignore the more accurate methods of dating fossils because it suits their agenda. That's outright fraud.

In the soft sciences, like psychology, the human influence is probably a big factor. I know zip about that kind of research so it's speculation on my part. But objectivity would seem to be a lot more difficult than in the hard sciences.

On your second comment, you are correct. There are no absolutes. Science is a process and there's no "the-end" to any particular law, theory, hypothesis or result. The book is never closed.

But science provides the tools to manipulate nature to our benefit. And when you look at the achievements of science, our perception of reality and our ability to solve problems is increasing exponentially.

Nice responses. Thanks.

In a recent poll scientists were asked what they thought was the biggest problem that science faced in 2015, and the overwhelming answer was the general publics ignorance of science and scientific terms.

A lot of the posters in this thread are spectacular examples of this ignorance in action...

originally posted by: Prezbo369
A lot of the posters in this thread are spectacular examples of this ignorance in action...

Seriously...

There is a guy on the front page trying to bash big bang theory by saying we can't know how much carbon 14 was present at the moment of the big bang*



* - Protip - THERE WAS NO CARBON RELEASED AT THE BB YOU FOOL!

originally posted by: Beer_Guy

Name 1 valid scientific theory with no supporting evidence

All of them.

Every one of the current scientific theories started out as just a thought in someones head. Then they search for evidence to back them up.

Not exactly what you were asking for huh?

That's the exact opposite of how science works, but thanks for playing.

originally posted by: iori_komei
Well, I don't know if it would quyalify, since the only evidence for
it is super complex math, but String Theory.

I do believe in basic string theory though.

You are right. It does not qualify as scientific theory, only mathematical theory.

originally posted by: Valhall


Just to be clear - no, I wouldn't entertain such a non sequitur leap. BUT - there are the same type non sequiturs that are occurring in trying to "prop up" the Big Bang theory.

Band-aids that, well, verge on violations of the scientific method. In fact, I would proffer that it is the Big Bang theory, and an almost obsession of "making it stick" that was the intiation of the appearance that the scientific method has been abandoned. It's the first major theory (that I'm aware of) in which the scientific community decided to abandon the principles of "try to prove yourself wrong" and instead have lept through every mental hula hoop they can find to try to explain away the observed contradictions.

oops - there's not enough matter in the universe for the Big Bang Theory!

That's because there's hidden matter, yeah, that's it, just enough hidden matter to make it all work.

oops - there's not enough hidden matter in the universe for the Big Bang Theory!

Well, we probably just calculated how much we needed wrong...we'll get back with you.

oops - the expansion rate of the universe seems to be slowing down!

That's because we're a repeating Big Bang - we expand and contract - like a big squishy ball.

...and it goes on and on. And I have no problem with the thought experiments that lead us in directions to investigate - they are marvelous tools of the mind that can help us discover things we otherwise would have been blind to. What I take issue with is our scientific community speaking of those thought experiments as if they are fact. Or them being taught as fact. It is disingenuous.

[edit on 8-24-2006 by Valhall]

Not sure I understand your point. No reputable scientist will ever tell you that a theory is absolute! We all know that reality is too complex to fit into a theory, but we do the best we can until a better explanation is found. It has gotten men to the moon and beyond …