Hypotheses, Theories and LNT

[mark.hogue@SRS.GOV]

We often see abuse of scientific terms, but I did not know things were as bad as this:


<Of course, what is a hypothesis anyway, but a theory.>


An excellent explanation of these important terms is found at http://www.wilstar.net/theories.htm, from which I will quote relevant portions below. Note that in applying these terms correctly, it makes no sense to speak of LNT 'theory'. LNT was never more than a convention; although it is frequently a hypothesis.


Quotes from the referenced web site follow:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories


           Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they

           sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean. 


           Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and

           "theory." 


           In layman's terms, if something is said to be 'just a theory,' it usually means that it is a mere

           guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies

           that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true. 


           Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist: 


           Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or

           set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be

           expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to

           mathematical postulates. They don't really need any complex external proofs; they are

           accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be

           true. 


           Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of

           thermodynamics, and Hook's law of elasticity. 


           Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational

           explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has

           not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or

           continued observation. 


           Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation

           of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified

           multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he

           can only create a hypothesis. 


           In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the

           scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are

           used to advance technology. 


           The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex

           and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of

           related phenomena. 

++++++++snip++++++++

           copied portion is with permission of author, Copyright © 2000 by Jerry Wilson.


Mark G. Hogue, CHP

mark.hogue@srs.gov

"But we surely overrate the usefulness of what we like to call "stimulation" and underrate the need for time, peace of mind, mature reflection." -  Susan Haack


"DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily represent Westinghouse Savannah River Co. or the United States Department of Energy."

"Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS)" <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov> Sent by: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu 01/02/03 12:36 PM Please respond to "Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS)"

To:        "'Ted de Castro'" <tdc@XRAYTED.COM>         cc:        "'Jerry Cohen'" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>, "'Ted Rockwell'" <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>, BLHamrick@AOL.COM, John Cameron <jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu>, radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu         Subject:        RE: Not using  LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no ri        sk.

Ted,

I also view the NCRP regulations as recommendations, but we have to live,

and die, by the regulations.


I really do not think that one exception disproves a hypothesis, but may set

limits on it. Of course, what is a hypothesis anyway, but a theory.  See

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/12/2 which discusses Karl Popper's

"principle of falsigiability" and the fact that science is not as simple and

clear-cut as we would like it to be.  Particularly biology.  On this point I

think that the LNTH is a good example of this idea.  While it probably works

at the cellular level, it does not at the macro-biology level.

Unfortunately, those who write regulations would like our world to be so

simple, that one size fits all.


-- John


John P. Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  jenday1@msn.com


The comments presented are mine and do not reflect the opinion of my

employer or spouse.

------------------------------------