provocative opinion
Does Theory Ever Become Fact?
Charles M. Wynn
Eastern Connecticut State University, Willimantic, CT 06226
Recent breakthroughs in the field of microscopy have
provided striking evidence for the apparent reality of
atoms. In the 1950’s, field ion microscopes were used to
provide images of gas atoms striking a fluorescent screen.
In 1976, scanning electron microscopes were used to pro-
duce motion pictures of the thermal motion of uranium
atoms. With the development of a new family of micro-
scopes, scanned-probe microscopes, such as the scanning
tunneling microscope developed in 1981 and the atomic
force microscope developed in 1985, direct observation of
particles with properties consistent with theoretical expec-
tations of atoms has at last been achieved (1, 2). Such de-
vices are even capable of resolving features that are only
about a hundredth the size of an atom.
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.
Now that atoms have been observed and direct evidence
for the shape and location of atoms has been obtained,
Downloaded via 223.231.80.144 on September 27, 2020 at 05:29:45 (UTC).
should the Atomic Theory be considered completely fac-
tual?
The Nature of Science
An answer to this question must be given in the context
of the nature of science. Science, the study of natural and
artificial phenomena in the universe with the aim of un-
derstanding them in a general way, begins with observa-
tion of phenomena. After sufficient observations have been
made, a hypothesis or general statement about the basic
nature of the phenomenon observed is formulated. This
hypothesis should be as general as possible to deal with
other phenomena besides the specific ones observed. It can
thus be used to predict phenomena. Experimentation is
the test of the prediction: did the phenomenon occur as an-
ticipated? If it did, the hypothesis upon which the predic-
tion was based gains credibility. If it did not, the hypothe-
sis must be discarded or modified to accommodate the
results.
To illustrate this approach, consider a student assigned
to a room in a college dormitory. On the first day of classes,
while still burrowed beneath blankets, the student can ob-
serve with his or her sense of hearing that the occupant of
the adjoining room leaves the room at 6:00 a.m. and then
returns out of breath at 7:00 a.m. After observing this be-
havior several days in a row, the student formulates a de-
scriptive generalization of the behavior: the neighbor al-
ways leaves the dorm at 6:00 a.m. and returns at 7:00 a.m.
out of breath. A hypothesis in the form of a descriptive gen-
eralization is usually called a law. In this example it might
be named the Law of the Next Door Neighbor’s Early
Morning Behavior. One could then make a prediction
based upon the law: this individual will leave the room to-
morrow at 6:00 a.m. and once again return at 7:00 a.m. out
of breath. If the actual behavior or experiment is consis-
tent with the prediction, the hypothesis gains credibility. If
not, it must be revised. For example, the next door
neighbor’s behavior may be limited to weekdays.
Once the law has been established, one could seek to ex-
plain the regularity of the behavior. A hypothesis in the
form of explanation is usually called a theory. In the
an
example, one theory might be that the next door neighbor
is a health enthusiast who behaves that way to stay fit by
jogging. This might be called the Theory that the Next
Door Neighbor Is a Health-Conscious Jogger. The theory
predicts the observation of this neighbor jogging between
6:00 and 7:00 a.m. Until such a sighting is made, other ex-
planations such as tennis playing, newspaper getting, etc.,
could also be considered.
A theory also can take the form of a model, a representa-
tion of reality invented to account for observed phenom-
ena. Model formulation is an attempt to provide a visual-
ization or analogue that helps one better understand the
nature and interactions of the entities involved in the phe-
nomenon. In this example, one might envision the neigh-
bor dressed in jogger regalia-a sweatband, sweatshirt,
sweatpants, and jogging shoes. This could be called the
Jogger Model of the neighbor.
The same reasoning process is used by chemists. For ex-
ample, after numerous determinations of mass relation-
ships in chemical reactions, chemists formulated the laws
of Conservation of Mass, Constant Composition, and Mul-
tiple Proportions. To explain these laws, they proposed the
Atomic Theory, which postulates entities known as atoms.
Limited versus Universal Theories
What is the status of a Jogger Model or an Atomic Theory
once the postulated entities (joggers, atoms) are actually
observed?
If the next door neighbor is observed to be a jogger, the
Jogger Model takes on the status of fact only for that par-
ticular jogger. While other individuals who leave their
rooms at 6:00 a.m. and return at 7:00 a.m. out of breath
may also be joggers, still others may be tennis players,
newspaper getters, or even previously unimagined types of
individuals. A theory regarding a single jogger is a limited
theory, limited to a particular phenomenon. The sighting
of one or even many such joggers does not mean that every
early rising, out-of-breath individual is also a jogger.
Even though atomic theory has been able to explain the
behavior of all matter studied thus far, and, even though in
all samples scanned by microscopes, the existence of the
postulated atoms has been verified, it must be considered
at least conceivable that entities other than atoms might
be discovered, particles which also explain the laws of Con-
servation of Mass, Constant Composition, and Multiple
Proportions. Scientific theories can never become scientific
facts, because a scientific theory deals with all instances of
a phenomenon; i.e., it is a universal theory. While the be-
havior of all matter may indeed be explained by atomic
theory, there is no way of being certain that this is the case.
Such is the open-ended nature of science.
Literature Cited
1. Binnig, G.; Rohrer, H. Sci. Amer. 1985, 253 (2), 50-56.
2. Wickramasinghe, H, Sci. Amer. 1986,261 (4), 98-105.
Volume 69 Number 9 September 1992 741