[Script Info]
Title: 
[Events]
Format: Layer, Start, End, Style, Name, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Effect, Text
Dialogue: 0,0:00:08.12,0:00:11.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Chat with a friend about\Nan established scientific theory
Dialogue: 0,0:00:11.45,0:00:15.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and she might reply,\N"Well, that's just a theory."
Dialogue: 0,0:00:15.69,0:00:18.100,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But a conversation about\Nan established scientific law
Dialogue: 0,0:00:18.100,0:00:22.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,rarely ends with,\N"Well, that's just a law."
Dialogue: 0,0:00:22.99,0:00:24.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Why is that?
Dialogue: 0,0:00:24.35,0:00:27.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What is the difference \Nbetween a theory and a law,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:27.50,0:00:29.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and is one better?
Dialogue: 0,0:00:29.72,0:00:32.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Scientific laws and theories\Nhave different jobs to do.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:32.92,0:00:37.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A scientific law predicts\Nthe results of certain initial conditions.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:37.19,0:00:40.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It might predict your unborn \Nchild's possible hair colors,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:40.92,0:00:45.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or how far a baseball travels\Nwhen launched at a certain angle.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:45.89,0:00:50.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In contrast, a theory tries to provide\Nthe most logical explanation
Dialogue: 0,0:00:50.42,0:00:53.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,about why things happen as they do.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:53.70,0:00:56.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A theory might invoke\Ndominant and recessive genes
Dialogue: 0,0:00:56.75,0:01:01.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to explain how brown-haired parents\Nended up with a red-headed child,
Dialogue: 0,0:01:01.72,0:01:07.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or use gravity to shed light \Non the parabolic trajectory of a baseball.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:07.08,0:01:08.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In simplest terms,
Dialogue: 0,0:01:08.27,0:01:13.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a law predicts what happens\Nwhile a theory proposes why.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:13.38,0:01:16.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A theory will never grow up into a law,
Dialogue: 0,0:01:16.33,0:01:20.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,though the development of one\Noften triggers progress on the other.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:20.41,0:01:25.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In the 17th century, Johannes Kepler\Ntheorized cosmic musical harmonies
Dialogue: 0,0:01:25.74,0:01:29.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to explain the nature of planetary orbits.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:29.46,0:01:33.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,He developed three brilliant laws\Nof planetary motion
Dialogue: 0,0:01:33.18,0:01:36.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,while he was studying decades \Nof precise astronomical data
Dialogue: 0,0:01:36.87,0:01:40.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in an effort to find support \Nfor his theory.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:40.76,0:01:43.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,While his three laws \Nare still in use today,
Dialogue: 0,0:01:43.49,0:01:48.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,gravity replaced his theory of harmonics\Nto explain the planets' motions.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:48.92,0:01:51.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,How did Kepler get part of it wrong?
Dialogue: 0,0:01:51.17,0:01:54.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Well, we weren't handed \Na universal instruction manual.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:54.57,0:01:59.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Instead, we continually propose,\Nchallenge, revise, or even replace
Dialogue: 0,0:01:59.62,0:02:03.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,our scientific ideas \Nas a work in progress.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:03.56,0:02:05.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Laws usually resist change
Dialogue: 0,0:02:05.49,0:02:09.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,since they wouldn't have been adopted\Nif they didn't fit the data,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:09.15,0:02:14.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,though we occasionally revise laws \Nin the face of new unexpected information.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:14.77,0:02:18.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A theory's acceptance, however,\Nis often gladiatorial.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:18.84,0:02:22.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Multiple theories may compete\Nto supply the best explanation
Dialogue: 0,0:02:22.60,0:02:24.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of a new scientific discovery.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:24.98,0:02:26.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Upon further research,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:26.39,0:02:31.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,scientists tend to favor the theory \Nthat can explain most of the data,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:31.35,0:02:34.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,though there may still \Nbe gaps in our understanding.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:34.52,0:02:37.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Scientists also like \Nwhen a new theory successfully predicts
Dialogue: 0,0:02:37.96,0:02:40.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,previously unobserved phenomena,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:40.83,0:02:44.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,like when Dmitri Mendeleev's theory\Nabout the periodic table
Dialogue: 0,0:02:44.54,0:02:48.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,predicted several undiscovered elements.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:48.04,0:02:51.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The term scientific theory\Ncovers a broad swath.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:51.22,0:02:55.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Some theories are new ideas \Nwith little experimental evidence
Dialogue: 0,0:02:55.36,0:02:58.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that scientists eye with suspicion,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:58.00,0:02:59.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or even ridicule.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:59.67,0:03:00.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Other theories,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:00.98,0:03:04.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,like those involving the Big Bang, \Nevolution, and climate change,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:04.86,0:03:08.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have endured years \Nof experimental confirmation
Dialogue: 0,0:03:08.16,0:03:13.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,before earning acceptance by the majority \Nof the scientific community.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:13.14,0:03:16.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You would need to learn more about\Na specific explanation
Dialogue: 0,0:03:16.37,0:03:19.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,before you'd know how well \Nscientists perceive it.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:19.93,0:03:23.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The word theory\Nalone doesn't tell you.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:23.69,0:03:24.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In full disclosure,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:24.84,0:03:28.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the scientific community has bet\Non the wrong horse before:
Dialogue: 0,0:03:28.34,0:03:29.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,alchemy,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:29.24,0:03:30.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the geocentric model,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:30.79,0:03:32.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,spontaneous generation,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:32.48,0:03:34.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and the interstellar aether
Dialogue: 0,0:03:34.14,0:03:39.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are just a few of many theories \Ndiscarded in favor of better ones.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:39.41,0:03:42.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But even incorrect theories \Nhave their value.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:42.12,0:03:46.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Discredited alchemy was the birthplace\Nof modern chemistry,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:46.41,0:03:48.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and medicine made great strides
Dialogue: 0,0:03:48.08,0:03:53.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,long before we understood the roles\Nof bacteria and viruses.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:53.18,0:03:57.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That said, better theories often lead\Nto exciting new discoveries
Dialogue: 0,0:03:57.38,0:04:01.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that were unimaginable \Nunder the old way of thinking.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:01.34,0:04:04.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Nor should we assume \Nall of our current scientific theories
Dialogue: 0,0:04:04.26,0:04:06.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,will stand the test of time.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:06.60,0:04:11.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A single unexpected result is enough\Nto challenge the status quo.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:11.05,0:04:14.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,However, vulnerability to some potentially\Nbetter explanation
Dialogue: 0,0:04:14.96,0:04:18.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,doesn't weaken \Na current scientific theory.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:18.24,0:04:23.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Instead, it shields science from becoming\Nunchallenged dogma.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:23.12,0:04:26.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A good scientific law \Nis a finely-tuned machine,
Dialogue: 0,0:04:26.74,0:04:28.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,accomplishing its task brilliantly
Dialogue: 0,0:04:28.76,0:04:31.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but ignorant of why it works\Nas well as it does.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:31.75,0:04:36.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A good scientific theory is a bruised,\Nbut unbowed, fighter
Dialogue: 0,0:04:36.56,0:04:41.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,who risks defeat if unable to overpower\Nor adapt to the next challenger.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:41.81,0:04:43.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Though different,
Dialogue: 0,0:04:43.06,0:04:47.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,science needs both laws and theories \Nto understand the whole picture.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:47.85,0:04:51.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So next time someone comments that\Nit's just a theory,
Dialogue: 0,0:04:51.09,0:04:53.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,challenge them to go nine rounds\Nwith the champ
Dialogue: 0,0:04:53.95,0:04:55.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and see if they can do any better.