Prescribed title #2:

Facts are needed to establish theories, but theories are needed to make
sense of facts Discuss this with regards to two areas of knowledge.
Throughout the years the world and its immense complexities have attempted to be
understood by humans. Homo sapiens are curious and knowledge seeking creatures;
we continuously search for explanations to things that we dont quite understand. This
pursuit of knowledge has led to the idea that, facts are needed to establish theories,
but theories are needed to make sense of facts. Theories are described as
evidence-based, well-substantiated explanations accounting for known facts or some
aspect of the natural world acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested
and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Facts on the other hand are a
truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true and
undisputable. I agree with the statement that theories can be established from facts and
those theories do provide an explanation as to how certain things work or happen; in
other words, these theories provide justification for facts from which a theory builds
upon. I believe there are cases when facts are needed to establish theories, but
theories are needed to make sense of facts is not always true or applicable to the
occurrence, event or situation.

Theories are most commonly used in the natural sciences. We associate theories with
hypothesis and the scientific method which we assume only has to do with the sciences.
This, however, is not the case, because theories are ideas that come from what we
observe. These theories can be established from any observable facts in all areas of

knowledge such as natural sciences, math, art and religious knowledge systems among
others.

Within the natural sciences - when we are dealing with the realm of the known - we
know something is happening through use of our sense of perception, specifically sight.
As the saying suggest, Seeing is believing, - we know that certain events and
occurrences are true because we see them happen. For example, when we are holding
something in our hand and let go of it, that object will fall to the ground. This is a fact. It
is indisputably verifiable that, when released, objects will fall to the ground. We are able
to repeatedly conduct trials where we drop objects and see them fall to the ground.
However, we are uncertain of how and why objects fall to the ground when they are
dropped. This is why theories are there to explain the how and why of occurring events.
Newtons law of universal gravitational pull is the theory that helps explain why objects
fall to the ground.

In my biology class, we learned about Genetics. One of the most important theories in
genetics is genetic inheritance or the fundamental theory of heredity. The theory states
that inheritance involves the passing of discrete units of inheritance, or genes, from
parents to offspring. The theory arose from an experiment on pea plants conducted by
Gregor Mendel. Through observation, Mendel saw how these plants gained physical
characteristics from the parent peas. Replicating his experiment, Mendel could state
for a fact that offsprings of the peas he was experimenting on gained the physical

characteristics of the parent peas. Built on these facts, the theory of heredity or genetic
inheritance extends beyond plants. It has been also used to explain how humans and
other species gain both their physical and genetic characteristics through inheritance.
This theory has aided in understanding how and why offspring tend to look similar to
their parents and why we inherit some attributes from our fathers and some from our
mothers. In this case the theory presents itself as a replicable approach to explaining a
set of facts pertaining to genetic inheritance. The theory is then used to explain another
set of facts that maintain the same basic principal.

The theory may be changed or altered if presented with new facts or perspectives that
allow for a better comprehension of the theory and in order for that theory to explain all
of the facts pertaining to the same condition. The theory may also be changed by a
different theory that attempts to explain another set of facts which happen to relate. In
this particular example, the theory is generalized to explain inheritance amongst
organisms. This could be changed in the face of new facts and findings that were not
available at the time the theory was created.

Theories are not restricted to natural sciences alone. In mathematics there are also
theories created to provide an explanation to angles, length, distances, and other
measurements. These particular theories, however, come in the form of equations.
Creating an equation is especially hard when the equation (theory) is intended to be
applied to various problems pertaining to the same concept and yield the correct results

each time. In this particular case, the equation would be the theory, the problem the
facts and the solution is what the equation is trying to achieve through replication. In my
math class we learned about the Pythagorean theorem during our unit on trigonometry.
The theorem is a statement about triangles containing a right angle. It states that: "The
area of the square built upon the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of
the areas of the squares upon the remaining sides." Mathematics creates the equation,
a2 + b2 = c2, which provides the explanation as to how and why the sum or difference of
two sides of a triangle is equal to the remaining side.

Sense of perception allows us to observe and obtain concrete facts; then create a
theory using those facts which we then use to try to explain a phenomenon. Once we
have the theory. we can explain the next phenomenon and a subsequent phenomenon
because it also has facts. It was once said It is a capital mistake to theorize before one
has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit
facts (page 4, A Scandal in Bohemia, Arthur Conan Doyle). Although, what if the facts
that we have dont add up but we still want a theory and we dont have any new facts to
apply to? Then perhaps we have to use more faith, where we dont reapply the theory,
but simply to explain something that is really unexplainable. Moreover, when we are
dealing with the realm of the unknown we dont necessarily need facts to establish
theories. When creating a theory that is not based on concrete facts, we are trying to
imagine an array of future possibilities or explain things we can not see or touch or do
an experiment on, then the statement that facts are needed to establish theories, but

theories are needed to make sense of facts does not work or cannot necessarily be
applied. In these situations we are trying to look beyond what we already know. The
manner in which these theories are established rely much more on our personal
knowledge. Creating theories that do not stem from our sense of perception or reason,
but rather on imagination, faith and memory.

In the natural sciences theories exist that were established without concrete facts. Such
as the theory of the multiverse, the hypothetical set of infinite possible universes,
including the universe in which we live. There are no concrete facts that this is true or
possible. There is also no way of testing the theory nor can we use sense of perception
to observe if there is any evidence supporting the theory.

Another example in which the statement does not apply is one discussed In my class of
theory of knowledge. I was discussing with my classmates about art and memory and
that there is indeed a limit to our imagination and the assumption that our imagination
has no limits is wrong. We wondered if we could come up with a new color and go
beyond what we already know. In a way, we were attempting to theorize if it was
possible to create a new color. However, we realized that it is impossible because you
cannot invent something out of thin air. All our ideas, thoughts and imagination comes
from knowledge already stored in our memory. Although this may be true for us,
decades ago, people mixed colors to create new shades of that color, but now it is likely

that all colors have been mixed and shades have been found, therefore there is no way
we can create a new color.

As seen, there are various examples of cases where facts are needed to establish
theories, but theories are needed to make sense of facts, does apply. However, there
are also cases in which it does not. Furthermore, theories can then be divided into two
categories: 1) There are the theories that are used to explain facts, things that are in our
immediate presence and 2) There are theories which are used to predict future
possibilities, unestablished truths, and account for things that we are unable to see,
touch, or experiment on. Thereby the statement that facts are needed to establish
theories, but theories are needed to make sense of facts, is true to the extent that when
we have concrete facts, and a theory trying to explain it, but much less true when we
are trying to go beyond what we already know.

Word count: 1,536

Bibliography
Doyle, Arthur Conan, and P. James. Macaluso. A Scandal in Bohemia. London: MX,
2014. Print.
Howell, Elizabeth. "Parallel Universes: Theories & Evidence." Space.com. N.p., 28 Apr.
2016. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.
"Law of Gravity - Physics." N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Nov. 2016.
The University of Waikato. "Mendel's Principles of Inheritance | Biotech Learning Hub."
Biotechnology Learning Hub RSS. N.p., 16 Aug. 2011. Web. 05 Nov. 2016.
Middleton, Phil, and David Pilgrim. "Nigger (the Word), a Brief History." Welcome To
"Voices That Guide Us" Personal Narratives. N.p., June 2001. Web. 25 Oct. 2016.
Morris, Stephanie J. "The Pythagorean Theorem." The Pythagorean Theorem. N.p., n.d.
Web. 06 Nov. 2016.
"The Definition of Theory." Dictionary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2016.