The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
should the scientific community change the word "theory"?
while i'm not a scientist, it seems to me that the word that scientists use to describe their ultimate accomplishment is inherintly flawed. they must be as tired of the misinterpretation of "theory" by the uninformed or uneducated as we are. given that they spend innordinate amounts of time correcting the layperson who equates scientific theory to guesswork, why don't they come up with a new word for theory?
in Dawkins' the God Delusion, he added an intro to the paperback version that discussed this. his minor modification was to call it a "theorum", much like the usage in mathematics. i don't feel like that is good enough.
at the same time, i don't have a better word. i'm open to ideas though...
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on -
It's not the word that has to change - it's the people who think they know what it means and how to use it. What too many of the believers' community think of as a theory is really a hypothesis, a proposal which may or may not have sufficient standing, based on fact, evidence, and analysis. They can just as easily say, "It's only a theorem" as anything else, because they want to be dismissive of anything that doesn't support their position.
My attitude remains: CALL THEM ON IT, whenever they attempt to push that brand of tripe. Remind them of relativity theory and gravitational theory and germ theory and how well they work. And if they want to listen, they'll listen and if they don't, they won't. A change in terminology is not going to solve this problem.
-
Permalink Reply by Pat on -
Change the word? No.
It wouldn't matter what you changed it to.Those who refuse to accept legitimate scientific evidence are not going to accept it over a change in vocabulary. It wouldn't matter what you changed it to. Some tambourine banging, anti-intellectual theist would twist the new term and make things up about it (e.g. "LIE" like they always do), and then rationalists would worry about the next term to use. Change it, and you've given up ground to those who want to drag us back into medieval superstition.
Loren is correct. Call them out on it, and let everyone know what ignorant and dangerous nonsense they are peddling.
-
Permalink Reply by Jude Johnson on -
Yes, it is so aggravating!
I've done as Loren has suggested many times. I ask if they accept the theories of gravity and mathematics. I tell them that the layman's definition is not at all the same as the scientific definition. I explain that the theory must be supported by proven facts, etc, etc...
It always falls on deaf ears. We'll likely never stop hearing that alternate "theories" should be taught alongside the theory of evolution. The only people who accept the difference are those who already accept evolution.
It's interesting that Wiktionary actually addresses our concerns specifically:
-----------------
In scientific discourse, the sense “unproven conjecture” is discouraged (with hypothesis or conjecture preferred), due to unintentional ambiguity and intentional equivocation with the sense “well-developed statement or structure”. This is particularly found with reference to the “theory of evolution”, which opponents disparage with “it’s just a theory [conjecture]”, while proponents retort that in this context, theory means instead “well-developed, well-established”.
-----------------
As Loren said, I don't really think a new term will help the situation. From my experience, the folks who misuse it are so close-minded and ignorant that it seems nothing can sink in. If people are determined to believe the earth is flat, not even a trip around the world can cure them.
On the bright side:
Even here in Indiana (where almost everyone I know is a theist), I've confirmed that I've changed the way some people think about atheists. While they're still believers, they no longer think atheists are immoral or evil. When a catholic coworker told me so last week, I responded, "So you no longer think it's ridiculous that some people don't believe in a set of ideas for which there is no proof whatsoever." He smiled and confirmed.
Baby steps...
-
Permalink Reply by matthew greenberg on
-
"It's not the word that has to change - it's the people who think they know what it means..."
i guess i'm not optimistic this well EVER happen. until it does, Creation Science will continue to infect or at least threaten to infect our public schools. ya know, b/c it's another "theory".
you are all probably right about this, and it is simple frustration that made me think of this topic.
-
Permalink Reply by Marco Conti on -
It would be nice, but it wouldn't work. For starters, it would be controversial and would take a long time to catch on, if ever; rewriting all the textbooks would take years and the word we would need to choose to replace "Theory" would have to be unassailable.
The very change could also be distorted to accuse the scientists of being "insecure" about their own terminology.
One of the few benefits of the misinterpretation of the word "theory" is that anyone with a smartphone can look it up and instantly make the counterpart look stupid and ignorant.
What it comes down to is the dismal state of education. Politician pander to their base about the teaching of "math and science" in schools. What they should be teaching is critical thinking instead of forcing students to learn arithmetic (what they understand as "math"). It would be nice also if homeschooling was redefined and they had to adhere to stricter standards.
-
Permalink Reply by booklover on -
Why even bother, 'they' will purposely misunderstand every time. And a lot of them WON'T get it because they can't.
-
Permalink Reply by jeremy belcher on
-
I can understand and sympathise with your frustration, as cretinists are not above apppropriating scientific terminology in order to give a scientific gloss to their self-evident crapola. For example, I watched a creation "scientist" tell his audience that the light even from the farthest star took only 24 hours to reach earth, utter crap, of course, but he then went on to announce that his claim had been "peer reviewed" and accepted by other scientists in the same field. Which is precisely what Behe claimed during his Bacterial Flagellum debacle during the Dover School Board trial, however, what they don't reveal is that the "peer review" is carried out by other cretinists (Behe's claim's were supported by the Discovery Institute) the aforementioned creationist "scientitific" claim was supported by Creation Ministries International (CMI)
Thus they not only misrepresent the word theory when used in it's correct scientific context they also claim (when it suits them of course) that their nonsense is scientific in and of itself. With this in mind does anyone else think that Richard Dawkins is correct when he thinks it is about time we dropped the word theory when referring to evolution and simply refer to is as "Evoulutionary Fact". Or is booklover correct to say it won't make any difference as they are going to lie anyway?. I'm not sure myself.
-
Permalink Reply by James M. Martin on -
In answer to your question as to whether the scientific community should stop referring to evolution as a "theory," most emphatically No! This would deprive the rest of us from enjoyment in pointing out to these dolts who think Adam rode a brontosaurus that gravitation is a theory, too, yet we don't seem to be falling off the face of the earth. (BTW, psssst, the earth is not flat, no matter what the Catholic Church keeps insisting).
-
Permalink Reply by jeremy belcher on
-
Quite so, it is fun to show them up for the idiot's/liars that they obviously are,however, when a leading neo-Darwinian expert of Dawkins stature gives voice to his (understandable) frustration, perhaps it should give us a moments pause. And then, perhaps, re- consider our (or at least my)position as a non-scientist and take him seriously.
-
-
I would hate to throw out my "evolution is just a theory - like gravity" t shirt, so...
-
Permalink Reply by jeremy belcher on
-
As much as I would hate it if you were to waste your hard earned cash on a possibly now "null" statement on your t-shirt, your original question was "should the scientific community change the word theory" and perhaps the most famous public scientist (since Sagan) agrees( well he agrees where evolution is concerned). I just believe it's worth thinking about thats all
-
-
I obviously agree, hence I thought of it!
The other responders make good points though. And I still can't think of a better word.
Support Nexus
Click to Buy Amazon items and help A|N
Advertisements
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
Loren Miller replied to George S.'s discussion Are Christian Fundamentalists Teaching Genocide in Our Schools? in the group Atheist News
© 2012 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Brother Richard.
