should the scientific community change the word "theory"?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by jeremy belcher on February 2, 2012 at 8:16pm

Yes I know you agree, however, you did not think of it. It is a debate that has been discussed on numerous occasions and  continues to produce debate whenever and wherever it "raises it's head" as can be seen in the following youtube exchange between Dawkins and the audience at ( I think ) a book launch. I apolpogise for the sound quality

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRDsNjhZn34

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by matthew greenberg on February 2, 2012 at 8:20pm

I didn't mean I originally thought of this idea.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael OL on February 2, 2012 at 7:16pm

For the layman, a "theory" (as mentioned by other posters already) is just a conjecture, perhaps with some evidential support, but not enough to be a thorough causal explanation.  So to call something "just a theory", implies lack of adequate support.  It's a kind of insult. This is unfortunate, but isn't really such a problem once we think carefully.  What is more of a problem, as regards evolution vs. creationism, is consequences of the scientific usage of the term "theory".  This can open the window for some one to claim that evolution isn't a theory in the scientific sense....

Even within science, there is disagreement on what's a theory.  In physics, a theory is generally a collection of equations and their solutions, where one can prove that the solutions are correct consequences of the starting assumptions.  But the starting assumptions need not be correct, and the solutions to the equations need not necessary be useful or meaningful.  That's one view.  Alternatively, the result of these mathematical manipulations earns the moniker "theory" only when the mathematical predictions are confirmed by experiment.  So, in one interpretation, general relativity became a theory as soon as its mathematical self-consistency was demonstrated.  But in the competing interpretation, it only became a theory once we obtained experimental evidence corroborating it.

In mathematics, a "theory" is just a collection of postulates, definitions and their true consequences (the "theorems").  So, branches of mathematics such as real analysis or algebraic topology are "theories".  They are proven in the sense of internal consistency, but strictly speaking they make no claim regarding the physical world, nor do they care.

In engineering, a "theory" is a collection of simplifications to the governing equations (often derived by physicists), sometimes solved with the aid of a computer, which allow the calculation of physical quantities useful in designing some physical object (an airplane, a chemical reactor, a transistor radio).  A theory is true if it systematically approximates experimental observation... and the admissible margin of error is often quite large.

But we do have to be very careful in refuting the religionists' claims that evolution is "not a theory".  The claim is that for a body of knowledge to be a theory, it must be corroborated by experiment (the physicists' second definition).  And since an experiment to corroborate evolution would presumably take thousands of years (at a minimum), the gotcha-objection is that evolution - even if completely true and the best available explanation for what we CAN observe - lacks the credentials to be called a "theory".  It is in this matter that I personally have not yet worked out a good retort to my scientist-friends who have the misfortune of having bought into creationism. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by matthew greenberg on February 2, 2012 at 7:31pm

i'm not so sure i agree with you.  evolution has been tested in many experiments, all confirming the theory.  Lenski's experiments with e-coli studied evolution over 50,000+ generations.  the experiment to attempt to domesticate the silver fox is a powerful example.  also, there have been experiments on lizards and fish that have all seen evolution work in the laboratory.  it's true to see macro evolution occur in the natural world may very well take thousands if not millions of years, but the theory is both testable and provable in human lifetimes, and has been done on many occassions. 

 

from what i can gather, scientists are reluctant to call anything that they prove to be fact in the classical sense of the word.  math is the only thing that can be completely 100% verified.  physics uses the word theory a bit more liberally than the rest of the scientific community (correct me if i'm wrong), as they have the Big Bang Theory (still debatable) and String Theory (very debatable).  they are sound theories with a lot of good information, but nowhere near as credible as Evolution, Relativity, Germ, Plate Tectonics, etc. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dogly on February 2, 2012 at 8:16pm

Matthew, I wish it were a different word.  The church has been very successful in using this misunderstanding to it's gain.  But, I sure don't think theorum is any improvement.  Let's all try to think up a way to express the FACT of evolution.  We can't leave these things up to Dawkins anymore.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe C on February 3, 2012 at 2:01pm

Ultimately it's probably not so much the words we are arguing over but the deeper ideas underneath the word. So i don't think any [appropriate] name would make a big political impact.

By calling our working models "theories" we're really focusing attention on the strengths of science: that there is always room to challenge, debate, test, and refine our ideas. Ideally, we take nothing for granted and etch nothing in stone. 

That's in direct conflict with most conservative religious philosophy, that feels life in a world without absolute, unambiguous Truths is dangerous and ineffective. And anything short of a Truth is not worthy of challenging their Biblical Truth. I'd feel uncomfortable calling our scientific discoveries Scientific Truth because we don't fully know all the ins-and-outs of what's going on, even with those models that we are VERY confident in like gravity and evolution and so on.  With such direct conflict in the values placed on our models, i doubt we'd ever be able to describe our ideas in a way that will impress conservative religions enough to respectfully coexist with our ideas!

That said, if there is a commonly understood english word that describes something people are extremely confident in but still not a total given, i would certainly be open to using it :-D

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page