Framing science: redefining "theory"

[swansont]

OK, I had ranted elsewhere about the phrasing "only a theory" and then blogged about it. The topic comes up a lot in certain clashes, but the specifics are not relevant here.

 

ecoli raises a point: "Maybe we should just change the terminology we tell the public… will they shut up then?" and the comments section isn't the best place for a discussion. So here goes:

 

No, I don't think they will, and I'm not convinced it's a good idea. In this case there might have been an opportunity to just say "Don't worry, evolution will be presented as a theory" and pre-empt some of the controversy, all the while the scientific-literate folks could stifle a smirk because we know what the word means.

 

But changing terminology? Such as calling any politically controversial theory a law? I don't think it works. Saying e.g. it's the law of evolution isn't going to quiet many detractors, even though that's one of the arguments they use (it's not a law like gravitation!) But they don't know what a law is, either, and I think they'll just come up with another vacuous, fallacy-riddled argument to replace that one. It's not like there's a shortage of those.

 

I think in the long run you'll lose credibility if it's discovered that you're doing word substitution in order to influence people. It's the low road already taken by the cdesign proponentsists.

[Klaynos]

Again, as with so many of these things it comes down to education, why is it that in our schools from quite an early age kids arn't taught what a theory really is? Surely the concept is not that hard, I volunteer with 10-18 year olds kids, I think next time I see them I might teach them the true meaning and see how hard they find it...

[Pangloss]

Changing terminology was also tried by creationists, I mean intelligent design proponents, I mean the cdesign proponentsists. How'd that work out for them? Can we not take a page from their book?

 

This touches on something that I think is really important here, which is that, by and large, it's a GOOD thing that society has had this huge debate over evolution's place in the school. It's not just about hashing it out and putting it behind us, either, it's about getting the point across as to WHY creationism shouldn't be "taught alongside as equal" and WHY it isn't the same kind of thing -- this wasn't just a matter of science education, there was a disparity in comprehension at a lower level than that. By having the discussion, and having the issue be front-and-center for a while, we had a rare and important opportunity to "do some real science education", in a great way.

 

And it WORKED! People keep forgetting that, but I think it's really important. It really sunk in with a lot of christian conservatives, as well as their kids. It's going to pay off dividends for at least a couple of generations. Hell it may NEVER come up again.

 

So the next time one of these things comes up and people start groaning, why not instead cheer and jump up and down and get EXCITED about the opportunity to teach people how things really are?

 

We should continue to confront these things, front and center. Even if we lose now and then. It's worth it.

[iNow]

Yeah, but how do we get the general populace to understand the true elegance and scope of a well supported and thoroughly tested scientific theory?

 

 

 

Oh, it's just a theory.

Yeah? Well you're just a moron.

 

 

[Pangloss]

At risk of digressing too far, that's one of the best arguments for making college accessible and affordable for every single high school student in the country, IMO.

[bascule]

"Maybe we should just change the terminology we tell the public… will they shut up then?"

 

Richard Dawkins presents the "fact of evolution" to people with the (nonexistent) scientific understanding of Ted Haggard. I think, in the end, this just makes him look like a dick to those people. "Oh, you're taking the theory of evolution and dressing it up as a fact now? What changed your mind? All those transitional fossils you never found?"

 

I think there's a rejection of the elitism in the idea that the only people who are qualified to argue against scientists are other scientists, or at the very least people who able to present their arguments in a rational, falsifiable, scientific manner and in that regard understand a problem at least as well as scientists. They do not see the advantage of scientific answers to a problem to which they already have unscientific answers to believe in. Who are the scientists to argue that scientific understanding is the best answer to-date, just because science's answers are evidence-based, cohesive, demonstrable, and falsifiable?

 

Within this demographic are a large number of people simply reject scientific knowledge despite its role in the multitude of artifacts they rely upon for their daily existence. They take the gifts science has brought them for granted because they are too stupid to understand science's role in their existence, and will hypocritically lambaste scientific knowledge because its conclusions disagree with their personal beliefs, while at the same time reaping the rewards scientific knowledge has brought them. Rebranding ideas which disagree with their beliefs, under any label, will still not change the fact that these ideas disagree with their beliefs, so they will remain unilaterally opposed to them.

 

I think it takes a certain degree of intelligence to realize that we owe the extraordinary convenience of the modern world to science, that behind Wal-Mart, the tee-vee, the water you drink, the food you eat, and the juice that runs the lights and all the gizmos in your home is the panoply of scientific knowldge directing their operation which exists as part of an single, cohesive, interrelational network which has managed to survive all criticism to date, among a network of people who are intimately familiar with the majority of known criticisms.

[Daecon]

What about coining a prefix for when "theory" is used in the scientific sense.

 

Metatheory? Supertheory? Personally I like the sound of metatheory, but I'm not sure if the prefix would be appropriate for the definition.

 

The metatheory of evolution by natural selection, the metatheory of gravity by spacetime curvature, etc.

 

[edit] Darn, that word has already been used.

[swansont]

This touches on something that I think is really important here, which is that, by and large, it's a GOOD thing that society has had this huge debate over evolution's place in the school. It's not just about hashing it out and putting it behind us, either, it's about getting the point across as to WHY creationism shouldn't be "taught alongside as equal" and WHY it isn't the same kind of thing -- this wasn't just a matter of science education, there was a disparity in comprehension at a lower level than that. By having the discussion, and having the issue be front-and-center for a while, we had a rare and important opportunity to "do some real science education", in a great way.

 

And it WORKED! People keep forgetting that, but I think it's really important. It really sunk in with a lot of christian conservatives, as well as their kids. It's going to pay off dividends for at least a couple of generations. Hell it may NEVER come up again.

 

Wait, what? Never come up again? The Dover trial is long over, and we have had Florida racing with Texas for the last several months to see who can achieve cranio-rectal inversion first.

 

What about coining a prefix for when "theory" is used in the scientific sense.

 

Metatheory? Supertheory? Personally I like the sound of metatheory, but I'm not sure if the prefix would be appropriate for the definition.

 

The metatheory of evolution by natural selection, the metatheory of gravity by spacetime curvature, etc.

 

[edit] Darn, that word has already been used.

 

But my contention is that terminology isn't the problem. Very few people, I think, are going to be swayed by that. The underlying problem is that they have decided the theory is wrong without understanding it. The argument that "it's just a theory" is a symptom of the problem, but not the underlying cause, which is an ideology being used as a filter to decide what's true and not true. Science is being treated as a la carte, accepting some but rejecting the parts that offend their sensibilities, and it simply doesn't work that way.

[Phi for All]

I think the culprit here is the term "conspiracy theory". It's a nasty, vicious meme that has simultaneously discredited legitimate concerns over many questionable actions made by those in powerful positions *and* scientific methodology. Now whenever anyone uses the term "theory" you can hear the quotes around it even if you can't see the four-finger gesture.

[Royston]

Despite the term 'scientific theory' being bastardized (through whatever dilution the term has undergone), it's really just a lack of understanding of science itself, and an appreciation of the rigor that's required in deriving a scientific theory that causes the problem.

 

If a student does understand the scientific method, and yet still chooses to cherry pick which theory agrees with their world view, I would class that as worse, than a simple lack of knowledge, which can be rectified...the former will be a lot more tricky, if they've already decided what constitutes a 'scientific theory' over another 'scientific theory.'

[Pangloss]

Wait, what? Never come up again? The Dover trial is long over, and we have had Florida racing with Texas for the last several months to see who can achieve cranio-rectal inversion first.

 

Well don't get me wrong, I totally agree the subject may come back up again with a vengeance, and the logical conclusion of that concern is that we should remain watchful for more outbreaks.

 

But look how different the situations you mentioned are. At least in the case of Florida, which I've seen a lot of localized reporting on, they're acting from the perspective of the LOST Dover case. And really most of the story there is about SUPPORTERS of evolution trying to reframe the subject so that it's less objectionable to religious types, not remove the subject from school.

 

The point being that that's a far cry from where we were in this country before Dover. So I think we should celebrate that success, because look at how much better the situation is because of it. If we hadn't fought that battle, we'd not have made as much progress at this point.

 

Isn't it better to have fought and won than to have a lot more disagreement simmering just beneath the surface? With that many more parents undermining school lessons at home, and that many more children nodding in the classroom but feeling differently once they leave the schoolhouse?

 

I don't mean to change the subject, I just think it's an important point.

[Mr Skeptic]

Here's my proposal for new terminology: Place the theory in a class based on how likely it is to be wrong.

Class   Maximum Error Likelihood
0        100% 
1        10% 
2        1% 
3        0.1% 
...
n        [math]10^{-n}[/math] * 100%

 

So then a Class 0 theory would be a conjecture, hypothesis, wild-assed guess, etc. A Class 1 theory would at least be somewhat supported. A Class 9 theory would have one chance in a billion of being wrong, or less. You could have fractional classes if you wanted. Then people can argue about what class a theory is in, rather than whether it is a hypothesis, theory, or law.

 

Alternatively, the class of a theory could be based on the number of significant figures that it has been tested to; the accuracy of its results. Or a combination of both.

[YT2095]

less objectionable to religious types

 

now This is interesting, the thread is about Definition and how "unfairly" it seems to have been altered.

 

and yet you`ll spout off words like "Religious types" without qualifying it, with at least "SOME religious types"

 

it`s all well and good crying about it and doing the POMPOM* act, but if you don`t afford the same Courtesy Back, then the Joke`s on YOU!

 

 

 

*POMPOM = (Poor Old Me, Poor Old Me)

[CDarwin]

Is this really necessary at all? There is a "fact" of evolution. Evolution happens. It's an observable fact. The theory is something different entirely. It is the set of explanations for various facets of the observable world based around the fact of evolution.

 

Why can't we just say that?

 

So then a Class 0 theory would be a conjecture, hypothesis, wild-assed guess, etc. A Class 1 theory would at least be somewhat supported. A Class 9 theory would have one chance in a billion of being wrong, or less. You could have fractional classes if you wanted. Then people can argue about what class a theory is in, rather than whether it is a hypothesis, theory, or law.

 

Alternatively, the class of a theory could be based on the number of significant figures that it has been tested to; the accuracy of its results. Or a combination of both.

 

But hypotheses, theories, and laws are qualitatively different things. They aren't levels on a sliding scale.

[swansont]

Despite the term 'scientific theory' being bastardized (through whatever dilution the term has undergone), it's really just a lack of understanding of science itself, and an appreciation of the rigor that's required in deriving a scientific theory that causes the problem.

 

If a student does understand the scientific method, and yet still chooses to cherry pick which theory agrees with their world view, I would class that as worse, than a simple lack of knowledge, which can be rectified...the former will be a lot more tricky, if they've already decided what constitutes a 'scientific theory' over another 'scientific theory.'

 

It looks like what I mentioned earlier actually may have been what happened. "Scientific theory of evolution" was the wording added as a "compromise," and of course that represents no budging at all from the scientific side. Perhaps that's the answer to at least placate those who are confused about the definition, as opposed to the ones that are just plain dishonest. It does draw a distinction with the lay use of the word.

 

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/02/evolution-wins.html

[Pangloss]

now This is interesting, the thread is about Definition and how "unfairly" it seems to have been altered.

 

and yet you`ll spout off words like "Religious types" without qualifying it, with at least "SOME religious types"

 

it`s all well and good crying about it and doing the POMPOM* act, but if you don`t afford the same Courtesy Back, then the Joke`s on YOU!

 

 

 

*POMPOM = (Poor Old Me, Poor Old Me)

 

I'm sorry, YT, but I don't understand a word of this, or how it relates to what I said.

[YT2095]

Simply put, this thread is about the Misuse of a word and it`s definition, "Theory" in this case.

 

and yet you will misuse the wording "Religious types" as an All encompassing, broad as it gets, Sweeping Statement!

 

can`t you see the Irony?

[Pangloss]

Who is it you think I'm crying "poor old me" about?

[Royston]

It looks like what I mentioned earlier actually may have been what happened. "Scientific theory of evolution" was the wording added as a "compromise," and of course that represents no budging at all from the scientific side.

 

Strange that a consensus can be reached through the ignorance of the opposition, and both parties (as far as they're concerned) walk away victorious. That situation must be quite a rare occurrence, or maybe I'm being politically ignorant.

[john5746]

and yet you`ll spout off words like "Religious types" without qualifying it, with at least "SOME religious types"

 

*POMPOM = (Poor Old Me, Poor Old Me)

 

STUPID religious types might be better.

 

 

Poor Old Me,

Poor Old Me,

Talk about religion,

I'll kick you in the knee.

 

Poor Old Me,

Poor Old Me,

Science and reason?

Well that sounds like treason!

 

Poor Old Me,

Poor Old Me,

You mention God?

Be careful where you trod.

 

Poor Old Me,

Poor Old Me,

I feel like a victim,

There's no need to listen.

 

Poor Old Me,

Poor Old Me,

Science and religion, they cannot mix,

Don't you understand?

I don't want a fix!

 

Goooooooooooooooo GOD!

 

Yeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaay!

 

< POM POM's flying all about >

[Phi for All]

< POM POM's flying all about >

I have a theory about john5746 and some missing corn squeezins.

 

 

 

Does that song have a tune, btw? It is kinda catchy.

[john5746]

Does that song have a tune, btw? It is kinda catchy.

 

Nah, i was just picturing some cheerleaders chanting it.