Should science drop the word 'theory' out of its vocabulary?

[netizenk]

Over and over again I am disappointed and appalled with how general public perceives the word 'theory' as used in science to mean the exact same thing it does in some casual everyday conversation... that is, speculation, guesswork, opinion...

 

On a personal level, it is annoying to watch scientifically illiterate people dismiss a scientific theory as 'just a theory', but, more importantly, I feel it's detrimental to goals of science to have this general public 'it's just a theory' sentiment floating around allowing loud, ignorant people to dismiss scientific theories backed up by evidence accumulated over hundreds of years as comparable to some outrageous nonsense backed up by no evidence at all...

 

Anyway, does anyone else share the sentiment and would like to see science and the scientist move away from word 'theory' and replace it with something else and if so what would you replace it with?

[swansont]

I share the frustration, but I think changing the vocabulary will treat a symptom and not the cause. The cause in this case being people willing to dismiss science they don't understand, often because it's contrary to some ideology they possess.

 

The underlying issue is intellectual dishonesty, which isn't going to go away by replacing a word. That intellectual dishonesty will just manifest itself in another way.

[netizenk]

I share the frustration, but I think changing the vocabulary will treat a symptom and not the cause. The cause in this case being people willing to dismiss science they don't understand, often because it's contrary to some ideology they possess.

 

The underlying issue is intellectual dishonesty, which isn't going to go away by replacing a word. That intellectual dishonesty will just manifest itself in another way.

 

Agree with you completely that it's just a symptom and the cause is a systemic scientific illiteracy but treating a symptom usually helps make the patient feel better so why not?

[Phi for All]

Anyway, does anyone else share the sentiment and would like to see science and the scientist move away from word 'theory' and replace it with something else and if so what would you replace it with?

While I share the sentiment, I don't think replacement is the answer. A replacement could end up being just as misunderstood. Better to come up with an easily digestible, sound-byte quality phrase that is easily understood by the masses that clarifies the position most scientists take. Something along the lines of "Scientists works with theories because it keeps them always looking for a better answer. They never pretend to know The Truth."

[Arete]

The use of "theory" in science reflects scientific thinking - no answer is definitive, and all conclusions are subject to change based on new evidence or better interpretation of existing evidence. As Phi states, what you're encountering is a basic misunderstanding of how science works. It won't be fixed with a replacement as the replacement would still have to reflect the underlying lack of unchanging confirmation a scientific concept entails.

 

Some people are just uninformed, some people can't find a seemingly ephemeral answer to a question satisfying ("I don't want a theory, I want an answer!"), and some will exploit a percieved weakness regardless of its actual validity (Your "It's just a theory" creationists). You are never going to satisfy persons 2 or 3, so concentrate on educating person 1, and ignore the others

[ParanoiA]

How about the return of "hypothesis"?

 

Is Dark Energy a theory, or hypothesis? Don't you move from hypothesis to theory as repeated testing fails to falsify the hypothesis until some subjective "tipping point" of data?

 

Maybe the problem is the overuse of the word "theory" by scientists, when they really should be using "hypothesis". I mean, there's a huge difference between the test data related to evolution and the data related to dark energy. Yet, I hear "theory" used almost exclusively.

 

Perhaps people are losing respect for the scale of "theory" because it's used for ideas that have not weathered the testing to be called such.

[netizenk]

How about the return of "hypothesis"?

 

Is Dark Energy a theory, or hypothesis? Don't you move from hypothesis to theory as repeated testing fails to falsify the hypothesis until some subjective "tipping point" of data?

 

Maybe the problem is the overuse of the word "theory" by scientists, when they really should be using "hypothesis". I mean, there's a huge difference between the test data related to evolution and the data related to dark energy. Yet, I hear "theory" used almost exclusively.

 

Perhaps people are losing respect for the scale of "theory" because it's used for ideas that have not weathered the testing to be called such.

While I agree with you in principal, for the purposes of communicating with general public, which was the main point of the topic, the word 'hypothesis' would most certainly appear even more 'flaky' to 'it's just a theory' people...

 

The use of "theory" in science reflects scientific thinking - no answer is definitive, and all conclusions are subject to change based on new evidence or better interpretation of existing evidence. As Phi states, what you're encountering is a basic misunderstanding of how science works. It won't be fixed with a replacement as the replacement would still have to reflect the underlying lack of unchanging confirmation a scientific concept entails.

 

I like your answer a lot, especially the quoted part... It is the truth after all that in science there are no definitive answers as even the basic laws of nature are not untouchable since we seriously take the possibility that in some other region of the universe these could be different...

 

That is actually one of the best things about science, the fact that there are no dogmas and nothing is beyond reproach and questioning.. the fact that this honesty and openness of science is

perceived as weakness by uninformed and openly abused by ignorant reminds me of a plot of some Greek Tragedy unfortunately...

[iNow]

Scientists already use the term "hypothesis" when it's appropriate. That's not the issue under discussion here. The issue is the education level of the nonscientific populace. If someone is trying to debunk a scientific idea by saying "it's just a theory," then I hardly think calling it a hypothesis is going to ameliorate that particular type of ignorance and incredulity.

[ParanoiA]

Scientists already use the term "hypothesis" when it's appropriate. That's not the issue under discussion here. The issue is the education level of the nonscientific populace. If someone is trying to debunk a scientific idea by saying "it's just a theory," then I hardly think calling it a hypothesis is going to ameliorate that particular type of ignorance and incredulity.

Fact: Obama won the election of 2012.

Fact: Chocolate is good.

 

So you’re saying the wide spread misuse of "fact" into opinions wouldn’t create the same problem with the word “fact” that you are experiencing with “theory”? And that a return to correct usage is irrelevant? Weird.

 

Actually, from what I read hypothesis isn't the correct word either since it is more specific than a theory. What is a theory called that has not been repeatedly observed and tested, incorporating facts, laws, predictions and tested hypotheses? Whatever that word, that's the one you should be using for dark energy and other stuff that is carelessly called theory by scientists.

[iNow]

So you’re saying the wide spread misuse of "fact" into opinions wouldn’t create the same problem with the word “fact” that you are experiencing with “theory”? And that a return to correct usage is irrelevant? Weird.

Perhaps you find it weird because that's not at all what I said. Please re-read my post and ask questions if any of it was unclear.

[Klaynos]

I'd describe most not theory yet scientific ideas as speculations, ideas or perhaps framework depending on exactly what it is. I'm not sure I've heard any/many active researchers call dark energy a theory.

 

I think the best solution is obviously better science education, although that is also probably the hardest solution.

[JohnStu]

My recommendation is to change them rather than to make a whole new word. I foresee changing them can be hard to achieve, but making a whole new word would be more difficult

[ACG52]

 

Actually, from what I read hypothesis isn't the correct word either since it is more specific than a theory. What is a theory called that has not been repeatedly observed and tested, incorporating facts, laws, predictions and tested hypotheses? Whatever that word, that's the one you should be using for dark energy and other stuff that is carelessly called theory by scientists.

 

The word is 'hypothesis'. You might want to recheck your definitions.

[ajb]

I share the fustration and acknowldge that there is a multitude of uses of that word. My brother who is a biologist said that a theory is "something proven and accepted", meaning a hypothosis that is supported with evidence. Or even just "proven and accepted knowledge" .

 

To me theory means a set of mathematical equations.

Edited December 6, 2012 by ajb

[ParanoiA]

 

The word is 'hypothesis'. You might want to recheck your definitions.

I did, which is why I had to backtrack in trying to use "hypothesis" to essentially mean "theory" that has not yet undergone all the rigorous testing.

 

Honestly, I'm a perfect example of the John Q Public you all are talking about. I thought I was at least more scientifically literate than the "average" person, but maybe not. Here's an example of where we get confused:

 

http://psychology.about.com/od/researchmethods/ss/expdesintro_2.htm

 

Second entry on a google search.

 

 

 

A theory is a well-established principle that has been developed to explain some aspect of the natural world. A theory arises from repeated observation and testing and incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses that are widely accepted.

 

 

 

 

 

A hypothesis is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in your study. For example, an experiment designed to look at the relationship between study habits and test anxiety might have a hypothesis that states, "We predict that students with better study habits will suffer less test anxiety." Unless your study is exploratory in nature, your hypothesis should always explain what you expect to happen during the course of your experiment or research.

 

 

 

 

• A theory predicts events in general terms, while a hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a specified set of circumstances.

 

 

• A theory has been extensively tested and is generally accepted, while a hypothesis is a speculative guess that has yet to be tested.

 

 

That part in bold is where I was getting the notion that a hypothesis is more specific than a theory. If this is wrong, then this has to be part of the problem. Granted, about.com is not a 'science' site. But then again, if the average person has to go to all the trouble to find a bonefide and proven scientific source - to define two simple words - then what does that tell us about how these words have been mangled and carelessly used that they deviate so much?

 

I don't have to go to a lexicographer's source to be sure I'm getting the correct definition of "green bean". Lots of sources will do, because we don't have a problem with "green bean" being incorrectly used for peas, lima beans and asparagus (all of which are *gross* by the way).

 

The top returns on a google search for "difference between theory and hypothesis" returns several questionable sources before we get to what appears should be a more formal source:

 

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node7.html

 

Sorry, I would have pasted the text but I'm running into some quirks with this new forum software and IE. Anyway, the explanation on that page is terribly lacking in specifics, kind of sloppy. Reminds me of Discovery channel and how scientists complain about the way they dumb down and sometimes outright destroy the scientific method.

 

So the entire page of results contains wiki answers, yahoo answers, enotes.com, wisegeek.com and etc...and then finally, at the bottom of the page we get, what I think anyway, is the real deal from NASA. I am about to go all through it. It provides a test so you can see how well you understand the difference between Facts, hypothesis, theory and belief.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/371711main_SMII_Problem23.pdf

 

Too much disparity and apparently scientific illiteracy run amok. That's the problem as I see it. The solution sure looks like a long and winding road...

[D H]

I share the fustration and acknowldge that there is a multitude of uses of that word. My brother who is a biologist said that a theory is "something proven and accepted", meaning a hypothosis that is supported with evidence. Or even just "proven and accepted knowledge" .

 

To me theory means a set of mathematical equations.

 

That's because you are a mathematician. Mathematicians have yet a third meaning of the word "theory". Game theory, graph theory, knot theory, number theory, string theory: Here the word "theory" does not mean something that has been tested against reality. It instead means "mathematical body of knowledge".

 

Mathematics is not beholden to reality, so mathematicians don't particularly care whether some mathematical theorem is realistic. That the Banach-Tarski theorem cannot be used to replicate the Earth is irrelevant. It's a cool theorem with solid logic behind it, and that's good enough.

 

Science is beholden to reality. In the context of science, string theory is not a scientific theory. Not yet, anyhow.

[ParanoiA]

 

Science is beholden to reality. In the context of science, string theory is not a scientific theory. Not yet, anyhow.

 

And doesn't this present the problem? I have never read or heard anyone say "string hypothesis" or "string speculation". By my experience anyway, it is exclusively referred to as "string theory".

 

When people say "it's just a theory", aren't they emboldened by this misuse of "theory"? And doesn't this feed the anti-science narrative, to point out how string theory and evolution theory are both "just" theories? Because they've equated the two, because those who misuse the word have inadvertantly equated the two, at least in terms of scientific rigor.

 

I think it's also part of the greater issue of dumbing down the scientific method for the masses by media. This is just one symptom. Why don't I hear the "as we know it" disclaimer anymore when I'm watching How The Universe Works? We only hear "scientists believe" about a handful of times involving speculative, but plausible scientific ideas in the media. The viewer is left with the impression that all of this programming is "fact" minus a fraction of responsible disclaimers.

 

This all feeds the counter narrative that science is arrogant and careless, based on wild speculations and little evidence. After all, they're "just theories", just like string theory.