Why the problem with the word 'theory'?

[Gregory Thompson]

Not quite. In science, a theory is an explanation for what is observed.

Thanks for the definition. I think because words in english have different meanings depending on discipline, it may be the cause of many misunderstandings.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Well, genetic engineering has been in widespread use for quite a while and now - there are a lot of medical uses, but not all I would consider evolutionary in nature. I'd consider pretty much all selective breeding that has been going on for millennia to be applied evolution as well as GMOs.

I was thinking that the selective breeding to be more like "adaptation" and the laboratory application as evolution since it results in an entirely new thing not naturally occurring.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What?! Energy and work have specific technical meanings in science. But for me, energy means waves of happiness that come from my crystals!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If you want to accuse somebody of redefining a word I suggest you find out who did the redefinition. It makes you look really ignorant when the usage you object to is the original and the usage you like is newer.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

What?! Energy and work have specific technical meanings in science. But for me, energy means waves of happiness that come from my crystals!

Emotional resonance that Hypersensitive People (HSP) can perceive makes people "feel" like they're full of "energy" good or bad.

However, if someone was to hook someone up to the power supply via booster cables, they'd probably die.

So probably not two types of compatible energy.

Good example.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The thread that this was brought up on before has been shut down, but illustrated a very good point that I keep seeing.

Why do creationists and people who do not accept evolution always have a problem with the word 'theory'?

They say it's been 'hijacked' by scientists. They say that since it's 'just a theory', then it's worthless, even though in the same breath they'll say they have no problem with germ theory or the theory of gravity.

But it's just arguing semantics at the end of the day, isn't it? And you really do not need to be a boffin to go and study the history of the term theory to see how it was used, from the old natural philosophers of Ancient Greece and Rome, to the first scientists of Europe and Middle East, up to the modern period.

To wit, the word theory, like several hundred words in the English language (the glorious mess that it is), has several definitions dependent on how it is used. And, like many words in the English language, context is key.
For example, if we use the example definitions given by Dictionary.com, there are 7 definitions that can be used:



So why is there such a continuous fixation on the word 'theory' solely when it refers to the theory of evolution?

(by the by, I do feel that this is a bit of rhetorical question since the answer has been made plain in many threads as to why many opponents of evolutionary theory and the theory of evolution take umbrage with the word 'theory'... But I felt that it was an issue that needed to be discussed)

Most specialist domains of knowledge have their own 'language' of custom words and special meanings for common words - it's called 'jargon'. One can only assume they are not familiar with the concept of jargon or of specialised domains of knowledge...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Someone posted a link on the forum recently, IIRC, to some research that indicated conspiracy theorists (whom I understand have some characteristics akin to YECs) find evidence contrary to their beliefs simply strengthens those beliefs.

If I can find the link, I'll post it here.

I think that is most likely explanation for what you describe and why attempts like this will nearly always fail to convince your 'target'. However, it is still worth making the argument, since it may help a fence sitter, or those uninformed, but open to learning.

I think it's called the backfire effect.

 

[eleos1954]

The thread that this was brought up on before has been shut down, but illustrated a very good point that I keep seeing.

Why do creationists and people who do not accept evolution always have a problem with the word 'theory'?

They say it's been 'hijacked' by scientists. They say that since it's 'just a theory', then it's worthless, even though in the same breath they'll say they have no problem with germ theory or the theory of gravity.

But it's just arguing semantics at the end of the day, isn't it? And you really do not need to be a boffin to go and study the history of the term theory to see how it was used, from the old natural philosophers of Ancient Greece and Rome, to the first scientists of Europe and Middle East, up to the modern period.

To wit, the word theory, like several hundred words in the English language (the glorious mess that it is), has several definitions dependent on how it is used. And, like many words in the English language, context is key.
For example, if we use the example definitions given by Dictionary.com, there are 7 definitions that can be used:



So why is there such a continuous fixation on the word 'theory' solely when it refers to the theory of evolution?

(by the by, I do feel that this is a bit of rhetorical question since the answer has been made plain in many threads as to why many opponents of evolutionary theory and the theory of evolution take umbrage with the word 'theory'... But I felt that it was an issue that needed to be discussed)

The word theory (basic definition) by itself nobody has a problem with. The controversy over the word theory comes in ... when within what context the word theory is being used.

Theory simple definition

: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events. : an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true. : the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject.

fact
a thing that is known or proved to be true

so again ... the word fact ... in what context is it being used?

truth - 3 definitions

1 - the quality or state of being true.
2 - that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality
3 - a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

So ... really ... it is definition #3 ... that is applied

not one person has ALL the facts .... it depends on what one accepts as fact.

The bible is not a science book ... and was not intended to be such. The Bible is the account of God's action in the world, and his purpose with all creation. This does not make it untrue. It is about mans relationship with God and mans relationship within themselves.

The theory of evolution is a conglomeration of facts and many theories and they (the theories) are numerous and vary within the scientific community ... and theories put forth in regard to the beginnings of mankind - doesn't make it true.

Science studies (in regard to evolution) through material/physical observations (tangible) in an attempt to explain our existence ... some accept it as true.

God is not material/nor physical ... He is spiritual ... he can not be studied/observed (intangible) some accept as true.

Are there things we can not see yet we know they exist? Scientifically? Yes ( ie dark matter, dark energy)

It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.

Is everything unseen explainable with facts supported with evidence scientifically? No

it is indeed this ...

a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

so ... God says He created the universe and everything in it ... and we are to believe it or not ... accept His written Word as truth ... or not. So from a christian/biblical perspective ... why do we christians debate about how mankind and other living things came to be? That's not the debate/argument ..... Universe ... how did the universe and everything in it come to be?

I found this article interesting ... on what we DO NOT know.

This Is What We Don’t Know About The Universe

 

[Tinker Grey]

Isaac Asimov

[Creationists] make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.

Often attributed as remarks to the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) (1980)
​

Isaac Asimov Quote

 

[JackRT]

Someone with an open mind sees something happening in the natural world and thinks deeply about it. After long thought she comes up with a "I think it might have happened like this." This is what is called an hypothesis --- it might also be called an "educated guess". This forms the basis for further observation and experiment. After time the hypothesis looks better and better and begins to be regarded as a theory but not quite. A good theory must be falsifiable. So after some further thought about her theory she uses it to make a prediction about something that has never been observed before. This will be the basis of a brand new experiment. If the prediction is falsified, the theory will either have to be modified or rejected outright. This has happened many times in science. If the prediction is confirmed by the experiment then we now have a solid theory. This does not mean that it is set in stone because this process of prediction, experiment and confirmation will continue. A theory can never be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt because in science it is impossible to know absolutely everything about anything. However a theory can be disproven because there always remains the possibility that at some point in time something will be observed that will negate the theory. So, in short, in science theory is as good as it gets. I should add a caveat concerning the term “experiment”. An experiment can be a carefully controlled test in a laboratory or in the field but some tests can only be done by direct observation in nature.

 

[SelfSim]

... A good theory must be falsifiable. ... If the prediction is falsified, .. If the prediction is confirmed by the experiment then we now have a solid theory ... A theory can never be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt ... a theory can be disproven ...

Proofs, disproofs, falsifiability and confimation aren't part of science. Such notions stem from philosophical logic.

The application of logic's principles often contribute to the utility value we seek from science .. (indeed modelling in theoretical science, (math), is based on it), but not ubiquitously, by any particular scientific necessity. The universe doesn't impose logical necessity on anything .. that is what many humans seem to think, however.

Science is defined by its process of: Hypothesis => Objective testing => Results => Conclusions .. that's it .. there is no more to than that, really.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

so ... God says He created the universe and everything in it ... and we are to believe it or not ... accept His written Word as truth ... or not. So from a christian/biblical perspective ... why do we christians debate about how mankind and other living things came to be? That's not the debate/argument ..... Universe ... how did the universe and everything in it come to be?

.... yeah, that whole thing... that has absolutely nothing to do with my thread OP and is really just preaching.
Don't do that.

 

[AV1611VET]

The thread that this was brought up on before has been shut down, but illustrated a very good point that I keep seeing.

Does your point apply to Phlogiston theory as well?

 

[JackRT]

AV1611VET ---- Welcome back. Long time, no see. We were preparing to send out a search party. I do hope you have been well and are still trying to be good.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV1611VET ---- Welcome back. Long time, no see. We were preparing to send out a search party. I do hope you have been well and are still trying to be good.

Thank you, my friend!

Yup ... still alive and kickin!

CF was gracious enough to let me back in!

 

[jacks]

Thank you, my friend!

Yup ... still alive and kickin!

CF was gracious enough to let me back in!

Welcome back AV, we've missed you! The science people have been getting kinda uppity.
Now back to the thread...

 

[AV1611VET]

Welcome back AV, we've missed you! The science people have been getting kinda uppity.
Now back to the thread...

Thank you, thank you, sir! It's good to be back!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does your point apply to Phlogiston theory as well?

Excellent example. Though not quite a theory it was still testable and guess what? It was refuted by applying the scientific method. In other words the use of the scientific method, developing hypotheses and testing them which ultimately lead to theories is the most reliable route to understand the universe that we live in.

 

[AV1611VET]

Excellent example. Though not quite a theory it was still testable and guess what? It was refuted by applying the scientific method. In other words the use of the scientific method, developing hypotheses and testing them which ultimately lead to theories is the most reliable route to understand the universe that we live in.

How did it make it all the way to "theory"?

Are you implying the scientific method created it, then the scientific method pwned it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How did it make it all the way to "theory"?

Are you implying the scientific method created it, then the scientific method pwned it?

There was a looser standard then. It would not have been a "theory" today. The meaning of words change over time.