Why the problem with the word 'theory'?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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:

1) a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:Einstein's theory of relativity.

2) a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

3) Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject:number theory.

4) the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice:music theory.

5) a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles:conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

6) contemplation or speculation:the theory that there is life on other planets.

7)guess or conjecture:My theory is that he never stops to think words have consequences.

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)

 

[pitabread]

I've often wondered if it's a case where creationists don't know the word "theory" in a scientific context, and then when called out on that, they simply refuse to acknowledge their error. Hence, you get into these silly semantics arguments that invariably involves explaining how words work.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I've often wondered if it's a case where creationists don't know the word "theory" in a scientific context, and then when called out on that, they simply refuse to acknowledge their error. Hence, you get into these silly semantics arguments that invariably involves explaining how words work.

To be fair, that is how it seemed to go on that thread before. I offered an easy to follow explanation of the scientific use of the word theory, even gave a link describing it... and the person just doubled down on their conviction that it was wrong.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

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)

I thought it had to do with it not being a sure thing.

Oh, It's just a theory - come back when there's reproducible evidence - then there's a parable.

my take.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I thought it had to do with it not being a sure thing.

Oh, It's just a theory - come back when there's reproducible evidence - then there's a parable.

my take.

Before I reply, I just want to make sure: are arguing against the usage of the word theory to describe evolution, or for it?
Because I don't want to make a snap judgement on this.

 

[Ophiolite]

To be fair, that is how it seemed to go on that thread before. I offered an easy to follow explanation of the scientific use of the word theory, even gave a link describing it... and the person just doubled down on their conviction that it was wrong.

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.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Before I reply, I just want to make sure: are arguing against the usage of the word theory to describe evolution, or for it?
Because I don't want to make a snap judgement on this.

In general, using the word theory - in any context to mean an unproven hypothesis.

Not singling out it's meaning for one context only. I don't understand when people do that.

 

[hedrick]

I thought it had to do with it not being a sure thing.

Oh, It's just a theory - come back when there's reproducible evidence - then there's a parable.

my take.

Yeah, but in most scientific usage, theory is actually well established. Gravitational theory, quantum theory, the theory of relativity. I think model is normally used for an explanation of something fairly specific. Models can be more or less well supported. Theory is typically used for a whole area, not just one thing, and would typically include a model or models that are fairly well established and have fairly wide-spread consequences. Evolution fits that well. It's well established and it has fairly wide-spread consequences.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Yeah, but in most scientific usage, theory is actually well established. Gravitational theory, quantum theory, the theory of relativity. I think model is normally used for an explanation of something fairly specific. Models can be more or less well supported. Theory is typically used for a whole area, not just one thing, and would typically include a model or models that are fairly well established and have fairly wide-spread consequences. Evolution fits that well. It's well established and it has fairly wide-spread consequences.

Yeah, that type of theory is still a theory. It's kind of like the gospel. People can read through the gospels but cannot reproduce the miracles described therein. So it's kind of like the other theories - what can be proven through regular application is no longer a theory - it is simply observed.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In general, using the word theory - in any context to mean an unproven hypothesis.

Not singling out it's meaning for one context only. I don't understand when people do that.

Ah, now I gotcha. Yeah... it is weird.
Like, as I said, it's not something that's impossible to look up and learn about.

 

[pitabread]

nm.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Ah, now I gotcha. Yeah... it is weird.
Like, as I said, it's not something that's impossible to look up and learn about.

Learning is a choice, some people chose to not learn so often, they may have forgotten how.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

nm.

ok

 

[Tinker Grey]

Maybe science-y people should concede. We'll call it a model instead.

[monty python]It's just a model[/python]

 

[hedrick]

Yeah, that type of theory is still a theory. It's kind of like the gospel. People can read through the gospels but cannot reproduce the miracles described therein. So it's kind of like the other theories - what can be proven through regular application is no longer a theory - it is simply observed.

There is, with some complications, a difference between model and observation. In order to be well established, a model or a theory must have observations that support it. But no matter how many observations you get, a model doesn't turn into an observation.

Some people distinguish between the theory of evolution and the observed fact of evolution. There are some cases where you can actually see it in action, so I can sort of understand that. But no matter how many examples like that there are, I don't think a evolution as an overall model for how species developed can reasonably be anything other than a model or a theory.

Consider gravity. When you drop something it falls. That's an observation. The idea that there's some kind of force that makes it fall is a model, which develops detail that let you predict the speed at which things fall, and which gets connected to general relativity. You can say gravitation is observed, but technically it's not. What's observed is falling objects. Gravity will never advance from a model or theory to something else.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

There is, with some complications, a difference between model and observation. In order to be well established, a model or a theory must have observations that support it. But no matter how many observations you get, a model doesn't turn into an observation.

Some people distinguish between the theory of evolution and the observed fact of evolution. There are some cases where you can actually see it in action, so I can sort of understand that. But no matter how many examples like that there are, I don't think a evolution as an overall model for how species developed can reasonably be anything other than a model or a theory.

Consider gravity. When you drop something it falls. That's an observation. The idea that there's some kind of force that makes it fall is a model, which develops detail that let you predict the speed at which things fall, and which gets connected to general relativity. You can say gravitation is observed, but technically it's not. What's observed is falling objects. Gravity will never advance from a model or theory to something else.

Thanks for that.

Perhaps I was thinking about applied theory instead of observation. Such as applying gravity to push things away instead of needing concrete walls.

Applying evolution would probably fall under the realm of biogenetic engineering.

Most of which is fiction currently, but once applied commonly, would no longer be a theory in the philosophical sense.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks for that.

Perhaps I was thinking about applied theory instead of observation. Such as applying gravity to push things away instead of needing concrete walls.

Applying evolution would probably fall under the realm of biogenetic engineering.

Most of which is fiction currently, but once applied commonly, would no longer be a theory in the philosophical sense.

Well, you could make the argument that genetically modified crops is an example of biogenetic engineering.
Not sure if it'd stand, but it's an argument.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Well, you could make the argument that genetically modified crops is an example of biogenetic engineering.
Not sure if it'd stand, but it's an argument.

I think it would fall under the category of applied evolution for sure. Humanity has been choosing the seeds with the better qualities for centuries. What is created in laboratories is just a more refined process.

 

[Speedwell]

Yeah, that type of theory is still a theory. It's kind of like the gospel. People can read through the gospels but cannot reproduce the miracles described therein. So it's kind of like the other theories - what can be proven through regular application is no longer a theory - it is simply observed.

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

 

[sesquiterpene]

Thanks for that.
Applying evolution would probably fall under the realm of biogenetic engineering.

Most of which is fiction currently, but once applied commonly, would no longer be a theory in the philosophical sense.

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.