1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 19:
Line 19: − Scientists frequently claim that the word "theory" means very different things to scientists and non-scientists. For example, a PBS TV show says: <ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/e_s_1.html</ref> + Line 25:
Line 25: − One common way the term 'theory' is misused in scientific literature is in the field of speculative physics, which proposes something commonly deemed 'String Theory'. At it's most basic level, string theory states that the entirety of the universe is made up of tiny, multi-dimensional strings. However, this proposal cannot currently be verified or refuted by modern science - that is, scientists cannot determine if this is right or wrong. Since String Theory makes no verfiable predictions about the universe, either, scientists can say nothing more about String Theory than that it may or may not fit the facts we currently know. However, this would disqualify String Theory as a scientific theory, which must both be evidenced by facts and must make correct, verifiable predictions about the future. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/science/07stri.html?ei=5090&en=fd15a74e2dca3af0&ex=1260075600&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all&position=] used the word "theory" 70 times without any suggestion that ideas must be well-substantiated before they qualify as a theory. Physicist Lawrence Krauss used the term "string theory" even though the theory has "yet to have any real successes in explaining or predicting anything measurable". [http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/08essay.html] A month later, he argued that it should really be called the "string enterprise" because using the word "theory" causes problems with intelligent design advocates and those who say that evolution is "just a theory". [http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/newscieditorial.html]</ref>+ + +
→Common usage: text was saying that biologists use the term correctly and physicists do not; better to just describe common usage
== Common usage ==
== Common usage ==
Some evolutionists frequently claim that the word "theory" means very different things to scientists and non-scientists. For example, a PBS TV show says: <ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/e_s_1.html</ref>
:''When we use the word "theory" in everyday life, we usually mean an idea or a guess, but the word has a much different meaning in science. This video examines the vocabulary essential for understanding the nature of science and evolution and illustrates how evolution is a powerful, well-supported scientific explanation for the relatedness of all life.''
:''When we use the word "theory" in everyday life, we usually mean an idea or a guess, but the word has a much different meaning in science. This video examines the vocabulary essential for understanding the nature of science and evolution and illustrates how evolution is a powerful, well-supported scientific explanation for the relatedness of all life.''
:''In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.''
:''In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.''
In fact, it is hard to find anyone who makes this distinction, outside those who are promoting the theory of evolution to the general public.
An example of the term 'theory' in scientific literature is in the field of speculative physics, which proposes something commonly deemed 'String Theory'. At it's most basic level, string theory states that the entirety of the universe is made up of tiny, multi-dimensional strings. However, this proposal cannot currently be verified or refuted by modern science - that is, scientists cannot determine if this is right or wrong. Since String Theory makes no verifiable predictions about the universe, either, scientists can say nothing more about String Theory than that it may or may not fit the facts we currently know. Therefore, String Theory is not the sort of scientific theory which is evidenced by facts and must make correct, verifiable predictions about the future. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/science/07stri.html?ei=5090&en=fd15a74e2dca3af0&ex=1260075600&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all&position=] used the word "theory" 70 times without any suggestion that ideas must be well-substantiated before they qualify as a theory. Physicist Lawrence Krauss used the term "string theory" even though the theory has "yet to have any real successes in explaining or predicting anything measurable". [http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/08essay.html] A month later, he argued that it should really be called the "string enterprise" because using the word "theory" causes problems with intelligent design advocates and those who say that evolution is "just a theory". [http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/newscieditorial.html]</ref>
Common misunderstanding of the difference between a scientific theory and the laymen definiton of the word often leads to confusion regarding scientific topics - especially Evolution. <ref>[http://wilstar.com/theories.htm] </ref>
Common misunderstanding of the difference between a scientific theory and the laymen definiton of the word often leads to confusion regarding scientific topics - especially Evolution. <ref>[http://wilstar.com/theories.htm] </ref>