On Scientific Theory - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

CSflim · 06-29-2003, 03:00 PM

I think this passage is a wonderfully eloquent explaination of the misconceptions around the word "theory" when used in the scientific sense, compared with the use in the colloquial sense. It is taken from Consilience: The Unity Of Knowledge by the excellent science writer Edward O. Wilson.

Quote:

Theory: a word hobbled by multiple meanings. Taken alone without a or the, it resonates with erudition. Taken in everyday context, it is shot through with corrupting ambiguity. We often hear that such and such an assertion is only a theory. Anyone can have a theory; pay your money and take your choice among the theories that compete for your attention. Voodoo priests sacrificing chickens to please spirits of the dead are working with a theory. So are millenarian cultists watching the Idaho skies for signs of the Second Coming. Because scientific theories contain speculation, they too may seem just more guesswork, and therefore built on sand. That, I suspect, is the usual postmodernist conception: Everyone's theory has validity and is interesting. Scientific theories, however, are fundamentally different. They are constructed specifically to be blown apart if proved wrong, and if so destined, the sooner the better. "Make your mistakes quickly" is a rule in the practice of science. I grant that scientists often fall in love with their own constructions. I know; I have. They may spend a lifetime vainly trying to shore them up. A few squander their prestige and academic political capital in the effort. In that case - as the economist Paul Samuelson once quipped - funeral by funeral, theory advances.

Quantum electrodynamics and evolution by natural selection are examples of successful big theories, addressing important phenomena. The entities they posit, such as photons, electrons, and genes, can be measured. Their statements are designed to be tested in the acid washes of skepticism, experiments, and the claims of rival theories. Without this vulnerability, they will not be accorded the status of scientific theories. The best theories are rendered lean by Occam's razor, first expressed in the 1320s by William of Occam. He said, "What can be done with fewer assumptions is done in vain with more," Parsimony is a criterion of good theory. With lean, tested theory we no longer need Phoebus in a chariot to guide the sun across the sky, or dryads to populate the boreal forests. The practice grants less license for New Age dreaming, I admit, but it gets the world straight.

Perhaps now you will think twice before bandying about the phrase "it's only a theory".

What most people would refer to as a theory in everyday speach, is referred to as a hypothesis in the scientific community.

Any thoughts?

Conclamo Ludus · 06-29-2003, 03:34 PM

Interesting. The scientific term "theory" is often taken for granted and has mixed too much with the "theory" of common speech. Theory has become to mean: A possibility, but unproven. Good post!

Antagony · 06-29-2003, 04:41 PM

I agree.

We tend to slaughter the English language with our colloquialisms.

I try not to point this out too often, though, as it makes me appear more anal-retentive than I believe myself to truly be.

butthead · 07-02-2003, 08:46 AM

Quote:

What most people would refer to as a theory in everyday speach, is referred to as a hypothesis in the scientific community.

Heh, they tought me this in my biology book during senior year in HS. No mystery to me. It's since been similar to nails on chalk board hearing people talk about "theories".

manalone · 07-06-2003, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Antagony
I agree.

We tend to slaughter the English language with our colloquialisms.

I try not to point this out too often, though, as it makes me appear more anal-retentive than I believe myself to truly be.

I consider the opposite. There are useful technical distinctions in the context of specific uses of a word. These should not necessarily be propagated into the general populace. It's pointless and it's nit-picking.

Furthermore, that form of linguistic restriction attempts to create a jargon filled and cliqueish language; a distinct step away from the goal of language as a form of communication.

CSflim · 07-08-2003, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by manalone
I consider the opposite. There are useful technical distinctions in the context of specific uses of a word. These should not necessarily be propagated into the general populace. It's pointless and it's nit-picking.

Furthermore, that form of linguistic restriction attempts to create a jargon filled and cliqueish language; a distinct step away from the goal of language as a form of communication.

I would agree with you, to the extent thatI despise Jargonism, .ie the process of calling a spade a manual earth manipulating implement. However this sin is not usually commited by scientists, or technologist, rather by "Management Types", hence the imfamous Management Speak. Distorting well defined words into purposly ambiguous terms...Grrrr!

However, the languange of everyday communication is not very useful for defining the very precise and unambiguous world of science. This is why mathematics is quite often the language of choice. Mathematics is based on principles of absolute certainty. There is no room for misinterpretation.

The english language has however been spawned from no such ideals. It is seeped in unambiguities. Take a quick leaf there any comprehensive dictionary and you'll know what I mean! Usually this unambigousness does not affect our evryday communication, there are times when we need to remind ourselves of exact definitions of words, or at the very least, agree on what definition we are going to use for the basis of a specific conversation. Ergo, when talking about scientific themes the word theory takes on a very specific meaning, and I try to only use the word in THIS sense when partaking in scientific conversation, yet I will use the more ambigous "general" definition in day-to-day conversing.

The main reason I posted this was to either remind, or inform those who threw around the phrase "it's only a theory". Technically it's only a theory that the earth orbits the sun.

06-29-2003, 03:34 PM	#2 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	Interesting. The scientific term "theory" is often taken for granted and has mixed too much with the "theory" of common speech. Theory has become to mean: A possibility, but unproven. Good post! __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues

06-29-2003, 04:41 PM	#3 (permalink)
Antagony Psychopathic Akimbo Action Pirate Location: ...between Christ and Belial.	I agree. We tend to slaughter the English language with our colloquialisms. I try not to point this out too often, though, as it makes me appear more anal-retentive than I believe myself to truly be. __________________ On the outside I'm jazz, but my soul is rock and roll. Sleep is a waste of time. Join the Insomniac Club. "GYOH GWAH-DAH GREH BLAAA! SROH WIH DIH FLIH RYOHH!!" - The Locust