Clive Thompson wants us to simply redefine the “theory of evolution” as the “law of evolution”. This is possibly one of the worst ideas I’ve heard yet for overcoming the problem of the colloquial definition of theory. It is not correct. The theory of evolution is a whole collection of ideas describing complex phenomena; it is not reducible to the kind of clear and simple mathematical description we associate with scientific laws. When somebody asks me what the ideal gas law is, I can say PV=nRT; when someone asks me what the law describing the gravitational attraction between two bodies is, I say Gm1m2/R2; when they say, “OK, smartie pants, what is the law of evolution?”, what am I supposed to do? Recite Hardy-Weinberg at them (which, by the way, is called a law already, but is not the sum of all of evolution by any means)?
It’s a bad idea that sets us up for more confusion and will play right into creationist hands. Why not go all the way and just call it the “Truth of Evolution”? It’s the same strategy — it’s all avoiding the issue by an attempt at redefinition, and mangling the idea in the process.
(Larry Moran sees it the same way I do. He must be a very smart man.)
(And Wilkins was way, way ahead of us both.)
Oh, I don’t know–it’d be worth it, being able to say “Evolution: not just a good idea, it’s the law!”.
Not as catchy as “186,282 mps…”, I’ll grant.
I stuck this on Sandwalk, and since it says what I want to say, I’m pasting it in here:
There are some alternative words to “theory” that could be used, like “model”, “explanatory model”, or “scientific explanation.” I’m not averse to using them at times, though I’m afraid that we’re stuck with “theory”, since there’s no perfect synonym for it.
“Law”, of course, is completely wrong. Even in Newton’s time, “law” was just what happened and wasn’t explained, like the “law of gravity.” It’s a holdover from a theological time when “goddidit by declaring a law” was thought to be acceptable (you read St. Augustine invoking “laws” like that). The term “law” is both outdated and suggestive of theistic intervention (you just have to be around religious people to recognize that St. Augustine’s view of “nature’s laws” has not disappeared).
Plus, evolution particularly does not act “law like,” rather the contingencies involved allow for great variety and for different endings for similar beginnings. Religionists would pounce on such a misuse of terms, and they’d be right to do so.
I’m not totally opposed to framing, then, since there is no imperative that we speak of “theory” with respect to evolution. The word “law” for evolutionary processes would be rather severely dishonest on all counts, however.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
ewwwwww, irreducible complexity, come on PZ, that one plays right into thier hands. (p.s. if anyone doesnt hear the facitiousness in my voice, go home, your done for the day)
There is one more thing I’d add, which is that “mutation” also is something of a stickler for the naive public, and it is exploited by the IDiots. “Mutations” are to many people what you get when you do your sister (yes, incest doesn’t cause mutation, just shuffles existing ones…), or what you get around Chernobyl. So what are we supposed to do, quit using the word “mutation” in biology?
Here’s a thought: let’s allow the IDiots and cretinists determine how we utilize language. I’m sure that’ll end the problem.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Why not just refer to “evolution”? I can’t think of many instances where “theory of evolution” or “evolutionary theory” work better than just plain old “evolution.” And the people who work with evolution: “evolutionary biologists” not “evolutionists” or (worse) “Darwinists.”
I think a better solution to this theoretical ambiguity would be to stop using the word in its non-scientific context. Instead of referring to hunches, claims, suspicions, etc as theories let’s call them hunches, claims, suspicions, wild-ass, unsubstantiated notions, etc.
After all, the original meaning of the word “theory” is the scientific one; non-scientific application of the word is just a bastardized appropriation. At least that’s my wild-ass, unsubstantiated claim, anyway.
I’m hoping “they” adopt it. That’d be fun.
The Law of ID. The Law of IC.
Go ahead there, young feller, make my day.
“Theory” is a perfectly valid word, with a clear meaning. We don’t need to change it, and we can’t allow it to be redefined. We just need to redefine those who insist on misusing it as “morons.”
One problem with “The theory of evolotion” as well as “the truth of evolution” and “the model of evolution” is that none of them distinguish from Lamarkian evolution, and for that matter, a gradual form of ID which seems to be rather popular.
Just saying “evolution” is more confusing, because that just means “change over time” and can basically apply to anything.
What if we start advancing an acronym like ENS (evolution by natural selection) or DE (Darwinian Evolution), and leave of the “theory” part altogether, while also being clear about what we mean?
@poke: You’re absolutely right. We refer to moving air as “wind,” for example, not “the theory of wind” or “the law of wind” or even “the fact of wind.” The study thereof, though… one is tempted to call it something like “evology.” A grotesquerie, but after all, that is more or less how we typically construct “study of” words in English.
#6,
Actually, the original Greek had more in line with the non-scientific meaning. From American Heritage:
[Late Latin theōria, from Greek theōriā, from theōros, spectator : probably; theā, a viewing + -oros, seeing (from horān, to see).]
Sorry to rain on any parades.
John Wilkins, who is not as smart as Larry, beat you both to it.
Ouch. I have had a vague notion for a long while that it *would* be nice if I could refer to evolutionary law in much the same way I refer to the law of gravity, especially when I am trying to simplify a complex explanation . . . . So Thompson’s idea is appealing to me! Then I read your cogent arguments against, and I see what a mess a seemingly simple fix has the potential to cause. Hefty sigh.
that doesn’t address what to refer to the rest of us who take an interest in and advocate evolution, but are not trained biologists.
I personally never had a problem with being called a Darwinist, but I guess some people might interpret that as I hold Darwin to be infallible, or that I believe what Darwin said just because he said it.
You could have the “Law of Common Descent”, though. “All life today is descended from one or a few organisms existing 3 billion years ago” That’d tick off the fundies almost as much.
I understand where Clive Thompson is coming from. I’m sorely tempted to beat someone with the New Oxford American Dictionary every time I hear the words “it’s just a theory”. That said, calling it a law is just plan wrong. Evolution is far too complex to apply the term, so it shouldn’t be used, regardless of the public perception.
More to the point, it’s not necessary – science has already triumphed. It’s been a century and a half of creationists trying to destroy evolution, and the only effect is that the theory is exponentially stronger than ever. We have the entire field genetics, we have various examples of evolution directly observed, and we have more transitional forms than you can shake a stick at.
Don’t get me wrong, the wingnuts are still dangerous, but science should only respond to science, not the vague mutterings of the self-deluded.
I suppose educating more people on the important distinction between two of the most basic terms used in science is pretty much out of the question.
I don’t know if this is a cop out, but I basically just teach evolution. I don’t say the word theory. I don’t discuss it. It is simply evolution. I found that by talking about it in this way, I can cut off much of the problems that students have conceptually. Inevitably, someone will say during the first few classes, “But isn’t this just a theory” and then I have a brief discussion about what a theory is, “Any questions?” and move on.
I suppose I could be called a bad teacher, but in a course where human evolution makes up only part of the entire semester and I really need students to understand the concepts, I don’t have time to twiddle about with idiocy.
#11
Yeah, I’ve seen that. Is that definitive, though? I mean it could simply imply an idea or hypothesis that has been tested.
Doesn’t matter, anyway. I avoid using the word ‘theory’ when I mean intuition, idea, hunch, hypothesis, etc. I also make a point (probably annoyingly) of asking others which context they mean when they use the word in conversation. Just my little way of driving home the point that there is a distinction.
But then I’m like that… when people use the word ‘decimate’ I usually ask them if they mean ‘to decrease by one tenth’ or the utterly wrong context ‘to destroy completely’.
Why does this even matter? We could call TOE whatever we want to (I personally am enamored of the Modern Synthesis) and those people who hold that it just ain’t true because Jeebus said so are still going to thump their Bibles and continue to screech and drool at us.
This is the inherent problem with “framing” – we can’t frame science in such a way that it’s digestible to people who simply don’t want to digest it in the first place. This goes for “framing” atheism, too – regardless of how reasonable we make it, if someone ain’t trying to hear it, they ain’t trying to hear it. And bollocks to attempting to play ball with ’em.
I mean, you still see textbooks making reference to Cell Theory, and I think we’re pretty sure about that one, too.
No, it means “descent with modification”. If you want to say “change”, say “change”.
Yes, “cultural evolution” is wrong. Yes, celestial bodies don’t evolve either.
No, it means “descent with modification”. If you want to say “change”, say “change”.
Yes, “cultural evolution” is wrong. Yes, celestial bodies don’t evolve either.
Blondin:
“Decimate” in current usage means “to destroy a great portion of.” Therefore it’s a proper synonym for “destroy.” The whole Roman Legions one-tenth thing is mostly obsolete.
Language inexorably (ahem) evolves.
The Theory of Evolution doesn’t actually need to be renamed, it’s the creationists who need a better education.
Changing the name would just give them other opportunities for attack.
I can’t even imagine anyone except children isn’t aware of their own disingenousness when attempting the “It’s just a theory” argument.
Calling something a law doesn’t *make* it a law. Laws are just descriptions of the ways that matter and energy have been observed to behave. Theories are much, much more–they are our *explanations*. That’s why they are so much more complex and difficult to get all their bits and pieces worked out.
Theories do not grow up into laws. They are different things, with different scientific purposes.
Incidentally, it makes my teeth tingle (as in “sometimes I feel like I need to BITE someone!”) when people point at gravity and say, “See! That’s all scientifically good and proper! When evolution can be like that, you may be able to make a good case for it!”
While we have very nice *laws* of gravitation, surely I’m not the only one who’s noticed that we really don’t have much at *all* in the way of a *theory* of gravitation. Some proposals, models, etc–but nothing that can possibly qualify as an actual *theory* in the sense that evolution or relativity can. We can describe in quite a lot of detail just *how* things behave gravitationally, but the *why* is sadly lacking.
Lynn
I find it odd that someone would think that Ohm’s Law, the ideal gas law, etc to be some how at a higher plane than a theory. These laws are usually just mathematical relationships that provide a useful approximation is some common conditions. They are far from complete descriptions of a phenomena. Newton’s law of gravity is nice approximation for routine calculations, but is far from complete like general relativity and even then we are incomplete in having a full encompassing theory for gravity.
I guess there might be some laws in genetics etc that are helpful and now fit within the broader theory of evolution.
In fact, I would suggest that the theory of evolution is likely the most complete and well founded major theory in all of science. Can anyone think of a “major” theory that is more complete, well tested and well founded than is evolution? Not the standard model of partical physics, not gravity, not the big bang, …
That is not to say that there is not a great deal of very interesting science still remaining in biology.
As PZ put it, the Theory of Evolution is a complex set of ideas. But it has always bothered me, that there seems to be a kind of mathematical sense to it, if just I could put a finger on it and express in mathematical terms the relationship of replicating entities, their rates of mutations and such things, irrespective of the actual medium, e.g. DNA and living organisms. Something not unlike the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Or perhaps evolution by selection is just too obvious a consequence of certain circumstances?
Wilkins, of course, got it right saying that Creationists would simply appeal to a lawgiver.
yeah, there’s another one (two, actually): Mendel’s Laws (let’s see…one’s Segregation, and the other one is, uh…Independent Assortment, iirc).
“Framing” and “communication using a common language” are two different things.
If you look at Webster’s ( http://m-w.com/dictionary/theory ), the “scientific” meaning of theory isn’t even there. The closest they get is “plausible or scientifically acceptable principle”, but certainly say nothing about it being backed up by lots and lots of evidence. The three synonyms they give are “conjecture,” “speculation,” and “hypothesis”.
And the rest of us in the real world hear it used all the time in that softer sense. Ever hear the term “conspiracy theory”? I see it used right here by PZ himself, regularly, with no mention of “well it really is a conspiracy hypothesis”.
So I say get over your demand that the rest of the world use and understand the word as you think it should be used, and find unambiguous terminology instead.
The ironic thing is how many people here seem to think that language is intelligently designed, rather than evolves depending on usage.
Just because a dictionary describes common usages doesn’t make them right (especially when the word shares a root with the “decimal” system).
I hear that “languages evolve” argument a lot but as far as I’m concerned that’s just an excuse for not learning to use your language properly.
Yes, I know I’m fighting a losing battle. Don’t deprive me of my pet peeves…
I don’t like calling it a law because in return it makes us look bad when we’re anxious to call the theory as a law, irrefutable.
Theres many theories inside this theory and many of them are still being refined and studied. Even though the theory of evolution isn’t going away, it’s not a law because we don’t understand enough of it.
Law.. theory.. either way there’s still a bit to learn.
robbrown,
I think it depends on the context. “Advocates for teaching evolution” or “opponents to teaching intelligent design creationism” would be appropriate in most cases. Do we need a word for people who are simply interested in evolution? “Enthusiasts”? Usually words like “evolutionist” and “Darwinist” are a product of presenting the problem as a clash of ideologies rather than a bunch of flakes lashing out at science.
Sorry. All in good (snarkish) fun. (This is how I procrastinate when I should be studying Developmental Bio.)
When I’m trying to educate someone about what a scientific “theory” is I point out that special and general relativity are referred to as “theories” even though they’re well-established. (Hmmm…if you’re talking to a relativity denier, do you suppose it would help to point out the “theory of evolution?” Probably not–I’ve never seen an anti-relativity argument based on the word “theory.”
My first instinct is to reach for the “theory of gravity” and the “germ theory of disease” as my rhetorical brickbats.
That said, I’m willing to consider using “principle of evolution” to stand for something like, “Species arise through the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.”
Please define “right”, then. “Right” — as you are using it here, and in many other uses — seems to be one of those concepts that may have intuitive meaning, but to my mechanistic/materialistic view of the universe, has no more meaning than things like “free will”.
You seem to be doing the very same thing that trips us so many evolution deniers….assuming that words have some intrinsic (God-given?) meaning rather than taking them as arbitrarily assigned by people. (witness the same with the word “species” )
And no, I don’t think the dictionary determines the meaning of words, but I do tend to agree with the philosophy behind Webster’s that language is defined by usage. If you think it there is something else that determines what is “correct” or “right”, please let us know what that is.
I had this self same idea while watching “Judgment Day” … it would throw a wrench in the Creationists works.
But the effects would be short lived and they would probably see through the plot, eventually.
Does anyone know what the most recent “law” of science dates to?
Meanwhile, the pseudoscientists want to play like they really are scientists, by calling their own attempts at rationalization “intelligent design theory.”
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
Seriously, while they often do leave off “theory”, they not infrequently try to depict ID as a theory because they know very well that it sounds scientific. People do often confuse what “theory” means, however it is said that the best known physics forumula is E=mc^2, which comes straight out of the “theory of special relativity,” which most people have heard about as well.
So even though there is some honest confusion about what “theory” means, people really often do have some notion that “theoretical studies” and “theory” are part and parcel of science. Creos, and even IDCists (not the top guys vis-a-vis the term theory, it seems) willingly exploit any ambiguities, of course, however it’s more about word games than anything else (such as when they bandy about “ID theory”).
They’ll always be able to find ambiguities to exploit. I don’t think anyone should doubt that.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
But seriously…
I know languages change over time but there is a difference between pronunciation changes, contraction of words/phrases, adoption of foreign or slang terms, etc and just plain incorrect usage due to ignorance.
To use my previous example, I think using ‘decimate’ to mean ‘destroy completely’ is like saying ‘piano’ to refer to any musical instrument. It’s just wrong and the attitude that we know what they mean from context is the same as a lot of peoples’ attitudes to spelling these days but don’t get me started on that…
If I use (or spell) a word incorrectly I appreciate being told so. I know someone who seems to think the word ‘behoove’ means to confuse or befuddle (as in “It behooves me why anyone would do that”). The opportunity to tell him that it doesn’t mean what he thinks it means has not arisen yet (I can be discrete).
Evolution is not just a theory. It is THE theory.
CorrectAsUsual UR CorrectAsUsual
(or, URC^2)
You have not yet explained what you mean by “correct”. Seriously, if you don’t base it on usage, and you don’t base it on any dictionary, what then?
With “decimate”, there is an original meaning upon which it is based…so that would imply that you base “correctness” on whether it adheres to its original meaning or the meaning of its root. But if you use that for “theory”, you are stuck with the Greek for “looking at, contemplation, speculation” — which doesn’t exactly support your point.
I’m sorry if I sound blunt, but your very rigid, “intrinsic meaning” view is what I expect from people on the other side of the fence.
Since the average person seems to confuse the ideas of “laws” as descriptions and “laws” as a proscriptions or prescriptions, calling it the Law of Evolution is not only inaccurate, but counterproductive. They’ll just assume evolutionary law means you must evolve or, more likely, kill the weak.
When discussing the word “theory” in the context of evolution, I always point out that I spent 5 years at school learning “music theory” and I’ve never heard anybody claim that music is “just a theory.”
I think, however, that it’s possibly to have colloquial laws, as well as scientific laws; and isn’t that what’s being suggested here?
“Intelligent” designers and others attempt to apply non-scientific words to science, so he’s suggesting we essentially turn that around, and do the same thing back.
There are plenty of non mathematical laws out there – Moore’s Law, Murphey’s Law etc. and given my brother is studying law at university at the moment, almost all my discussion of law doesn’t involve maths or science at all.
I’m not saying I necessarily support this move, but I’m not sure if people are discussing what’s really been suggested.
Of course, we must be careful not to overstate the meaning of theory, for example, there is string theory, but that is far from being useful or explanatory – maybe some day. Evolution is a well substantiated theory.
The difference between ID and string theory is huge. String theorists are actually working to test the theory. IDist are not, of course, they cannot which is a major read flag for ID as theory worth anyone’s time, thought or energy.
I, on the other hand, try valiantly to be indiscrete. (Hasn’t worked yet.)
To confuse two qualitatively different concepts is clearly not the solution. (Especially as “law” is slowly depreciated – the ideal gas law is perhaps as often used as the more modern concept of “toy model” as it is a useful approximation.)
Since evolution is an observable process, what is wrong with stating that it is a fact of nature? (With a theory describing the process and its mechanisms.) It isn’t framing, and it directly answers Thompson’s concern, to answer creationists sticker “EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT A FACT, REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF LIVING THINGS”:
“Evolution as common descent is a scientific fact. Deal with it.”
To confuse two qualitatively different concepts is clearly not the solution. (Especially as “law” is slowly depreciated – the ideal gas law is perhaps as often used as the more modern concept of “toy model” as it is a useful approximation.)
Since evolution is an observable process, what is wrong with stating that it is a fact of nature? (With a theory describing the process and its mechanisms.) It isn’t framing, and it directly answers Thompson’s concern, to answer creationists sticker “EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT A FACT, REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF LIVING THINGS”:
“Evolution as common descent is a scientific fact. Deal with it.”
… yeah, and it should be easy to grasp too. Um, so how about:
“Evolution, common descent of species, is a scientific fact. Deal with it.”
… yeah, and it should be easy to grasp too. Um, so how about:
“Evolution, common descent of species, is a scientific fact. Deal with it.”
Why not just call TOE “reality”, it’s adherents “realists”, and it’s detractors “delusional”- or “demented fuckwits” for extra oomph?
The kind of distinctions people make up for laws, theories, principles, etc. do not conform to actual usage. Heisenberg had an Uncertainty Principle. But it’s not assumed, it’s proved. Newton had a law of gravity. Einstein had a theory of general relativity. Newton’s “law” is a simple limit of Einstein’s, and both can be concisely stated mathematically. And as Torbjörn said, the Ideal Gas Law is just some approximation.
In math, the Law of Cosines is a law, and the Pythagorean Theorem is a theorem. Despite the latter being a special case of the former.
But my general feeling, as someone who has studied and worked in both math and physics, is that everything in math is a theorem and everything in physics is a theory, with scattered exceptions. Letting people say “just a theory” is great, because it immediately identifies them as someone who has no understanding of science, regardless of what else they say.
Never, I repeat: never look up a scientific term in a general dictionary.
Then why do you say “I will go” even when you don’t actually want to? Because that’s what will originally meant (and what it still means in German). And why do you say “I want to go” when you don’t mean “I suffer from a lack of going”?
HOW ARE YOU PRESCRIPTIONIST !!
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US.
YOU ARE ON THE WAY TO DESTRUCTION.
YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE MAKE YOUR TIME.
HA HA HA HA ….
Never, I repeat: never look up a scientific term in a general dictionary.
Then why do you say “I will go” even when you don’t actually want to? Because that’s what will originally meant (and what it still means in German). And why do you say “I want to go” when you don’t mean “I suffer from a lack of going”?
HOW ARE YOU PRESCRIPTIONIST !!
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US.
YOU ARE ON THE WAY TO DESTRUCTION.
YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE MAKE YOUR TIME.
HA HA HA HA ….
robbrown: Merriam-Webster online is the suckiest dictionary that ever sucked a dict. Really. It should have a big disclaimer on it that says, “Merriam-Webster Dictionary: DO NOT USE.”
Check out these results for “theory” from dictionary.com: American Heritage and its specialist dictionaries kick Webster’s ass! They’ve got usage notes and everything!
Evolution: P(t)=P(0)*exp[r*t]
Pseudoscience application: I=-log[p]
Sorry, David, but when I see all capital letters like this, I just find myself missing that Neal dude. That guy’s insanity is the stuff of legend.
It’s a real problem, but the wrong solution.
Blondin,
Communication is possible only because members of a group have reached a rough consensus as to word meanings. There is no external power that dictates the meanings of words, so ‘usage’ does in fact determine whether or not a given meaning is the ‘correct’ one.
As to the notion that the “‘languages evolve’ argument…[i]s just an excuse for not learning to use your language properly,” allow me to point out that an individual error such as you mentioned (behooved for confused or befuddled) is not the sort of thing that leads to language evolution. Language evolution follows systematic, predictable patterns and reflects language processes that universally influence the speakers of a particular language. For example, speakers of English systematically form verbs from nouns. A case in point: the verb ‘cook’ arose from the noun ‘cook’, but I trust you would not object to this usage or view it as a sign of laziness on the part of the speaker. Yet the use of ‘cook’ as a verb was at one time undeniably a neologism. I would hope, then, that you would not be dismayed at the fact that the processes that have successfully shaped the language in the past continue to shape it in the present. My daughter, for example, will say “Let’s netflix it” when she happens upon a movie title that she is interested in. Faced with a new situation, she at once created a perfectly serviceable verb. In doing so, she was being neither sloppy nor lazy but rather was intuitively invoking a language rule that permits clear, concise communication. The resulting neologism was immediately understandable to everyone around her, and I suspect that the verb was simultaneously being coined by Netflix subscribers across the nation. If it endures long enough, it could conceivably enter a dictionary someday. To conclude, as Chaucer wrote, “In forme of speche is chaunge.”
If Clive Thompson gets his way ant the theory of evolution becomes the law of evolution then the ID will become outlaws. All of the cool rebellious kids will accept them. This cannot be allowed to happen.
We should use the term ‘theory’ more, not less.
The term doesn’t after all signify that the theory is correct or even that it has a lot of evidence behind it, for instance the theory of Lamarckian evolution or Haeckels theory of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny.
I’ve always liked the idea of using theoretic language for describing religions – ‘talking snake theorists’ for instance for those who believe in the genesis account.
Go ahead. Keep the word “theory” attached to evolution. Soon enough it will be just the “memory” of evolution, as it will no longer be legal to teach it in schools.
#14,
Instead of evolutionist or Darwinist why don’t we just say that we accept reality. Creationists are essentially denying reality
Yes, Deb. Yes! And with
luckconstant prayer, the bitter memory of heliocentricism will also fade away, like the bad dream that it is…I would have thought Thompson’s proposal will only create greater confusion because “law”, to the lay mind, will make evolution sound more like a cut-and-dried certainty than it really is.
For what it’s worth, the way I understand this is as follows:
Facts are what Gould said, basically observations made so often as to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Laws are formal descriptions – not necessarily explanations – of regularities observed in the behaviour of the natural world.
Conjecture is speculative discussion of observations conducted with a view to stimulate further lines of research and generate hypotheses.
Hypotheses are tentative explanations of certain observations which are characterised by being testable.
Theories are explanations – usually thought of as broader in scope than hypotheses – which have attained a degree of reliability through having survived repeated tests.
The importance of the theory in science is illustrated nicely by Sagan’s parable of the “Westminster Project” in The Demon-Haunted World, although that wasn’t its original purpose in the book. Electrical and magnetic phenomena had been observed for thousands of years but it wasn’t until the likes of Faraday and Maxwell came up with the theory of how the two are related that so much of our electronic technology became possible.
Theories can have enormous power. Religious beliefs can have a strong influence over human behaviour and society but scientific theories can change not only society but the natural world in which that society exists. They can do what faith can’t and that is why they are so feared by some believers.
I tend to agree in a narrow sense. I think evolution is as much a law as thermodynamics.
The first law of evolution states: when variations occur within some part of a replicative system, in which, variations can increase their replication within that system, those variations which do increase their replication, will replicate at a greater rate.
N < N + V; where V > 0
The idea that it isn’t math is rather suspect too, I code up evolution all the time in pretty basic programs. It may not be able to boil down to a single equation but the algorithm is pretty simple. Even if there were absolutely no evidence for evolution the algorithm is sound and functional.
#include
#include
#include
Law: N < N + V; Where V > 0
#include
#include
#include
*sigh*
%s/</</g
%s/>/>/g
This looks like a Trojan horse to me! If it were to become a law, then ID-ists and Creationists would say (instead of “it’s just a theory”) “It’s just a law.” That would lead to full recognition of Intelligent Design by the Republican Party because, as we’ve seen with the Bush administration already, laws are really just guidelines anyway … more suggestions really.
Considering the incomprehensible confusion over ‘theory’ already, what’s to stop the ID rejects from misconstruing the concept of ‘law’ into what they’ve always wanted: a classification of ‘legality’?
RobBrown and Elf Eye, thanks for your excellent clarifications. I guess I am not being very articulate myself because the point I’ve been trying to make is not really in disagreement with what you have said.
I’m all for simpler, clearer terms. Using nouns as verbs can be very effective and efficient (I also hope to eventually see the annoying ‘ou’ in British/Canadian ‘colour’, ‘neighbour’, etc fade from use).
I’m not trying to promote any kind of word police (that would be ultra-plus ungood). I just get tired of people using the oh-well-you-know-what-I-mean excuse for using the wrong word. I know people who use the words ‘astrology’ and ‘astronomy’ interchangeably. Others who refer to a telescope as a microscope or a periscope. I can’t help it, this just bugs me. Maybe not an awful lot turns on these examples but confusing a pedophile with a pediatrician could have drastic consequences.
Evolution of language in inevitable and natural. I just believe we should strive to maintain clarity.
Toward that end, my feeling is that people who wish to promote the distinction between the two meanings for ‘theory’ (regardless of the etymology) could do so by striving to refrain from using the word when they mean unsupported speculation, guess, hunch, assumption, hypothesis, notion, claim or any of those other words that fit their meaning so much better.
Lots of words have different meanings in different contexts, even if there are shared meaning elements. For example, “acceleration” means something different in a car dealer’s office than in an astronomy class, and “cleavage” means something different in a Victoria’s Secret store than it does in a cell biology class. I have found that it isn’t all that difficult to get students to understand that there is technical meaning to “theory” in science that is different from its meaning in law or in everyday speech.
The definition I have used for this discussion is from an older edition of American Heritage: “A systematically organized body of knowledge, consisting of the laws governing the behavior of a specified set of phenomena …”
The new American Heritage is good too: “1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. 2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice.”
How dare you compare Neal to the profound ingenuity of an Engrish video game trailer !!
Reminds me of Einstein’s joke he made when he was asked what would happen if Eddington’s observations would not be consistent with the theory of relativity: “Then I’d feel sorry for the Good God. The theory is alright.” :-)
How dare you compare Neal to the profound ingenuity of an Engrish video game trailer !!
Reminds me of Einstein’s joke he made when he was asked what would happen if Eddington’s observations would not be consistent with the theory of relativity: “Then I’d feel sorry for the Good God. The theory is alright.” :-)
when they say, “OK, smartie pants, what is the law of evolution?”, what am I supposed to do?
Reply, “You shall not teach creationism in schools.” ;-)
Blondin, you shall take my -our endings when you pry them from my cold, dead idiolect. Further, I resent the amalgamation of -our endings into -or endings, since in many cases, the two aren’t pronounced the same. (If they are in your dialect, I’m not sure where you’re from. In what part of the continent is the r-controlled vowel in “colour” pronounced identically to the one in “author”? Are you a speaker of one of these appalling non-fully-rhotic English dialects?) FWIW, I’ve also never even set foot inside anything closer to the UK than a certain Caribbean British protectorate, and I like the -ise endings on verbs (as in “colourise”) too. The “s” is easier to type than the “z” is; one doesn’t have to reach down with one’s ring finger to do it.
It’s bad enough that the US practices the worst aspects of soft-power cultural imperialism on us (never mind your right wing funding ours to a parlous degree); now you want to take away our distinctive shibboleths too?! Fie, I say!
Meanwhile, back on topic… While I agree that there is indisputably a terminological (dare I say rhetorical or maybe discursive?) problem with the scientific versus vernacular usages of “theory,” I’m unsure how to solve the problem, save by beating into people’s heads the idea that the word “theory” has a specific, scientific, term-of-art meaning that is different to the vernacular meaning. I learnt about “precising definitions” in elementary school science class, for Elkobim’s sake; what the hell is the matter with people in the US?!
Deb (#59), thank you for the laugh.
I live in northern Ontario but I’m from Manitoba and the ‘r’ in author sounds the same as the ‘r’ in colour to me.
I also think ‘zee’ makes more sense than ‘zed’. I only wonder why whoever came up with that didn’t also devise a lower-syllable-count version of ‘double-you’.
Its demonstrably false that the term “theory” in science is reserved for artefacts whose truth value is undisputed. For at least a century, practicing scientists, historians, and philosophers have referred to defunct theories such as Lamarck’s theory of evolution, or the vitreous aether theory, as “theories”. We refer to competing theories as “theories” when its clear they can’t both be true, e.g., Gilbert’s “exon theory of genes” and Cavalier-Smith’s “insertional theory of intron origins” represent opposing views of intron evolution. These uses do not originate in naive schoolbooks or dictionaries, they are from peer-reviewed scientific literature. QED.
The mistaken impresson that “theories” are undisputed arises, perhaps, because “theory” has distinct meanings (that you can find in any good dictionary): 1) a big hypothesis or conjecture (more systematic than a smaller conjecture or hypothesis); 2) the body of abstract principles pertaining to a subject (often referring to mathematical statements).
The failure to distinguish these meanings is apparent in many posts above. “Music Theory” clearly is not a systematic hypothesis about music, but theory2, a body of abstract principles. “Decision theory2” (Economics) is a body of principles that pertains to making decisions that are optimal by certain criteria: it is not the conjecture (theory1) that decisions exist, or even that humans make decisions using Decision Theory2. By contrast, the “Prion Theory1” is a conjecture, an assertion about the world to the effect that certain diseases such as scrapie result from a queer form of protein replication.
Theory2 refers to a possible world, whereas a theory1 refers to the actual world. The standard of value for theory1 is verisimilitude, while the standard of value for theory2 is consistency with assumptions.
When science is working properly, theoreticians2 derive theory2 that is correct in the sense of being consistent with its assumptions. Thus we expect that theory2, e.g., population genetics theory2, will be around forever (including aspects of population genetics theory2 that find no relevance in the real world because their assumptions are not satisfied).
I would not want to insist that this distinction is always clear-cut, but I will assert that the failure to make it often leads to error and always leads to confusion.
Another source of confusion is that, while NeoDarwinism started out as a theory1 that boldly placed selection in the driver’s seat of a relatively deterministic process of evolution-as-adaptation by “shifting gene frequencies”, its contemporary defenders (except for the ones like Dawkins that are called “ultra-Darwinists”) have backed away from its bold claims and essentially re-defined it as little more than a statement of principles about inheritance and differential reproduction (theory2). This way they can claim that “neo-Darwinism” includes the Neutral Theory and the “new mutations” view (common in molecular evolution) that previously were understood (correctly) as anti-Darwinian.
greg laden: Depends on how you count. A lot of these words are incredibly polysemous. In logic, they have all precise usages, which are useful to export elsewhere if one needs stipulative definitions.
FWIW, catching up on old threads:
@ arlin:
Outside of math, your theory2 is more often an “area”. theory1 is preferred.
FWIW, catching up on old threads:
@ arlin:
Outside of math, your theory2 is more often an “area”. theory1 is preferred.