Well to be fair, confusing cause and effect is terrifically easy in science, as is confusing correlation and causation. For the most part, science can only discover correlation, and assigning causation requires a sort of intellectual leap.
And all the fad diets and the industries built around them-- the problem there isn't "bad science". It's really a couple of bad things that happen regardless of how good the science is. First, you have bad news reporting. A single study comes out that suggests some small correlation between coffee and cancer, and then suddenly new outlets are reporting that coffee causes cancer, or coffee cures cancer, or whatever. That's not necessarily the scientists' fault.
The second problem is deceptive marketing by companies selling crap. It's not limited to food and diets. It happens all over, and they don't need scientific studies.
Yeah, so your objection is still rude and pedantic, and it happens to be wrong.
And yet, I'd think I would be in a better position to know my motivations than you.
And apparently you'd be wrong, since your motivations are very obvious and yet according to your claims you're ignorant of them. If a Microsoft spokesman comes out and says, "Our goal is to promote a diverse computing ecosystem and encourage competition," it's clearly not true. (to avoid focusing on Microsoft, it could be Apple saying, "Our goal is to maximize users' and developers' choice on all of our platforms.") So what do you think is going on? Is the spokesperson mislead or misinformed? Is he in denial? Is he lying? I don't know.
But does it make sense to say, "well he would know more about Microsoft's internal workings and corporate structure than me, so I'll just believe whatever he says about the motivations at play!"
If someone were posting on a discussion site about how physicists trying to prove string theory "have a lot of work ahead of them," and you responded, "No! They'll be engaged in thought and not moving a lot of mass, and therefore they'll be doing hardly any work!" then that's rude, pedantic, and wrongheaded.
How is this analogous to what I did?
Do I need to rehash the whole argument for you? This whole thing started because the OP said, "This theory may even be testable." Palute responded, "To be a theory is must be testable." The conversation unfolded from there. This whole thing between us started because you jumped on me for asking whether we were even talking specifically about scientific theories or theories in general, calling my usage "colloquial". I don't know if you realize, but "colloquial" tends to have a connotation of being improper, and is not simply "common usage" as opposed to "technical definition".
In fact, I denied it outright. You're basically calling me a liar...
Or just wrong. People are often wrong about their own motivations, especially when they're not proud of those motivations.
Right. How I would put it is, "security" is not a binary state. It's not that a computer is either "secure" or "not secure". Security is a process, or maybe a context, and the main concern is not about making something "absolutely secure" but a balancing act. You need to balance the restriction of access by unauthorized personnel with the enabling of access by authorized personnel.
Or to use another metaphor, security is like a constant ongoing war. You simply can't devote enough resources to protect every possible target completely from any possible attack. If I'm a general leading an army protecting a country, I can't station my entire army at every place in the country at once. I can't have my army guard every interaction that goes on in the entire country, especially since some of the interactions will involve the army, which raises the question, "Who watches the watchmen?" And if I try to guard every single possible target, I'll find myself spread too thin and a focused attack will defeat me.
So no, the NSA shouldn't consider its network to be "secure". It should try to segment its network based on security requirements, similar to the way many networks have a DMZ. The point of a DMZ is to say, "I am going to break publicly available servers into another network specifically because I won't consider them to be secure."
Well what I think the poster was getting at is the idea that, if you're closing off all insecure ports on all your machines themselves, then firewalls shouldn't really being doing anything anyway. It's not an either-or proposition, is it? Either you have a firewall or you have unpatched computers running with all ports open?
In a certain way of thinking, what a firewall does is to block traffic to unauthorized ports on improperly secured machines, so if you secure your machines then the firewall shouldn't be necessary. Of course, that's not really all that a modern firewall does. Many firewalls can act as a proxy for various protocols, which means that they can offer an additional layer of security beyond simply blocking ports. Also, many companies use firewalls to block outgoing traffic as well, though of course it's often possible to circumvent that if you really want to.
If someone tried to tell me W=0 for some children playing tag because "tag isn't work, it's play", it'd be "rude, pedantic, and wrongheaded" of me to correct them?
If someone were posting on a discussion site about how physicists trying to prove string theory "have a lot of work ahead of them," and you responded, "No! They'll be engaged in thought and not moving a lot of mass, and therefore they'll be doing hardly any work!" then that's rude, pedantic, and wrongheaded. Unless maybe you were joking.
You started out suggesting that whoever told me must have had a political agenda, and now it's me.
That's because you've made it clear over the course of the conversation that you are not simply misinformed. I was basically arguing that this new made-up definition of "theory" is a misguided attempt to combat creationists, and though you won't admit it outright, you've made it clear that you want to use this redefinition to combat creationists. So yeah, now it's you.
Is that not the case? Is it true that you were simply misinformed? In multiple instances, you've tried to back up your side of the argument by arguing that "intelligent design" is more correct than "evolution". Your big important citation that you keep referring to from the National Academy of Science is a small article about how evolution has been tested, but doesn't really address the issue.
I think those are pretty good indicators of where your intentions lie. I think you don't care if the term is correct, and you don't care if it's good. You just want to win your argument.
In science, "hypothesis" has a specific meaning which is distinct from theory. The hypothesis is a specific sort of guess, generally derived from an existing theory, that is devised so that I might be tested/measured by an experiment.
So, for example, Einstein devises a theory to explain the constant speed of light. The theory asserts that time and space are relative. This is already a theory, even though it has not been tested and even if nobody is immediately sure that people will be able to test it.
So in order to test the theory, you need an experiment. Someone posits that if Einstein is correct, then we should be able to take two synchronized clocks, fly one around the earth while the other stayed stationary, and afterwards find that they measured a different passage of time. This is a hypothesis.
So no, in this example it's not that Special Relativity was a hypothesis which was then proven and became a theory. It was a theory which was used to derive a hypothesis (that the clocks would measure time differently). Since the hypothesis was borne out by the experiment, it added credibility to the theory, which was a theory all along.
Sorry, I know you're really stretching for this one.
Interestingly, while I find it useful to have the definition I think is true, I'm not attached to that, while you seem very much opposed to it, not just because you think it's incorrect, but because you think it's dangerous.
I can make up any definition to any word I like. I can say "big" means "small" and "small" means "orange". If enough people start using those words that way, then arguably those definitions are correct. That's not the point here, though. The point is that you (and some others) are trying to manipulate language in a cynical attempt to push a political agenda. Insofar as you're successful, you're damaging the validity of scientific thought and harming the credibility of science in general and evolution in particular.
Your new definition of "theory" is not the one that people use in general, and it's not the one that scientists have traditionally used. Your aim is to confuse your political opponents in the vain hope of winning an argument with people who aren't going to listen to you regardless. Meanwhile you're misinforming people along the periphery, who are listening to you, about the nature of scientific inquiry.
Yes, your definition is dangerous, and there's no real basis for using the word that way. Aside from that, "correcting" people in normal conversation when they use the word in the supposed "colloquial" definition, which is certainly no less correct a definition, is generally rude, pedantic, and wrongheaded.
So either it's just proven fact and can't be doubted because it has already been tested, or else it's pulled out of someone's ass with no support or credibility? Nothing in between? No such thing as a plausible but untested theory?
Do you really have such a poor understanding of how these things work?
Yeah, and saying something "is more or less" is not the same as saying "is". But maybe you're right. Maybe the people who wrote the dictionary are careless with their words.
Why would you expect an attempt to redefine "creationism" to be more successful than an attempt to redefine "theory", assuming such tactics worked at all?
Such tactics won't work, which was my point. Redefining "theory" to beat creationists won't beat them. All it will do is diminish your own credibility.
Where did I ever imply all theories must be true?
Now this is important. This is the key point: What is your intention is saying that in order to be a "theory" is must be testable, tested, verified, and established? I mean, let's cut through the bullshit here. Your intention is nothing more or less than being able to say to creationists, "You aren't allowed to doubt evolution because it's 'just a theory', since when we call it a 'theory' we're saying it's true."
And in making that argument, you're doing science a severe disservice. Science is not a set of verified and undoubtable facts that you aren't allowed to question. In fact, when you stop the questioning and the doubting, the science stops.
The problem with creationists is not that they question the validity of evolution, but rather that their questioning is disingenuous. Their ignorance is intentional. They don't want answers to their questions.
When you try to redefine "theory", you're doing much the same thing. You're trying to take scientific theories and turn them into objects of faith. You want them to be things that we all believe based on the assurances of supposed wise men, and want doubt to be treated like blasphemy.
The truth is that there is a reason why we call it "the theory of evolution" and not "the fact of evolution". The reason is, the theory is probably not correct. That's not to say that it's wrong and creationism is right, but it's a big overarching theory with lots of pieces, and some of those pieces are probably not quite right. Some kind of evolution has definitely happened, but the theory is what explains exactly *how* it happened, and there are still things to be discovered, and there are things that we think we know which we will discover to be wrong. Our current understanding of evolution may be as far off as the Newtonian or Ptolemiac theories of the planets. (not that I think it's likely to be that far off)
And that's science. Science can have no sacred cows, and science doesn't have political agendas.
Wikipedia: "For other uses, see Theory (disambiguation)."
Yup.
A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation
So it's more verified or established or less verified or established. Right.
If you can't back up your claim, I can only assume you're operating from your own arbitrary, circular definitions of what's "nonsensical" and of what a "great thinker" is.
No, I'm asking for great thinkers and you're giving me bureaucrats.
When I work on a computer all day, you mean to tell me that the work I'm doing is merely "metaphorical"?
My point was, although I was correct in asserting that terms like "work" or "energy" didn't really help prove your point, it was irrelevant because people *do* use words in different (often metaphorical) senses on a regular basis. So if you want to say that "work" in the scientific sense is unconnected to "work" in the general sense, that's fine. It doesn't hurt my argument either way.
What I am dependent on is a consistent definition, one way or another, which is why I care about this to begin with. If "theory" doesn't mean what I thought it did, I had better be sure to use other words instead. If "theory" means exactly what I thought it did, then you're just adding confusion to the conversation.
Well theory does not mean what you thought it did. Now you know.
Assuming for the moment that you're right, that this is all an attempt to win political arguments by messing with language. What on earth makes you think the above would work?
I don't think it would work. I think it's a stupid approach, which is why I called it "poor argumentation".
The Intelligent Design movement is a direct, all-out attack on science.
This is exactly my point. Science is under attack from "intelligent design" and it doesn't need you attacking it from the other side by trying to imply that all "theories" must be true.
How long do you think science would last in a world where the government is willing to instead spend money on dowsing rods as a legitimate security device?
People being stupid isn't caused by the definition of the word "theory".
You find an example of a time when scientific theories were just untestable shit that someone made up and presented without a shred of evidence, then we can talk.
That was never my claim. My claim was that the "theory of relativity" was a theory before it was tested. It was a theory before anyone even figured out how to test it. It was a theory even before anyone figured out whether it would be possible to test it. It was a theory the moment Einstein put it together as a speculative explanation of why light never goes faster than a fixed speed.
Same with the "theory of evolution". As soon as Darwin thought, "huh, maybe inheritable changes being killed off at different rates could cause a whole species to become something different," it became a theory. It didn't need to be proven to be called a "theory".
For years and years, people thought that blood was created by the liver and consumed by the muscles. They thought the heart made blood warm and the brain cooled blood off. That was a theory too. It doesn't need to be "correct" to be a theory. It doesn't need to be true or proven or even demonstrated to anyone's satisfaction. It just needs to be a speculative explanation of phenomenon. A guess about how things work or what might have happened.
Do you really want me to find a quote somewhere that uses the word "theory" to describe an untestable explanation? Do you really doubt that I could, or are you just wasting both of our time? How about the whole fact that there's a thing called "string theory" which, last I heard, even the proponents weren't sure it would ever be testable.
Now if you really really want to say "creationism" isn't a theory, you can do that. You can do that on the grounds that (a) it's not speculative, since the believers in the theory believe that it's certain; and (b) it doesn't really explain anything. Or you can just insist that it's not a theory on no grounds whatsoever if you really want to. I'm not sure what's won by that argument.
Either way, trying to redefine "theory" to mean "something proven to be true" isn't helping the discussion.
Recent like "in the past few years". You might find a reference to this redefinition that's a few decades old, but really people have only been pushing for it in the past decade or so.
I don't know where you think that fits in "the rise of science", but modern science started a few hundred years ago.
The difference between a scientific theory and a “theory” in common usage is not “factualness” – the difference is that a scientific theory must be testable, falsifiable, must have predictive power, and be supported by evidence.
Except that the idea that a "theory" must be both testable and tested (i.e. "supported by evidence") is a recent invention, seemingly designed specifically so we can tell "science doubters" that you're not allowed to doubt "theories". And that *is* an attempt to redefine "theory" as "fact", and it's BS. It's a bad definition being pushed by people who are too feeble minded to argue the validity of evolutionary theory on its merits rather than redefining long-standing words to mean things that they don't mean.
A theory is a theory when it's formulated, not when it's "proven".
Fine, you really want citations? Herearesome. Wow. If you look up definitions of "theory", you find that "theory" means "theory", even when (or especially when) talking about science.
This isn't hard. But it *is* stupid.
So, when you said, "I'm not going to readily accept a drastic and nonsensical redefinition of well-established words on the insistence of a poor thinker," the "poor thinker" bit was redundant, because you infer that from the fact that it's a "nonsensical redefinition."
Way to prove that you're not one of those pedantic douchebags I was complaining about.
This is exactly the same as the two definitions of "theory" we're considering. Colloquially, a theory is "a good idea."
No it's not. There are plenty of good ideas that aren't theories, and there are theories which aren't good ideas. The definition of theory, whether talking in science or colloquial, is something along the lines of "a speculative explanation" generally including the connotation that it has not been proven.
And the difference is, when we talk about "work" in physics, we're talking about a specific measurement which was derived in order to be able to quantify work. When I move a heavy box from point A to point B, I have done some "work". The physics definition is essentially trying to quantify that work. Regardless, there are other metaphorical uses of words that are very different from the original meaning, and all of that is fine. The problem is when you arbitrarily try to make up a new conflicting definition because you don't know how else to win your arguments and you're too petty to say "I don't know".
And this is the whole problem. In a stunning misuse of words, Creationists dubbed their theory "science". You apparently can't figure out a useful response, so you're employing an equally stunning misuse of language by redefining "theory" to mean "fact". If such poor argumentation works, then we'd be better off redefining "creationism" as "wrong" and being done with it. At least that way, we wouldn't be subverting scientific thought for the sake of petty political battles. Do you think "science" is still a field with validity if it is held captive to political motives?
I'm not a fan of Michael Moore's, but he's about as relevant as he's ever been. "Sicko" and "Capitalism: A Love Story" are probably as famous as any of his other movies.
That's not to say that he's ever been terrifically relevant, but if he was relevant in the past (which you imply by saying "stay relevant") then he's relevant now.
But that's just my point. You're willing to redefine what it means to be a "scientific theory", thereby damaging the credibility of science in general, in order to win a petty political argument with jackasses.
"Theory" does not mean "proven" and it does not mean "fact". I understand the motivation, but you trying to redefine "theory" as fact" is just as stupid and cynical as religious nutcases trying to redefine "science" to include "creationism".
I'm all in favor of recognizing that different words have different meanings in different contexts, and even just to different people. I'm opposed to making up new definitions out of nowhere that are specifically contrary to the accepted definition for the purpose of confusing people. This is particularly insidious because it's a cynical attempt to redefine a well-known term with a conflicting definition in order to serve a political agenda.
I'm not asking to be placated. I'm just informing him that he's wrong.
Look, you asked for citations of people using the word "theory" in the way that people normally use it, in order to prove it's used that way. That's just silly. I can waste my time trying to find some dumb citations, or you can just admit that it's the sense in which people *generally* use the term, at least when they're not being pedantic fake sciency guys making up new definitions for common words.
False dichotomy, then -- either someone's a "great thinker" or they're a "poor thinker"? Is that what you think?
That's so entirely not the point I'm making. If it makes you happy, let's separate them into great thinkers, very good thinkers, mediocre thinkers, poor thinkers, and idiots. I'll only consider nonsensical redefinitions of common terms if the thinkers are "great" or "very good".
The only way you get out of this is if you're calling me a "poor thinker", but that would be an ad-hom and not really relevant at all.
No, I'm accusing you of being misinformed by a poor thinker. Whoever came up with this definition is a poor thinker. It's not as an ad-hominem attack, but more that I'm asserting they're probably a poor thinker for coming up with such a bad attempt at redefinition. Or are you saying that you're not misinformed, but that *you* came up with this new definition? That would change things.
Do you mean to imply that the physics concept of work, energy, and power are the ideas behind the terms?
"Work" and "power" in a strict physics standpoint is more particular than the general usage, but in my mind, at least, they're not contradictory. "Energy" was basically created as a physics term. "Theory" was effectively only ever a scientific term.
I'm the lone dissenting voice saying that your made-up definition is incorrect? You're the lone voice telling me it's correct. Maybe you're right, though. Maybe if I had more sense, I'd quit arguing with stupid people (*now* I'm suggesting that you're a poor thinker), but if nobody ever argued with stupid people, they'd never learn.
I'm not sure what side you're trying to take on all this, but this is partially my point. You ask me to find random citations of people who say that "theory" means "theory"? I can point you to any dictionary. I can do that if anyone wants, but I don't see the point.
You want me to find a citation of someone who says that "theory" does not mean "a well-established and accepted theory"? Well who is going to bother arguing that under normal circumstances? Find me a citation of someone who says "food" does not only mean "carrots". Find me a nutritionist who has written a scientific paper arguing that, specifically. If you do, I'll be impressed, but I'll also wonder who you are that you have such time to waste looking for such ridiculous citations.
So no, I can't find citations for purpose space lizards from Titan, and I can't find citations for there being no space lizards from Titan. Nobody is really writing on the topic, because it's stupid.
Really, we both know what the word "theory" means...
Apparently not.
Really? You don't know what a "theory" is, in the sense of "theory" the way people use the word? Well ok. I can't trust that you know the meaning of any of the words I'm writing the, so we're in trouble.
I think it's far more likely that you have some sort of rosy-colored hindsight for the "good old days," which never really existed.
I'm not talking about some golden age where everything is good. On the other hand, yeah, things do get better and worse. We do have ages of enlightenment, dark ages, and times of madness.
I'm not sure why this is required. Do I need a "great thinker" to tell me that work has a different meaning in physics than it does elsewhere?
Here's why it's required: I'm not going to readily accept a drastic and nonsensical redefinition of well-established words on the insistence of a poor thinker. I'm not interested in accepting the redefinition of the word "theory" by someone who has never had a worthwhile theory of their own and who doesn't understand their own redefinition of the word.
People are also easily confused by the definitions in physics of work, energy, and power.
You're talking about people failing to understand ideas behind actual terms in their normal/traditional meanings. And even if you want to talk about the "color" of a quark, you're talking about a metaphor about things where color doesnt apply, used in a highly technical setting. You don't have pompous asshole quantum physicists trying to redefine "color" to mean "texture" in general conversations about any small object in a desperate attempt to win political arguments.
Regarding citations, do you want me to find definitions for "theory" that mean "theory"? Do you want me to cite writings where the word "theory" is used to mean "theory"? Really, we both know what the word "theory" means, and we know I can come up with citations to support it. Hell, your citations support it.
Regarding the 75 years, people have lost their minds in the past few decades. I really worry about the future of humanity. I don't think you'd be able to come up with a genuinely great thinker of any time who would make the distinction that you're trying to, but there's probably some famously "smart" person from the past couple decades who has made a grand effort to redefine the word, which is where you're getting your made-up definition.
Now of course, if you make up definitions of words and it catches on, that becomes the definition. If I use the word "inflammable" to mean "not flammable", it's wrong. If it catches on and that's how people really start using the word, then it eventually becomes correct.
Anyway, this definition of "theory" that you're using is a bad one, doesn't have a basis in anything, and is going to be needlessly confusing for people. I'm not sure who started it, but it was probably created out of ignorance or manipulative motives.
Sorry, I'm being uncharacteristically blunt. I don't mean to be rude here, and this really doesn't matter, but what you're saying isn't quite right. You might say that a theory which is absolutely untestable is not generally a "scientific theory", which is to say that it's a theory of the sort that doesn't fall into the realm of science. However, in the tradition of science, calling an idea a "theory" has never meant that it was well tested or even known to be testable. "Theory" just means "theory".
Slashdot Mirror
Well to be fair, confusing cause and effect is terrifically easy in science, as is confusing correlation and causation. For the most part, science can only discover correlation, and assigning causation requires a sort of intellectual leap.
And all the fad diets and the industries built around them-- the problem there isn't "bad science". It's really a couple of bad things that happen regardless of how good the science is. First, you have bad news reporting. A single study comes out that suggests some small correlation between coffee and cancer, and then suddenly new outlets are reporting that coffee causes cancer, or coffee cures cancer, or whatever. That's not necessarily the scientists' fault.
The second problem is deceptive marketing by companies selling crap. It's not limited to food and diets. It happens all over, and they don't need scientific studies.
No, that would be too useful. But you can view your trophies!
And yet you're arguing. Again, what you claim about yourself is clearly not true.
And Darth Vader really did betray and murder Luke's father, from a certain point of view.
Yes, that's true. I think you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.
Your usage of "scientific theory", specifically.
Yeah, so your objection is still rude and pedantic, and it happens to be wrong.
And yet, I'd think I would be in a better position to know my motivations than you.
And apparently you'd be wrong, since your motivations are very obvious and yet according to your claims you're ignorant of them. If a Microsoft spokesman comes out and says, "Our goal is to promote a diverse computing ecosystem and encourage competition," it's clearly not true. (to avoid focusing on Microsoft, it could be Apple saying, "Our goal is to maximize users' and developers' choice on all of our platforms.") So what do you think is going on? Is the spokesperson mislead or misinformed? Is he in denial? Is he lying? I don't know.
But does it make sense to say, "well he would know more about Microsoft's internal workings and corporate structure than me, so I'll just believe whatever he says about the motivations at play!"
If someone were posting on a discussion site about how physicists trying to prove string theory "have a lot of work ahead of them," and you responded, "No! They'll be engaged in thought and not moving a lot of mass, and therefore they'll be doing hardly any work!" then that's rude, pedantic, and wrongheaded. How is this analogous to what I did?
Do I need to rehash the whole argument for you? This whole thing started because the OP said, "This theory may even be testable." Palute responded, "To be a theory is must be testable." The conversation unfolded from there. This whole thing between us started because you jumped on me for asking whether we were even talking specifically about scientific theories or theories in general, calling my usage "colloquial". I don't know if you realize, but "colloquial" tends to have a connotation of being improper, and is not simply "common usage" as opposed to "technical definition".
In fact, I denied it outright. You're basically calling me a liar...
Or just wrong. People are often wrong about their own motivations, especially when they're not proud of those motivations.
Right. How I would put it is, "security" is not a binary state. It's not that a computer is either "secure" or "not secure". Security is a process, or maybe a context, and the main concern is not about making something "absolutely secure" but a balancing act. You need to balance the restriction of access by unauthorized personnel with the enabling of access by authorized personnel.
Or to use another metaphor, security is like a constant ongoing war. You simply can't devote enough resources to protect every possible target completely from any possible attack. If I'm a general leading an army protecting a country, I can't station my entire army at every place in the country at once. I can't have my army guard every interaction that goes on in the entire country, especially since some of the interactions will involve the army, which raises the question, "Who watches the watchmen?" And if I try to guard every single possible target, I'll find myself spread too thin and a focused attack will defeat me.
So no, the NSA shouldn't consider its network to be "secure". It should try to segment its network based on security requirements, similar to the way many networks have a DMZ. The point of a DMZ is to say, "I am going to break publicly available servers into another network specifically because I won't consider them to be secure."
Well what I think the poster was getting at is the idea that, if you're closing off all insecure ports on all your machines themselves, then firewalls shouldn't really being doing anything anyway. It's not an either-or proposition, is it? Either you have a firewall or you have unpatched computers running with all ports open?
In a certain way of thinking, what a firewall does is to block traffic to unauthorized ports on improperly secured machines, so if you secure your machines then the firewall shouldn't be necessary. Of course, that's not really all that a modern firewall does. Many firewalls can act as a proxy for various protocols, which means that they can offer an additional layer of security beyond simply blocking ports. Also, many companies use firewalls to block outgoing traffic as well, though of course it's often possible to circumvent that if you really want to.
If someone tried to tell me W=0 for some children playing tag because "tag isn't work, it's play", it'd be "rude, pedantic, and wrongheaded" of me to correct them?
If someone were posting on a discussion site about how physicists trying to prove string theory "have a lot of work ahead of them," and you responded, "No! They'll be engaged in thought and not moving a lot of mass, and therefore they'll be doing hardly any work!" then that's rude, pedantic, and wrongheaded. Unless maybe you were joking.
You started out suggesting that whoever told me must have had a political agenda, and now it's me.
That's because you've made it clear over the course of the conversation that you are not simply misinformed. I was basically arguing that this new made-up definition of "theory" is a misguided attempt to combat creationists, and though you won't admit it outright, you've made it clear that you want to use this redefinition to combat creationists. So yeah, now it's you.
Is that not the case? Is it true that you were simply misinformed? In multiple instances, you've tried to back up your side of the argument by arguing that "intelligent design" is more correct than "evolution". Your big important citation that you keep referring to from the National Academy of Science is a small article about how evolution has been tested, but doesn't really address the issue.
I think those are pretty good indicators of where your intentions lie. I think you don't care if the term is correct, and you don't care if it's good. You just want to win your argument.
In science, "hypothesis" has a specific meaning which is distinct from theory. The hypothesis is a specific sort of guess, generally derived from an existing theory, that is devised so that I might be tested/measured by an experiment.
So, for example, Einstein devises a theory to explain the constant speed of light. The theory asserts that time and space are relative. This is already a theory, even though it has not been tested and even if nobody is immediately sure that people will be able to test it.
So in order to test the theory, you need an experiment. Someone posits that if Einstein is correct, then we should be able to take two synchronized clocks, fly one around the earth while the other stayed stationary, and afterwards find that they measured a different passage of time. This is a hypothesis.
So no, in this example it's not that Special Relativity was a hypothesis which was then proven and became a theory. It was a theory which was used to derive a hypothesis (that the clocks would measure time differently). Since the hypothesis was borne out by the experiment, it added credibility to the theory, which was a theory all along.
Sorry, I know you're really stretching for this one.
Interestingly, while I find it useful to have the definition I think is true, I'm not attached to that, while you seem very much opposed to it, not just because you think it's incorrect, but because you think it's dangerous.
I can make up any definition to any word I like. I can say "big" means "small" and "small" means "orange". If enough people start using those words that way, then arguably those definitions are correct. That's not the point here, though. The point is that you (and some others) are trying to manipulate language in a cynical attempt to push a political agenda. Insofar as you're successful, you're damaging the validity of scientific thought and harming the credibility of science in general and evolution in particular.
Your new definition of "theory" is not the one that people use in general, and it's not the one that scientists have traditionally used. Your aim is to confuse your political opponents in the vain hope of winning an argument with people who aren't going to listen to you regardless. Meanwhile you're misinforming people along the periphery, who are listening to you, about the nature of scientific inquiry.
Yes, your definition is dangerous, and there's no real basis for using the word that way. Aside from that, "correcting" people in normal conversation when they use the word in the supposed "colloquial" definition, which is certainly no less correct a definition, is generally rude, pedantic, and wrongheaded.
Einstein didn't just pull it out of his ass
So either it's just proven fact and can't be doubted because it has already been tested, or else it's pulled out of someone's ass with no support or credibility? Nothing in between? No such thing as a plausible but untested theory?
Do you really have such a poor understanding of how these things work?
well, we both know what "more or less" means.
Yeah, and saying something "is more or less" is not the same as saying "is". But maybe you're right. Maybe the people who wrote the dictionary are careless with their words.
Why would you expect an attempt to redefine "creationism" to be more successful than an attempt to redefine "theory", assuming such tactics worked at all?
Such tactics won't work, which was my point. Redefining "theory" to beat creationists won't beat them. All it will do is diminish your own credibility.
Where did I ever imply all theories must be true?
Now this is important. This is the key point: What is your intention is saying that in order to be a "theory" is must be testable, tested, verified, and established? I mean, let's cut through the bullshit here. Your intention is nothing more or less than being able to say to creationists, "You aren't allowed to doubt evolution because it's 'just a theory', since when we call it a 'theory' we're saying it's true."
And in making that argument, you're doing science a severe disservice. Science is not a set of verified and undoubtable facts that you aren't allowed to question. In fact, when you stop the questioning and the doubting, the science stops.
The problem with creationists is not that they question the validity of evolution, but rather that their questioning is disingenuous. Their ignorance is intentional. They don't want answers to their questions.
When you try to redefine "theory", you're doing much the same thing. You're trying to take scientific theories and turn them into objects of faith. You want them to be things that we all believe based on the assurances of supposed wise men, and want doubt to be treated like blasphemy.
The truth is that there is a reason why we call it "the theory of evolution" and not "the fact of evolution". The reason is, the theory is probably not correct. That's not to say that it's wrong and creationism is right, but it's a big overarching theory with lots of pieces, and some of those pieces are probably not quite right. Some kind of evolution has definitely happened, but the theory is what explains exactly *how* it happened, and there are still things to be discovered, and there are things that we think we know which we will discover to be wrong. Our current understanding of evolution may be as far off as the Newtonian or Ptolemiac theories of the planets. (not that I think it's likely to be that far off)
And that's science. Science can have no sacred cows, and science doesn't have political agendas.
Wikipedia: "For other uses, see Theory (disambiguation)."
Yup.
A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation
So it's more verified or established or less verified or established. Right.
If you can't back up your claim, I can only assume you're operating from your own arbitrary, circular definitions of what's "nonsensical" and of what a "great thinker" is.
No, I'm asking for great thinkers and you're giving me bureaucrats.
When I work on a computer all day, you mean to tell me that the work I'm doing is merely "metaphorical"?
My point was, although I was correct in asserting that terms like "work" or "energy" didn't really help prove your point, it was irrelevant because people *do* use words in different (often metaphorical) senses on a regular basis. So if you want to say that "work" in the scientific sense is unconnected to "work" in the general sense, that's fine. It doesn't hurt my argument either way.
What I am dependent on is a consistent definition, one way or another, which is why I care about this to begin with. If "theory" doesn't mean what I thought it did, I had better be sure to use other words instead. If "theory" means exactly what I thought it did, then you're just adding confusion to the conversation.
Well theory does not mean what you thought it did. Now you know.
Assuming for the moment that you're right, that this is all an attempt to win political arguments by messing with language. What on earth makes you think the above would work?
I don't think it would work. I think it's a stupid approach, which is why I called it "poor argumentation".
The Intelligent Design movement is a direct, all-out attack on science.
This is exactly my point. Science is under attack from "intelligent design" and it doesn't need you attacking it from the other side by trying to imply that all "theories" must be true.
How long do you think science would last in a world where the government is willing to instead spend money on dowsing rods as a legitimate security device?
People being stupid isn't caused by the definition of the word "theory".
You find an example of a time when scientific theories were just untestable shit that someone made up and presented without a shred of evidence, then we can talk.
That was never my claim. My claim was that the "theory of relativity" was a theory before it was tested. It was a theory before anyone even figured out how to test it. It was a theory even before anyone figured out whether it would be possible to test it. It was a theory the moment Einstein put it together as a speculative explanation of why light never goes faster than a fixed speed.
Same with the "theory of evolution". As soon as Darwin thought, "huh, maybe inheritable changes being killed off at different rates could cause a whole species to become something different," it became a theory. It didn't need to be proven to be called a "theory".
For years and years, people thought that blood was created by the liver and consumed by the muscles. They thought the heart made blood warm and the brain cooled blood off. That was a theory too. It doesn't need to be "correct" to be a theory. It doesn't need to be true or proven or even demonstrated to anyone's satisfaction. It just needs to be a speculative explanation of phenomenon. A guess about how things work or what might have happened.
Do you really want me to find a quote somewhere that uses the word "theory" to describe an untestable explanation? Do you really doubt that I could, or are you just wasting both of our time? How about the whole fact that there's a thing called "string theory" which, last I heard, even the proponents weren't sure it would ever be testable.
Now if you really really want to say "creationism" isn't a theory, you can do that. You can do that on the grounds that (a) it's not speculative, since the believers in the theory believe that it's certain; and (b) it doesn't really explain anything. Or you can just insist that it's not a theory on no grounds whatsoever if you really want to. I'm not sure what's won by that argument.
Either way, trying to redefine "theory" to mean "something proven to be true" isn't helping the discussion.
Recent like "in the past few years". You might find a reference to this redefinition that's a few decades old, but really people have only been pushing for it in the past decade or so.
I don't know where you think that fits in "the rise of science", but modern science started a few hundred years ago.
The difference between a scientific theory and a “theory” in common usage is not “factualness” – the difference is that a scientific theory must be testable, falsifiable, must have predictive power, and be supported by evidence.
Except that the idea that a "theory" must be both testable and tested (i.e. "supported by evidence") is a recent invention, seemingly designed specifically so we can tell "science doubters" that you're not allowed to doubt "theories". And that *is* an attempt to redefine "theory" as "fact", and it's BS. It's a bad definition being pushed by people who are too feeble minded to argue the validity of evolutionary theory on its merits rather than redefining long-standing words to mean things that they don't mean.
A theory is a theory when it's formulated, not when it's "proven".
Fine, you really want citations? Here are some. Wow. If you look up definitions of "theory", you find that "theory" means "theory", even when (or especially when) talking about science.
This isn't hard. But it *is* stupid.
So, when you said, "I'm not going to readily accept a drastic and nonsensical redefinition of well-established words on the insistence of a poor thinker," the "poor thinker" bit was redundant, because you infer that from the fact that it's a "nonsensical redefinition."
Way to prove that you're not one of those pedantic douchebags I was complaining about.
This is exactly the same as the two definitions of "theory" we're considering. Colloquially, a theory is "a good idea."
No it's not. There are plenty of good ideas that aren't theories, and there are theories which aren't good ideas. The definition of theory, whether talking in science or colloquial, is something along the lines of "a speculative explanation" generally including the connotation that it has not been proven.
And the difference is, when we talk about "work" in physics, we're talking about a specific measurement which was derived in order to be able to quantify work. When I move a heavy box from point A to point B, I have done some "work". The physics definition is essentially trying to quantify that work. Regardless, there are other metaphorical uses of words that are very different from the original meaning, and all of that is fine. The problem is when you arbitrarily try to make up a new conflicting definition because you don't know how else to win your arguments and you're too petty to say "I don't know".
And this is the whole problem. In a stunning misuse of words, Creationists dubbed their theory "science". You apparently can't figure out a useful response, so you're employing an equally stunning misuse of language by redefining "theory" to mean "fact". If such poor argumentation works, then we'd be better off redefining "creationism" as "wrong" and being done with it. At least that way, we wouldn't be subverting scientific thought for the sake of petty political battles. Do you think "science" is still a field with validity if it is held captive to political motives?
I'm not a fan of Michael Moore's, but he's about as relevant as he's ever been. "Sicko" and "Capitalism: A Love Story" are probably as famous as any of his other movies.
That's not to say that he's ever been terrifically relevant, but if he was relevant in the past (which you imply by saying "stay relevant") then he's relevant now.
But that's just my point. You're willing to redefine what it means to be a "scientific theory", thereby damaging the credibility of science in general, in order to win a petty political argument with jackasses.
"Theory" does not mean "proven" and it does not mean "fact". I understand the motivation, but you trying to redefine "theory" as fact" is just as stupid and cynical as religious nutcases trying to redefine "science" to include "creationism".
I'm all in favor of recognizing that different words have different meanings in different contexts, and even just to different people. I'm opposed to making up new definitions out of nowhere that are specifically contrary to the accepted definition for the purpose of confusing people. This is particularly insidious because it's a cynical attempt to redefine a well-known term with a conflicting definition in order to serve a political agenda.
I'm not asking to be placated. I'm just informing him that he's wrong.
...and that's where you changed the topic.
Look, you asked for citations of people using the word "theory" in the way that people normally use it, in order to prove it's used that way. That's just silly. I can waste my time trying to find some dumb citations, or you can just admit that it's the sense in which people *generally* use the term, at least when they're not being pedantic fake sciency guys making up new definitions for common words.
False dichotomy, then -- either someone's a "great thinker" or they're a "poor thinker"? Is that what you think?
That's so entirely not the point I'm making. If it makes you happy, let's separate them into great thinkers, very good thinkers, mediocre thinkers, poor thinkers, and idiots. I'll only consider nonsensical redefinitions of common terms if the thinkers are "great" or "very good".
The only way you get out of this is if you're calling me a "poor thinker", but that would be an ad-hom and not really relevant at all.
No, I'm accusing you of being misinformed by a poor thinker. Whoever came up with this definition is a poor thinker. It's not as an ad-hominem attack, but more that I'm asserting they're probably a poor thinker for coming up with such a bad attempt at redefinition. Or are you saying that you're not misinformed, but that *you* came up with this new definition? That would change things.
Do you mean to imply that the physics concept of work, energy, and power are the ideas behind the terms?
"Work" and "power" in a strict physics standpoint is more particular than the general usage, but in my mind, at least, they're not contradictory. "Energy" was basically created as a physics term. "Theory" was effectively only ever a scientific term.
I'm the lone dissenting voice saying that your made-up definition is incorrect? You're the lone voice telling me it's correct. Maybe you're right, though. Maybe if I had more sense, I'd quit arguing with stupid people (*now* I'm suggesting that you're a poor thinker), but if nobody ever argued with stupid people, they'd never learn.
I'm not sure what side you're trying to take on all this, but this is partially my point. You ask me to find random citations of people who say that "theory" means "theory"? I can point you to any dictionary. I can do that if anyone wants, but I don't see the point.
You want me to find a citation of someone who says that "theory" does not mean "a well-established and accepted theory"? Well who is going to bother arguing that under normal circumstances? Find me a citation of someone who says "food" does not only mean "carrots". Find me a nutritionist who has written a scientific paper arguing that, specifically. If you do, I'll be impressed, but I'll also wonder who you are that you have such time to waste looking for such ridiculous citations.
So no, I can't find citations for purpose space lizards from Titan, and I can't find citations for there being no space lizards from Titan. Nobody is really writing on the topic, because it's stupid.
Really, we both know what the word "theory" means...
Apparently not.
Really? You don't know what a "theory" is, in the sense of "theory" the way people use the word? Well ok. I can't trust that you know the meaning of any of the words I'm writing the, so we're in trouble.
I think it's far more likely that you have some sort of rosy-colored hindsight for the "good old days," which never really existed.
I'm not talking about some golden age where everything is good. On the other hand, yeah, things do get better and worse. We do have ages of enlightenment, dark ages, and times of madness.
I'm not sure why this is required. Do I need a "great thinker" to tell me that work has a different meaning in physics than it does elsewhere?
Here's why it's required: I'm not going to readily accept a drastic and nonsensical redefinition of well-established words on the insistence of a poor thinker. I'm not interested in accepting the redefinition of the word "theory" by someone who has never had a worthwhile theory of their own and who doesn't understand their own redefinition of the word.
People are also easily confused by the definitions in physics of work, energy, and power.
You're talking about people failing to understand ideas behind actual terms in their normal/traditional meanings. And even if you want to talk about the "color" of a quark, you're talking about a metaphor about things where color doesnt apply, used in a highly technical setting. You don't have pompous asshole quantum physicists trying to redefine "color" to mean "texture" in general conversations about any small object in a desperate attempt to win political arguments.
Regarding citations, do you want me to find definitions for "theory" that mean "theory"? Do you want me to cite writings where the word "theory" is used to mean "theory"? Really, we both know what the word "theory" means, and we know I can come up with citations to support it. Hell, your citations support it.
Regarding the 75 years, people have lost their minds in the past few decades. I really worry about the future of humanity. I don't think you'd be able to come up with a genuinely great thinker of any time who would make the distinction that you're trying to, but there's probably some famously "smart" person from the past couple decades who has made a grand effort to redefine the word, which is where you're getting your made-up definition.
Now of course, if you make up definitions of words and it catches on, that becomes the definition. If I use the word "inflammable" to mean "not flammable", it's wrong. If it catches on and that's how people really start using the word, then it eventually becomes correct.
Anyway, this definition of "theory" that you're using is a bad one, doesn't have a basis in anything, and is going to be needlessly confusing for people. I'm not sure who started it, but it was probably created out of ignorance or manipulative motives.
Sorry, I'm being uncharacteristically blunt. I don't mean to be rude here, and this really doesn't matter, but what you're saying isn't quite right. You might say that a theory which is absolutely untestable is not generally a "scientific theory", which is to say that it's a theory of the sort that doesn't fall into the realm of science. However, in the tradition of science, calling an idea a "theory" has never meant that it was well tested or even known to be testable. "Theory" just means "theory".