Proposition to Scientists: Let's not call them "Theories"

I thought about going with the even more buzzy "Freedom of" to replace "Theory of", but while it would work for "Freedom of Evolution", I feel like "Freedom of Gravity" might give the wrong idea.

Or the right of reality, I agree Shuklack calling something that most people accept as fact a theory is fodder for the stupid ignorant people.

It's only a theory blah blah when people started to question the bible and the timelines within, the religious wackos came up with intelligent design bull@!$%#, and then say their theory is as valid as the Theory of evolution.

Check out this Patriot Bible College. There was a guy on TV the other day saying that dinosaurs and Adam and Eve all lived in the Garden of Eden together until the dino snake gave Eve the apple, or as an ad on TV suggests, a pomegranite.

http://www.patriotuniversity.org/

Are you implying that Religious Freedom is becoming an oxymoron?

There was a guy on TV the other day saying that dinosaurs and Adam and Eve all lived in the Garden of Eden together until the dino snake gave Eve the apple, or as an ad on TV suggests, a pomegranite.

I love those televangelist broadcasts. Always entertaining. I watched one once where the guy insisted that the goal of Christianity was to get rich so you would have the means to make more people Christian. I was looking for the little pointy horns, but I think they airbrushed them out.

FARBE doesn't quite capture the zeitgeist. What about substituting the word theory for fact? After all, a fact is something that either is or is not real/true. A statement of fact can be proven or disproven. However, to the lay person the word fact is associated with truth, proof, reality, honesty, and in all other sense of the phrase "that which is". Instead of scientific theories we should call them scientific facts.

People who are educated will understand that a scientific fact has been tested and not disproven, but being a statement that either is or is not real, it has the potential to be disproven. On the other hand laypeople will think that the word "fact" is a concrete assertion of what is real.

how many average Americans know of the proper definition for theory? they know only how it is used and it has gained a negative connotation.

I see your point. It always "grinds my gears" when I see people commenting on articles that are heavily inundated with statistical data. It's kind of funny that you wrote this article today, because on my way home from work yesterday I started thinking about the shocking conclusions people come up with after butchering the data that they just read.

It seems people should really leave scientific/statistical articles to those who read in those terms, because the terms statasticians/scientists use in their articles are not quite transferrable to the daily lexicon and cause mass confusion.

I always find it funny whenever the news runs an article that has to do with scientific/statistical data, because you would think that they might have someone on staff to translate the articles, but almost without exception I find myself laughing inside when they show the data and give their conclusions as they are so far off base it certainly is laughable.

I think that introducing a new vernacular, could only confuse things more, there will always be a language gap between those who study these things and those who don't.

Let's be more basic in our thinking, how may americans can even speak BASIC English with ANY degree of proficiency.

Most americans would FAIL an English usage test, which is why I support English only laws WITH proficiency testing, since the vast majority of teabaggers and other assorted rightwingers would FAIL the tests and would be excluded from political participation.

FARBE doesn't quite capture the zeitgeist. What about substituting the word theory for fact? After all, a fact is something that either is or is not real/true. A statement of fact can be proven or disproven. However, to the lay person the word fact is associated with truth, proof, reality, honesty, and in all other sense of the phrase "that which is". Instead of scientific theories we should call them scientific facts.

People who are educated will understand that a scientific fact has been tested and not disproven, but being a statement that either is or is not real, it has the potential to be disproven. On the other hand laypeople will think that the word "fact" is a concrete assertion of what is real.

Scientific theories can not become scientific laws.

It is the theory of gravity because it changes as we gain more data, the data alters what we know about how gravity works. A law is unchangable and thus there can be no law of gravity.

^ and that is why I did not become a scientist.

Lol I can agree on that point hearing the same tired retorts is getting old something new might freshen it up for a little while.

BTW FR sent

oh and what branch were you in?

Lol Army myself though my dad was Navy

I always have? it's not a scientific theory though it's more of the colloquial meaning of theory

John Bayner

Let's call the existence of God a theory.

Well, a "theory" is suppost to be testable and falsifiable, which "God" is not; maybe you could get away with "hypothesis," but that's it.

Why not the God Hypothesis. It is a statement that STILL needs testing after all!

An added on part: Sorry Uthaclena I don't know how I missed your post. I agree with you.

I believe creationism is only about four or five decades old. It served to put a scientific rationale on faith as interpreted in scripture. It was to serve as a new understanding of GOD in traditional ways. It served to keep religion viable in a rapidly evolving worldview. It was feared that without an anchor to the past, the present would loose the cohesiveness of faith and chaos would ensue.

There was a lot of spiritual searching going on for alternative religions and worldviews. I trust a new religious understanding will evolve that even non-theists can embrace.

I like FARBY.

That would be a good term. I could get behind that. Though, really, the idea of changing terminology to suit ideologues irks me a bit.

On top that, we all know, in the end it wouldn't matter what we called anything. People who want to be willfully ignorant are going to ignore any evidence that doesn't fit their predisposition. You can see that in how creationists just quote mine and cherry pick whatever suits their fancy. Even when it makes no sense. They love, and deeply misunderstand, thermodynamics. They're fine with that science (even though it in no way proves their point) yet other physics, such as radiometric dating, based in the same principals is utterly flawed in their view. You can't win using reason.

That would be a good term. I could get behind that. Though, really, the idea of changing terminology to suit ideologues irks me a bit.

Yeah me too.

You can't win using reason.

Yeah, however I would like to see them try to exclaim... "well, you know, evolution is only a standard!" Somehow I don't think that would be as effective with the illiterate masses as "it's only a theory."

Yeah, however I would like to see them try to exclaim... "well, you know, evolution is only a standard!" Somehow I don't think that would be as effective with the illiterate masses as "it's only a theory."

I have to give you that :) Okay, I'm for "standard" now.

What about substituting the word theory for fact? After all, a fact is something that either is or is not real/true. A statement of fact can be proven or disproven. However, to the lay person the word fact is associated with truth, proof, reality, honesty, and in all other sense of the phrase "that which is". Instead of scientific theories we should call them scientific facts.

People who are educated will understand that a scientific fact has been tested and not disproven, but being a statement that either is or is not real, it has the potential to be disproven. On the other hand laypeople will think that the word "fact" is a concrete assertion of what is real.

No one could get away with saying "it's only a fact".

Well, they changed "Creationism" to "Intelligent Design". Turnabout is fair play.

For the vast majority, this wouldn't make a difference at all. However, there's a sliver of people in the middle of this issue who find nothing intrinsically wrong with evolution, but do fall to the extensive propaganda about "teach the controversy". Not everyone has a scientific background and they shouldn't be left to the distortions of the religious right because of that.

But changing a word will not fix that. They will simply co-opt the new term. The only way to fight willful ignorance and hate is head on.

And the funny thing is - they say they discount science because we don't have 100% of the facts, at the same time they're believing something that has 0% of evidence to support it!