skullaria wrote:
........or something. Perhaps this is a word that should be above the 4th grade level meant for public news consumption.
The popular press is using the word theory to describe well tested and analyzed science, and the public is seeing that word only as it is used in the scientific process - almost as if theory = hypothesis.
I try to remind people that while there is a THEORY of Evolution, there's also a THEORY OF GRAVITY. (1,3,4)
But folks are not getting it. Therefore, we must strike the word THEORY from all talk of science, unless it is indeed, purely conjecture, as the word THEORY must mean DOUBTFUL to a large percentage of the public.(2,5,6,7)
I, for one, am tired of seeing scientific theories politicized and analyzed by the public IN the media. I really don't blame the media so much for this one - it is the PUBLIC. The media could stand to INFORM the public better though, when the meaning of the word may be used in a confusing way. Maybe the media just needs a better WORD. Something that the general public can't trip their tongues over.
What an interesting, confusing word:
"1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture. "
I mean - come on - what a CONFUSING WORD. THEORY. Maybe we should say Theory(1) or Theory(2). But then, we'd have to figure out which DICTIONARY to use, because they all present the word meanings in different orders. So strike that.
No - let's just strike THEORY from the Science Vocabulary and come up with something ELSE. It is not concise enough for science in the modern world.
Here I am....never thought **I** would advocate changing the common use of a word.
I'm not sure I agree. I have an inherent resistance to changing *correct* language usage for people who know the proper way to handle it. It's an unneccessary concession to the perceived unwashed masses, as it were.
I don't think this is fundamentally the fault of the people. Well, let me revise that... of course, virtually all cases of ignorance are a result of a lazy public. They're the ones who don't think critically or reflectively. That being said, I think the way to help solve this is for science *writers* to be held accountable for their incorrect usages or lazy style. They're WRITERS and should care a great deal about the precise use of language to convey an idea. It's the laziness of the writers that excuses the laziness of the public. They should use the word theory when appropriate and explain why they're doing so. When something is a hypothesis, they should explain that too. The public will get it through repetition. It's only by conceding that people are too dumb to ever grasp "hypothesis" vs. "theory" and reducing science reporting to a 5th grade level that we lose here. -k]
