Why do scientists use the word "theory"?

Post Reply New Topic

Why do scientists use the word "theory"? A word that leads to the "evolution is just theory" argument. Why don't they use a less confusing word?

Accuracy. As more scientific knowledge is gained the theory could change based on the evidence. It's not an absolute, there is always room for evidence to change the theory.

Yes, rhetorically the uniformed will grasp upon that and argue it's just someone's 'opinion', but the fault is in rhetoric, not science: rhetoric of the last 50 years or so conflates theory with opinion, but the technical definition is this:

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: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

No where in the definition is mere opinion valid, all three definitions require evidence, proofs, or methods. Compare that to the definition of opinion:

1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: "The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” ( Elizabeth Drew).
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
3. A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.

No where in the definition of opinion is there any requirement for evidence. They are in effect not compatible as synonyms due to that one caveat.

How would you answer someone who regards a theory as the best idea we have so far based on what we've got and it could change based on later discoveries?

That's why they're dubious. If it can change then can they really rely on it? So says the skeptic regardless of what the theory is.

People think theories at some point pokemon-evolves into facts. This is false. You take facts, and relate them to each other to create a model to describe and explain reality: a theory. Facts are the numbers, but the theory is the whole equation. If one fact turns out to be inaccurate, the whole model might need altering. This is why even a well-established theory must always be presented as "our best working model, but subject to change in case of new discoveries".

I think they mean it comprehensively - ie. certain portions of evolution, like the general shape of the container, almost as close to 'proven fact' as you can get. The only things that they may have a rudimentary or incomplete idea on are how many information layers are involved, or at least when looking at genetics and environment there could be a lot more epigenetics and more layers to the enivronment than they'd counted on. None of the 'in-progress' aspects of that however necessarily make any difference on whether living systems go into the future or cease by way of natural selection or modify into the future, at least in large part, by that mechanism.

People who want to say 'evolution is just a theory' aren't being sincere, they're word-twisting to suit their own agendas. To let them govern scientific vocabulary is as bad as letting SJW's govern national and public dialog, ie. it's bowing to dishonest manipulation, to do so is a display of weakness, and like anything in nature - showing weakness, especially to people or animals who are looking to see just how much they can get away with, is a really - really - bad idea.

Far better to educate the masses on the meaning of scientific theory and the considerable weight the word carries in science. It's not difficult to do.

It might eventually be useful for us to have a particular word in our lexicon defined as 'a concept whose root assumptions have been proven but whose broader details are still being clarified'. It's what you'd get when you have something like a backbone of law with a plum of theory around it in that any additional answers you're going to find will either be within the fundamental context of its primary assumptions or, at the very worst, will change certain details about the fundamental landscape that the observed structure is nested within.