Clive Thompson wrote an article for Wired titled Clive Thompson on Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law.It falls into the category of "with friends like this who need enemies." Thompson is upset about the way in which creationists misuse the word theory.
This is the central argument of evolution deniers: Evolution is an unproven "theory." For science-savvy people, this is an incredibly annoying ploy. While it's true that scientists refer to evolution as a theory, in science the word theory means an explanation of how the world works that has stood up to repeated, rigorous testing. It's hardly a term of disparagement.We all agree that this is a problem when we're trying to explain evolutionary theory to the general public. We need to explain that a theory is not just some wide-eyed speculation but a solid explanation of facts that has stood the test of time. Theories are as good as it gets in science. The Theory of Natural Selection, for example, is not in dispute.
But for most people, theory means a haphazard guess you've pulled out of your, uh, hat. It's an insult, really, a glib way to dismiss a point of view: "Ah, well, that's just your theory." Scientists use theory in one specific way, the public another — and opponents of evolution have expertly exploited this disconnect.
It's a pain to have to do this but it's our obligation as scientists to explain science correctly, right? Clive Thompson has another suggestion.
For truly solid-gold, well-established science, let's stop using the word theory entirely. Instead, let's revive much more venerable language and refer to such knowledge as "law." As with Newton's law of gravity, people intuitively understand that a law is a rule that holds true and must be obeyed. The word law conveys precisely the same sense of authority with the public as theory does with scientists, but without the linguistic baggage.No, no, no! Theories are not laws and under no circumstances should scientists abandon science in order to score political points.
Evolution is supersolid. We even base the vaccine industry on it: When we troop into the doctor's office each winter to get a flu shot — an inoculation against the latest evolved strains of the disease — we're treating evolution as a law. So why not just say "the law of evolution"?
Best of all, it performs a neat bit of linguistic jujitsu. If someone says, "I don't believe in the theory of evolution," they may sound fairly reasonable. But if someone announces, "I don't believe in the law of evolution," they sound insane. It's tantamount to saying, "I don't believe in the law of gravity."
It's time to realize that we're simply never going to school enough of the public in the precise scientific meaning of particular words. We're never going to fully communicate what's beautiful and noble about scientific caution and rigor. Public discourse is inevitably political, so we need to talk about science in a way that wins the political battle — in no uncertain terms.
On the other hand, Mooney and Nisbet would be proud [What Is Framing?].
[Photo Credit: Clive Thompson from University of British Columbia]
[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net]
Er, your post stopped before the bit where you tell us the difference between a theory and a law?
ReplyDeleteIsn't it reasonably obvious?
ReplyDeleteLaws and theories are not only matters of science, so allow me to give examples far from science.
ReplyDeleteAn example of a (non-scientific) law is Murphy's Law.
It states a regularity.
The Peter Principle is an explanation for Murphy's Law.
So the Peter Principle is a (non-scientific) law.
Note that when I call these a law and a theory, I am not committing myself to their being verifiable, or falsifiable, or to their being true, or even serious. Just that they are in the categories of law and theory.
An example of something which is neither a law nor a theory would be Intelligent Design.
Uh, yeah, I sort of posted the following on the wrong thread (if this ends up on the wrong thread again I'll know it was the server):
ReplyDeleteThere 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 Davidson
When he uses terms like linguistic jujitsu, the warning bells start going off... making science politically correct is not the way to go about this. It's the wussy way out. Why should we change? They're the ones who suck!
ReplyDeleteIts demonstrably false that the term "theory" in science is reserved for artefacts whose truth value is undisputed. The people who say this need to pay more attention to what scientists, historians, and philosophers actually write and say. We refer 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 "exon theory of genes" and Cavalier-Smith's "insertional theory of intron origins" represent opposing views of intron evolution. QED.
ReplyDeleteThe confusion 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 typical hypothesis); 2) the body of abstract principles pertaining to a subject (often referring to mathematical statements).
A theory2 only needs to refer to a hypothetical 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, theoreticians (by which we usually mean theory2-practitioners) derive theory2 that is correct in the sense of being consistent with its assumptions. Thus we expect that population genetics theory2 will be around forever, including aspects of population genetics theory2 that don't work in the real world because their assumptions are not satisfied.
Larry: What was the most recently "made" scientific law? What does it date to?
ReplyDeleteJust a suggestion: mathematicians have used cases as indicator of significance e.g. euclidean (lower case 'e' == first order of immortality) vs Pythagorean ( "P" == lesser order).
ReplyDeleteWhy not establish the convention that a well-established scientific Theory uses 'T', while 't' is used for all other 'theories'?