by Clive Thompson
Reposted from:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-11/st_thompson
Creationists and intelligent-design boosters have a guerrilla tactic to undermine textbooks that don't jibe with their beliefs. They slap a sticker on the cover that reads, EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT A FACT, REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF LIVING THINGS.
Scientists are already pondering this. Last summer, physicist Helen Quinn sparked a lively debate among her colleagues with an essay for Physics Today arguing that
What does she suggest?
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"?
At least, that's my theory.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-11/st_thompson
Creationists and intelligent-design boosters have a guerrilla tactic to undermine textbooks that don't jibe with their beliefs. They slap a sticker on the cover that reads, EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT A FACT, REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF LIVING THINGS.
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.
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.
Turns out, the real culture war in science isn't about science at all — it's about language. And to fight this war, we need to change the way we talk about scientific knowledge.
Scientists are already pondering this. Last summer, physicist Helen Quinn sparked a lively debate among her colleagues with an essay for Physics Today arguing that
scientists are too tentative when they discuss scientific knowledge. They're an inherently cautious bunch, she points out. Even when they're 99 percent certain of a theory, they know there's always the chance that a new discovery could overturn or modify it.
So when scientists talk about well-established bodies of knowledge — particularly in areas like evolution or relativity — they hedge their bets. They say they "believe" something to be true, as in, "We believe that the Jurassic period was characterized by humid tropical weather."
This deliberately nuanced language gets horribly misunderstood and often twisted in public discourse. When the average person hears phrases like "scientists believe," they read it as, "Scientists can't really prove this stuff, but they take it on faith." ("That's just what you believe" is another nifty way to dismiss someone out of hand.)
Of course, antievolution crusaders have figured out that language is the ammunition of culture wars. That's why they use those stickers. They take the intellectual strengths of scientific language — its precision, its carefulness — and wield them as weapons against science itself.
The defense against this: a revamped scientific lexicon. If the antievolutionists insist on exploiting the public's misunderstanding of words like theory and believe, then we shouldn't fight it. "We need to be a bit less cautious in public when we're talking about scientific conclusions that are generally agreed upon,"Quinn says.
What does she suggest?
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.
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.
At least, that's my theory.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And here are some of my favorite comments
Evolutionary change lacks the overall uniformity and predictability that the effect of gravity has on accelerating masses. The word 'Law' thus sounds inappropriate.
Ugh. "Law of evolution" sounds daft, and a bit dogmatic.
I suppose "model" is a rough equivalent to "theory" that has none of the connotations of half-assed guesswork. "The evolutionary model of life on earth." But if we replace one word with another, after a time it will inevitably become tarnished the in same way .
Richard has often compared the theory of evolution (the common descent part, at least) with the idea that the earth is round, in terms of the certainty with which it is held to be correct.
What word to we usually use for that?
I'm afraid I disagree. I'm very reluctant to play their game (politics).
In contrast, I'd humbly suggest that we all need to do much better with our terminology. We have to consistently point out the differences between:
Scientific theory: Propositions based in evidence which have stood up to rigorous testing. The more these theories stand up to scientific examination, the greater the degree of confidence we have --- it's confidence in the weight of evidence.
Dogmas/doctrines: Notions based on belief which are untestable, or are defended against any tests.
The attitude of scientists to their theories is to cherish them, but attack them. The better they stand up to attack, the better we can use the theory as a guide to practice. Scientists are grateful when theoretical weaknesses are exposed for obvious reasons.
The attitude of proselytizers to their dogmas is to cherish them and defend them. Defenders of the faith resist attack, and they often find ways to threaten or discredit heretics and apostates. (They also seem to lie and distort, and we should expose this immorality every chance we get).
So what? Well, don't say "theory" when a dogma is involved, and don't say you "believe" in a scientific theory. Rather, say the "evidence is overwhelming!"
Better, say "No, that's a dogma, not a theory!" when some ID advocate tries to hijack the term.
Bottom line: Let's get better at playing our game instead of playing on their terms!
If they still don't get it, what can one do? They never will.
I tried to ask the question to RD a few months back, and I'm sure I mentioned it in some other postings. Where is the Law of Evolution? Certainly, the fields of genetics and molecular biology has enabled the fashioning of some law; however, it's somewhat of a mathmatical proposition, similar to the law of gravitation. Although I lack the scientific credentials, I would really like to see this in my lifetime!
Definitely not. Creationism is a hypothesis, an untested idea.
However, I'm drawn to what the author is saying. Last night I watched the documentary 'judgment day' that chronicled the Dover, PA ID vs Evolution trial in 2004 on NOVA. Hopefully many of you did, as well. Although it was well done, I found some things quite disturbing.
Mainly, the 2 idiots who started the whole mess (Cunningham and Bonsall - as well as others) kept saying throughout the entire documentary that evolution is 'only a theory, so what's wrong with introducing a different theory?' Hell, even counsel for the defense (representing the ID'ers) used this in defense of their case. I've also noticed that the conservative media picked up on this. They say 'scientists have their views, so why can't alternative views be introduced? Why won't the scientific community and the courts allow this? Not allowing differing ideas in the classroom - isn't that fascism???' What nonsense...
And this to me is a disturbing trend. It's almost like science and truth aren't the important issues - it's language and spin that are important.
1) Isn't the enshrining of physical laws (as opposed to prescriptive social laws) contingent on a fair amount of mathematical certainty regarding the process, a degree of axiomatic assuredness that allows us to set out principles like "IF THIS THEN THIS, ALWAYS (bitches!)"..?
Even laws in science are contingent on empirical evidence, and open to revision, so it's not as if we have to be 100% sure. But despite how profoundly well-established the basic idea is, the ongoing controversies regarding the details of rates, conditions, methods, etc. suggest that most scientists wouldn't be happy calling it a "law" until it was sufficiently diluted by committee, likely resulting in an overly vague, tautological mess.
2) While people say, "It's only a theory," to dismiss evolution, it hasn't been shown that they'll change their minds when it is "law" - at least, it doesn't become a matter of civil obedience, nothing bad will happen to them if they still refuse to accept it.
What'll more likely happen is that those rebellious, 'counter-establishment' creationists would parade this as an example of encroaching scientific doctrine, particularly when they exploit people who don't understand the caveat in my last point - that scientific laws are still contingent on evidence, and not immutable doctrine. There is already enough confusion about physical/civil law.. recall Al Sharpton dumbly (though jokingly) asking Hitchens if he "chooses to obey the law of gravity" every morning.
In a way though, they'll kind of be right about it seeming dogmatic, because
3) The use of terminology like 'laws' does seem somewhat antiquated in a paradigm of what you might call 'post-modern' science, where the limitations of induction mean we have to be humble about what we don't (can't) know. We really can't confidently declare something to simply be true - when the sun sets we can call it true for another day, but who knows what tomorrow will bring?
Of course, it's understood (among the science-literate) that what scientists mean by law isn't quite what the Vatican means, but the term is loaded with so much historical baggage.. the semantics of physical laws can seem (to me) like it's about reality conforming to our models, rather than our models to nature.
*shrug*
My last thoughts on this were a bit meandering.. basically, I don't think this is a great idea.
I mean that the 'law of gravity' is a theory, but in the sense that there is a theory that there is a law of gravity.
Evolution however is not a theory of the existence of a law, it is a theory of the existence of a process. There is nothing about evolution that is restrictive or limiting, it describes not inhibits.
Therefore it would be a nonsense to refer to it as the 'law of evolution'
No?
To my mind this has already happened. The idea of creationism is a failed and rejected theory, and should on no account ever be accorded the respect of being referred to as a "theory".
Methinks hypothesis is too long a word for some - they at least kind of understand theory...sort of, in a non-scientific way... :-)
Monosilabbiq (that's a cool name, by the way :)
I don't really have a problem with calling creationism a theory, though Creationism as a whole is more of a family of theories. It only becomes a problem when we distinguish theory as a term just describing a system of ideas, from theory as a particularly well established system of ideas in the scientific community. We haven't stopped calling Lamarckism a theory, even though it's been thoroughly overturned by Darwinism, and rejected as a failed idea. Every incorrect theory is still a theory - just a crummy one.
The problem with non-scientific theories, like conspiracy theories and creationism (which should not be counted as separate from conspiracies), is that they're practically cancerous - that is to say, while bad theories are generally stopped in their tracks by peer review, a null hypothesis result in an environment without peer review (and intellectual honesty) can instead result in NEW theories growing to support the original theory, necessarily formulated on the belief that the original theory can't be wrong.
So from the falsified hypothesis of "Earth is less than 10,000 years old", you get "Radiometric dating methods are unreliable (they must be because they falsify the previous hypothesis)", and "Scientific orthodoxy is atheistic and dogmatic (it must be, because they're quite happy to explain why radiometric dating is, in fact, reliable, falsifying the previous hypothesis)"
Inquiry rapidly degenerates into paranoia and delusion when you aren't ready or willing to derail certain trains of thought. :P
Speaking of Creatonism ... they are fools, and that's a FACT! If the bible says something, who is Radiometric dating to contradict what God is saying. I can totally understand the deist way of thinking, but the Young Earth Creationist ... man, they are total wackos.
What exactly is he proposing should be enshrined as a law, anyway? "Evolution" covers a huge range of ideas - common descent, genetics, developmental processes, pathology, etc, etc. You can't just say all that's suitable for assertion as a law.
It has to be something short enough to print on a T-Shirt.
1) Universally true
2) A single idea that can be expressed in one sentence or formula.
ie. Conservation of energy is a law, thermodynamics is a theory. Saying they're the same thing isn't helping matters.
I'd be keen to see suggestions for 'laws' of biology that meet those criteria, because this comes up a lot.
It seems to me that a large percentage of theists who retort that "Evolution is only a theory" know that they are playing a rhetorical trick.
I definitely think scientists need to be more bold with their work. Common people will be more imressed by scientists' claims when "law" is used rather than "theory". Plus, christians certainly bang on about their stuff, so scientists should get their turn.
"Theory" and "law" are two different things. The former is a coherent explanatory narrative which is a web of interlocking observed facts, interpretations of such facts, their explanations, laws, predictions of the theory and their verifications, etc; the latter consists of a single statement, usually rather precise and specific (e.g electromagnetic theory v.s Faraday's Law of induction; relativity theory v.s E=mc^2)
It's better to educate the public how to understand these terms properly.
You mean by demonstrating that we can be just as scientifically illiterate?
What Bonzai said.
I don't think there's an easy way out. We need to be doing the hard work of educating the public about such things as what "a theory" or "a body of theory" or "theoretical knowledge" actually is, in science. That's not necessariy easy, but changing the lingo at this stage of the game is not a substitute.
I think 'law' means 3 things:
(1) Civil Law - gets its authority from Constitutions, is the formal expression of the social contract and can be modified and replaced by those it applies to (citizens)
(2) Divine Law and derivatives - same scope as Civil Law, but claims to be 'revealed' and 'endorsed' by God(s).
(3) Some seemingly universal and profound phisics theorems which are traditionally named 'laws' because at the time of their discovery there were thought to be Divine Laws by which God 'commanded' the Universe to work as he intends.
Evolution doesn't fit any of these 3 definitions of 'law'. It's more like a mathematical result from more fundamental notions.
actually brad ID is unfalsifiable so it doesn't even classify as a scientific theory. It is a failed hypothesis that many cling too simply because they reject the prescience of conclusions based on fact over conclusions based on faith. Until we break this silly little idea in peoples heads that there is some value or merit to "faith", all the semantic gymnastics in the world isn't going to do a thing to extinguish ignorance.
Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 | Permalink 
All we need is an additional sticker:
BUT IT'S LIGHT YEARS BETTER THAN CREATIONISM/ID, WHICH IS SUPERSTITIOUS NONSENSE.
Other Comments by Tania
Nevertheless I still like it.
Other Comments by artemisa
Evolutionary change lacks the overall uniformity and predictability that the effect of gravity has on accelerating masses. The word 'Law' thus sounds inappropriate.
Other Comments by Vinelectric Ugh. "Law of evolution" sounds daft, and a bit dogmatic.
I suppose "model" is a rough equivalent to "theory" that has none of the connotations of half-assed guesswork. "The evolutionary model of life on earth." But if we replace one word with another, after a time it will inevitably become tarnished the in same way .
Richard has often compared the theory of evolution (the common descent part, at least) with the idea that the earth is round, in terms of the certainty with which it is held to be correct.
What word to we usually use for that?
Other Comments by Friend Giskard
I'm afraid I disagree. I'm very reluctant to play their game (politics).
In contrast, I'd humbly suggest that we all need to do much better with our terminology. We have to consistently point out the differences between:
Scientific theory: Propositions based in evidence which have stood up to rigorous testing. The more these theories stand up to scientific examination, the greater the degree of confidence we have --- it's confidence in the weight of evidence.
Dogmas/doctrines: Notions based on belief which are untestable, or are defended against any tests.
The attitude of scientists to their theories is to cherish them, but attack them. The better they stand up to attack, the better we can use the theory as a guide to practice. Scientists are grateful when theoretical weaknesses are exposed for obvious reasons.
The attitude of proselytizers to their dogmas is to cherish them and defend them. Defenders of the faith resist attack, and they often find ways to threaten or discredit heretics and apostates. (They also seem to lie and distort, and we should expose this immorality every chance we get).
So what? Well, don't say "theory" when a dogma is involved, and don't say you "believe" in a scientific theory. Rather, say the "evidence is overwhelming!"
Better, say "No, that's a dogma, not a theory!" when some ID advocate tries to hijack the term.
Bottom line: Let's get better at playing our game instead of playing on their terms!
Other Comments by jimbob
If they still don't get it, what can one do? They never will.
Other Comments by Goldy
Other Comments by dazzjazz I tried to ask the question to RD a few months back, and I'm sure I mentioned it in some other postings. Where is the Law of Evolution? Certainly, the fields of genetics and molecular biology has enabled the fashioning of some law; however, it's somewhat of a mathmatical proposition, similar to the law of gravitation. Although I lack the scientific credentials, I would really like to see this in my lifetime!
Other Comments by savroD
No Goldy! That's playing THEIR game! Explain the difference between theory and dogma darn it!
;-)
Other Comments by jimbob
Other Comments by shemp333
That would be catchy enough for a supplementary sticker?
Other Comments by Harko
Definitely not. Creationism is a hypothesis, an untested idea.
Other Comments by bradpitcher
However, I'm drawn to what the author is saying. Last night I watched the documentary 'judgment day' that chronicled the Dover, PA ID vs Evolution trial in 2004 on NOVA. Hopefully many of you did, as well. Although it was well done, I found some things quite disturbing.
Mainly, the 2 idiots who started the whole mess (Cunningham and Bonsall - as well as others) kept saying throughout the entire documentary that evolution is 'only a theory, so what's wrong with introducing a different theory?' Hell, even counsel for the defense (representing the ID'ers) used this in defense of their case. I've also noticed that the conservative media picked up on this. They say 'scientists have their views, so why can't alternative views be introduced? Why won't the scientific community and the courts allow this? Not allowing differing ideas in the classroom - isn't that fascism???' What nonsense...
And this to me is a disturbing trend. It's almost like science and truth aren't the important issues - it's language and spin that are important.
Other Comments by room101
Other Comments by Klaatu barada nikto 1) Isn't the enshrining of physical laws (as opposed to prescriptive social laws) contingent on a fair amount of mathematical certainty regarding the process, a degree of axiomatic assuredness that allows us to set out principles like "IF THIS THEN THIS, ALWAYS (bitches!)"..?
Even laws in science are contingent on empirical evidence, and open to revision, so it's not as if we have to be 100% sure. But despite how profoundly well-established the basic idea is, the ongoing controversies regarding the details of rates, conditions, methods, etc. suggest that most scientists wouldn't be happy calling it a "law" until it was sufficiently diluted by committee, likely resulting in an overly vague, tautological mess.
2) While people say, "It's only a theory," to dismiss evolution, it hasn't been shown that they'll change their minds when it is "law" - at least, it doesn't become a matter of civil obedience, nothing bad will happen to them if they still refuse to accept it.
What'll more likely happen is that those rebellious, 'counter-establishment' creationists would parade this as an example of encroaching scientific doctrine, particularly when they exploit people who don't understand the caveat in my last point - that scientific laws are still contingent on evidence, and not immutable doctrine. There is already enough confusion about physical/civil law.. recall Al Sharpton dumbly (though jokingly) asking Hitchens if he "chooses to obey the law of gravity" every morning.
In a way though, they'll kind of be right about it seeming dogmatic, because
3) The use of terminology like 'laws' does seem somewhat antiquated in a paradigm of what you might call 'post-modern' science, where the limitations of induction mean we have to be humble about what we don't (can't) know. We really can't confidently declare something to simply be true - when the sun sets we can call it true for another day, but who knows what tomorrow will bring?
Of course, it's understood (among the science-literate) that what scientists mean by law isn't quite what the Vatican means, but the term is loaded with so much historical baggage.. the semantics of physical laws can seem (to me) like it's about reality conforming to our models, rather than our models to nature.
*shrug*
My last thoughts on this were a bit meandering.. basically, I don't think this is a great idea.
Other Comments by Robert Maynard
I mean that the 'law of gravity' is a theory, but in the sense that there is a theory that there is a law of gravity.
Evolution however is not a theory of the existence of a law, it is a theory of the existence of a process. There is nothing about evolution that is restrictive or limiting, it describes not inhibits.
Therefore it would be a nonsense to refer to it as the 'law of evolution'
No?
Other Comments by shaunfletcher
To my mind this has already happened. The idea of creationism is a failed and rejected theory, and should on no account ever be accorded the respect of being referred to as a "theory".
Other Comments by Monosilabbiq
Methinks hypothesis is too long a word for some - they at least kind of understand theory...sort of, in a non-scientific way... :-)
Other Comments by Goldy Monosilabbiq (that's a cool name, by the way :)
I don't really have a problem with calling creationism a theory, though Creationism as a whole is more of a family of theories. It only becomes a problem when we distinguish theory as a term just describing a system of ideas, from theory as a particularly well established system of ideas in the scientific community. We haven't stopped calling Lamarckism a theory, even though it's been thoroughly overturned by Darwinism, and rejected as a failed idea. Every incorrect theory is still a theory - just a crummy one.
The problem with non-scientific theories, like conspiracy theories and creationism (which should not be counted as separate from conspiracies), is that they're practically cancerous - that is to say, while bad theories are generally stopped in their tracks by peer review, a null hypothesis result in an environment without peer review (and intellectual honesty) can instead result in NEW theories growing to support the original theory, necessarily formulated on the belief that the original theory can't be wrong.
So from the falsified hypothesis of "Earth is less than 10,000 years old", you get "Radiometric dating methods are unreliable (they must be because they falsify the previous hypothesis)", and "Scientific orthodoxy is atheistic and dogmatic (it must be, because they're quite happy to explain why radiometric dating is, in fact, reliable, falsifying the previous hypothesis)"
Inquiry rapidly degenerates into paranoia and delusion when you aren't ready or willing to derail certain trains of thought. :P
Other Comments by Robert Maynard
Other Comments by shemp333
Other Comments by shemp333
Speaking of Creatonism ... they are fools, and that's a FACT! If the bible says something, who is Radiometric dating to contradict what God is saying. I can totally understand the deist way of thinking, but the Young Earth Creationist ... man, they are total wackos.
Other Comments by Arcturus
What exactly is he proposing should be enshrined as a law, anyway? "Evolution" covers a huge range of ideas - common descent, genetics, developmental processes, pathology, etc, etc. You can't just say all that's suitable for assertion as a law.
It has to be something short enough to print on a T-Shirt.
Other Comments by robert s
Other Comments by shemp333
Other Comments by shemp333
1) Universally true
2) A single idea that can be expressed in one sentence or formula.
ie. Conservation of energy is a law, thermodynamics is a theory. Saying they're the same thing isn't helping matters.
I'd be keen to see suggestions for 'laws' of biology that meet those criteria, because this comes up a lot.
Other Comments by robert s It seems to me that a large percentage of theists who retort that "Evolution is only a theory" know that they are playing a rhetorical trick.
Other Comments by Mango 
What I don't understand, is how can we allow SCHOOL BOARD members to decide what is right or wrong to teach our children? How can our gov't legislate science? 99.9% of these congressmen and reps know nothing about science or biology! I think we should allow our top scientists to decide what goes into a science text book. At least it'll be the "right stuff" :)
Other Comments by HereticChick
I saw this on a sign at Hooters: Gravity is not just a good idea, it's a law.
Other Comments by 35bluejacket I definitely think scientists need to be more bold with their work. Common people will be more imressed by scientists' claims when "law" is used rather than "theory". Plus, christians certainly bang on about their stuff, so scientists should get their turn.
Other Comments by Kakashi_monkey
"Theory" and "law" are two different things. The former is a coherent explanatory narrative which is a web of interlocking observed facts, interpretations of such facts, their explanations, laws, predictions of the theory and their verifications, etc; the latter consists of a single statement, usually rather precise and specific (e.g electromagnetic theory v.s Faraday's Law of induction; relativity theory v.s E=mc^2)
It's better to educate the public how to understand these terms properly.
Other Comments by Bonzai
Other Comments by 35bluejacket
You mean by demonstrating that we can be just as scientifically illiterate?
Other Comments by Bonzai
Other Comments by 35bluejacket
Other Comments by eric.malitz What Bonzai said.
I don't think there's an easy way out. We need to be doing the hard work of educating the public about such things as what "a theory" or "a body of theory" or "theoretical knowledge" actually is, in science. That's not necessariy easy, but changing the lingo at this stage of the game is not a substitute.
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
I think 'law' means 3 things:
(1) Civil Law - gets its authority from Constitutions, is the formal expression of the social contract and can be modified and replaced by those it applies to (citizens)
(2) Divine Law and derivatives - same scope as Civil Law, but claims to be 'revealed' and 'endorsed' by God(s).
(3) Some seemingly universal and profound phisics theorems which are traditionally named 'laws' because at the time of their discovery there were thought to be Divine Laws by which God 'commanded' the Universe to work as he intends.
Evolution doesn't fit any of these 3 definitions of 'law'. It's more like a mathematical result from more fundamental notions.
Other Comments by MihaiC actually brad ID is unfalsifiable so it doesn't even classify as a scientific theory. It is a failed hypothesis that many cling too simply because they reject the prescience of conclusions based on fact over conclusions based on faith. Until we break this silly little idea in peoples heads that there is some value or merit to "faith", all the semantic gymnastics in the world isn't going to do a thing to extinguish ignorance.
Other Comments by sent2null
Other Comments by PeterK
Other Comments by 35bluejacket 
Creationism is mythology.
I think ignoring creationism and creationists is very foolish indeed. To some extent they have been ignored over the last couple of decades and now we are facing a very deadly problem. Yes, I wrote "deadly".
We're not up against someone who is "exploring a different theory", we're up against someone who is figuring out ways to lie. We don't need words any fancier than that.
Most of the comments here have focused on the issue of the title to the piece (``theory'' vs. ``law''). Yet, there is a more disturbing and more damaging terminology that the article raises that many of the scientific persuasion use, namely: I (we) believe that x...
As a scientist, I avoid the word ``believe'', as it has prosaic connotations that almost always undermine my (or any scientist's) intent. To the typical lay person (ok, my students, at any rate), it seems, the use of ``I believe that x'' is always offered in the context of NOT having evidence; it is used to ward off logical or empirical rebuttal, as in: ``I have no evidence, but I believe it, so it is inviolate: it is not nice (appropriate, politic, etc.) to attack another's beliefs''. In common parlance, it is rarely used to mean ``I have a solid evidentiary basis that x''---which, in contradistinction, is how scientists use the term ``believe''.
I always admonish my students that neither I nor any one else who reads their essays cares what they believe (their sense of the term), but only what they can defend. So, there is no point in in using ``I believe" as the prefix to any claim, especially as it is used almost always to advance claims in the absence of evidence (``I think'' is used similarly). Rather, say, ``It is the case that x, and here is the evidence...''. If you can't, then don't say it at all.
jefft0-
That's it exactly.
And given they're willing to lie, we're dealing with a group who wants to win at all costs regardless of if they deserve to.
This comparison always amuses me. My current understanding is that purely as scientific scientific theories gravity is much more incomplete than evolution if look past the "things tend towards the ground" observation.
A ``theory'' is grander, it is a set of interlocking ideas and explanations, often encompassing several laws. Thus the theory of classical mechanics includes Newton's laws of motion, and the theory of thermodynamics includes four thermodynamical laws. Thus, theories are never upgraded to laws (though a ``hypothesis'' might be).
I do see the point people are making, that the popular usage is different, and helps the creationists. The problem is that there is no easy change here, since the proposal to call evolution a ``law'' would be a marked departure from what science means by ``law''.
For example, we can talk about laws of inheritance, laws of selection, laws of population growth. There are any number of mathematically quantifiable forces at work within the overall evolutionary model. When Creationists talk about "evolutionary theory not making predictions," for instance, the dodge is really that evolutionary theory *as a whole* isn't about making predictions; it's the application of specific principles embodied in the theory that are used to make predictions. Evolutionary theory as a monolithic concept is simply too broad to be applied in toto to some particular instance in biological science. That's not a shortcoming, anymore than the fact that we don't apply all of the laws embodied under "physics" to explain the Doppler shift.
We shouldn't call evolutionary theory a law because it *isn't* a law; it's many laws. In and of itself, evolutionary theory is like a higher taxon that comprises a number of more restrictive taxa, and it is these taxa — the order, family, genus and species — that are specific laws, in much the same way that Decapoda and Amphipoda are both Crustaceans.
If Creationists were to decide tomorrow that all crustaceans are shrimp, should we change taxonomy in order to shut them up for awhile... until they move on to their next set of demands?
"We shouldn't call evolutionary theory a law because it *isn't* a law; it's many laws. In and of itself, evolutionary theory is like a higher taxon that comprises a number of more restrictive taxa, and it is these taxa — the order, family, genus and species — that are specific laws, in much the same way that Decapoda and Amphipoda are both Crustaceans.
"
How about using the plural of "Law" - Laws?
I know it is technically incorrect, but "Laws of Evolution" would indacte many Laws that lead the Evolution Theory.
Or how about the 'Conclusion of Evolution' or the 'Evolutionary Conclusion', even though it sounds horrible, "conclusion" would indicate investigation of evidence and thus concluding a valid/factual theory.
"Believe" is also weak in the sense that it sounds like a leap of faith. How about "accept", it sounds definite and powerful.
Example:
99.98% of scientist believe in the Theory of Evolution.
VS
99.98% of scientist accept the Evolutionary Conclusion.
In science the words hypothesis, theory and law have very specific meanings
see http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
Creationism/ID is a dogma or doctrine. Lets call it for what it is.
'Law of evolution', 'Laws of Physics'?? Then there must be a 'LAWGIVER' !
Guess who that would be.
Let's not do it, it will not work.
'Scientific theory' has a well established meaning. Anyone who wants can understand this.
The fact of evolution should graded the highest level, and this level should mean something like 'certainty'. 'The earth is 6000 years old should be graded in the level which means something like 'completely rejected because it is no where near the truth'.
Evolution by natural selection should get a grade that means something like: "Everyone agrees that this is the truth, we are now fighting over some of the details".
What do people think?
Not long ago I had a Dr. of Marine Biology onboard my vessel, responding to his student (a creationist) that he didn't "believe" in evolution, "I know it!"
No.
Off to print stickers saying "Laws CAN and DO get BROKEN".
If I did'nt know better I would almost think that the awesome power of truth and knowledge were a gift from God to man.
Re Comment #88137, this "belief" thing must be an American phenomenon ... at least mainly. I certainly haven't encountered it anywhere else in the world. (However, maybe PsyPro is from France or Turkey or something ... or Australia. That would be interesting.)
Please, people, the word "believe" just indicates that some agent ... well ... has an attitude to a certain proposition of thinking it is true. It says nothing about whether the belief really is true, whether it is justified, whether the evidence objectively supports it, etc.
To use the commonplace example that I'm fond on, which I stole from somewhere, I might believe that there is chocolate in the cupboard. In moral psychology, the working idea is usually the Humean one that we are motivated by a combination of our beliefs (in this everyday sense) and our desires. Hence, if I desire some chocolate (my current attitude towards chocolate is that I'd like to eat some) and I believe there is chocolate in the cupboard (I think it true that "there is chocolate in the cupboard"), then other things being equal I will be motivated to go and open the cupboard door to look search for choccy.
I don't see how we could get by without this ordinary little word "belief" and its cognates ("believe", "believes" and so on). Nor do I see how we could operate socially without using a basic naive psychology in which we attribute beliefs and desires to people.
It's a real nuisance that some people (mainly in America?) seem to have elevated "believe" to mean something like "hold an opinion on faith as a personal commitment", or whatever. I hypothesise that this is tied up with America's religiosity and also with the hyper-emphasis in America on self-expression: kids seem to be taught at an early age that their personal opinions and ideas are of great importance, however ill-informed they are.
Don't get me wrong. I value self-expression and admire the way Americans always seem to be incredibly articulate, even when they are talking absolute nonsense. I'm not being sarcastic here. The self-doubt, self-deprecation, reticence, unwillingness to stand out in a group, etc., that we are taught here in Australia has its downside. That American way of doing things definitely has its attraction. No reflex anti-Americanism from me. But maybe there's a happy medium.
Anyway, my suggestion that the problem is a specifically American one, or mainly so, is hypothesis not theory. The main point is that the ordinary little word "belief" needs some rescuing, since we need a word with that everyday meaning and it won't be easy to revise such a basic part of our language to find a substitute
The rebuttals to the claim that "Evolution is just a theory" always include defining the fact that in science the word theory means a well-substantiated explanation of data. Why not just rebut with a similar statement "Creationism is just baloney" that is not accepted by 99.8% of the scientific community.
3. Comment #88057 by Vinelectric on November 14, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Alternatively, educate the public about the difference between 'theory' and 'hypothesis'.Evolutionary change lacks the overall uniformity and predictability that the effect of gravity has on accelerating masses. The word 'Law' thus sounds inappropriate.
4. Comment #88058 by Friend Giskard on November 14, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Ugh. "Law of evolution" sounds daft, and a bit dogmatic.I suppose "model" is a rough equivalent to "theory" that has none of the connotations of half-assed guesswork. "The evolutionary model of life on earth." But if we replace one word with another, after a time it will inevitably become tarnished the in same way .
Richard has often compared the theory of evolution (the common descent part, at least) with the idea that the earth is round, in terms of the certainty with which it is held to be correct.
What word to we usually use for that?
5. Comment #88060 by jimbob on November 14, 2007 at 12:58 pm
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.
I'm afraid I disagree. I'm very reluctant to play their game (politics).
In contrast, I'd humbly suggest that we all need to do much better with our terminology. We have to consistently point out the differences between:
Scientific theory: Propositions based in evidence which have stood up to rigorous testing. The more these theories stand up to scientific examination, the greater the degree of confidence we have --- it's confidence in the weight of evidence.
Dogmas/doctrines: Notions based on belief which are untestable, or are defended against any tests.
The attitude of scientists to their theories is to cherish them, but attack them. The better they stand up to attack, the better we can use the theory as a guide to practice. Scientists are grateful when theoretical weaknesses are exposed for obvious reasons.
The attitude of proselytizers to their dogmas is to cherish them and defend them. Defenders of the faith resist attack, and they often find ways to threaten or discredit heretics and apostates. (They also seem to lie and distort, and we should expose this immorality every chance we get).
So what? Well, don't say "theory" when a dogma is involved, and don't say you "believe" in a scientific theory. Rather, say the "evidence is overwhelming!"
Better, say "No, that's a dogma, not a theory!" when some ID advocate tries to hijack the term.
Bottom line: Let's get better at playing our game instead of playing on their terms!
6. Comment #88062 by Goldy on November 14, 2007 at 1:08 pm
But aren't they ALL theories? So if someone says that evolution is a theory, one can counter with the argument that creationism is also a theory. One can then compare research between the two and see which has the stronger argument.If they still don't get it, what can one do? They never will.
7. Comment #88064 by dazzjazz on November 14, 2007 at 1:14 pm
"The Law of Evolution" - I like it!8. Comment #88065 by savroD on November 14, 2007 at 1:23 pm
I tried to ask the question to RD a few months back, and I'm sure I mentioned it in some other postings. Where is the Law of Evolution? Certainly, the fields of genetics and molecular biology has enabled the fashioning of some law; however, it's somewhat of a mathmatical proposition, similar to the law of gravitation. Although I lack the scientific credentials, I would really like to see this in my lifetime!10. Comment #88067 by shemp333 on November 14, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Sounds like a concept way past its due. My question is, what process is there in science to upgrade a "theory" to a "law"? My ignorance of how this happens is very real. Anyone with a history lesson to give some background? It looks as if we should already be calling it the Law of Evolution. If that's the case, is it just a poor choice of words in regards to the "Theory of Evolution", or is there a way to gather a consensus to change the title? I do believe this change of title would be significant if gone through the proper procedure (and media).12. Comment #88069 by bradpitcher on November 14, 2007 at 1:34 pm
But aren't they ALL theories? So if someone says that evolution is a theory, one can counter with the argument that creationism is also a theory.
Definitely not. Creationism is a hypothesis, an untested idea.
13. Comment #88070 by room101 on November 14, 2007 at 1:43 pm
I agree with the majority of the posts...people need to understand that there is a difference in the scientific community as to what 'theory' means.However, I'm drawn to what the author is saying. Last night I watched the documentary 'judgment day' that chronicled the Dover, PA ID vs Evolution trial in 2004 on NOVA. Hopefully many of you did, as well. Although it was well done, I found some things quite disturbing.
Mainly, the 2 idiots who started the whole mess (Cunningham and Bonsall - as well as others) kept saying throughout the entire documentary that evolution is 'only a theory, so what's wrong with introducing a different theory?' Hell, even counsel for the defense (representing the ID'ers) used this in defense of their case. I've also noticed that the conservative media picked up on this. They say 'scientists have their views, so why can't alternative views be introduced? Why won't the scientific community and the courts allow this? Not allowing differing ideas in the classroom - isn't that fascism???' What nonsense...
And this to me is a disturbing trend. It's almost like science and truth aren't the important issues - it's language and spin that are important.
14. Comment #88071 by Klaatu barada nikto on November 14, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Since it is untestable, is Creationism even worthy of the status of hypothesis?15. Comment #88072 by Robert Maynard on November 14, 2007 at 1:48 pm
1) Isn't the enshrining of physical laws (as opposed to prescriptive social laws) contingent on a fair amount of mathematical certainty regarding the process, a degree of axiomatic assuredness that allows us to set out principles like "IF THIS THEN THIS, ALWAYS (bitches!)"..?Even laws in science are contingent on empirical evidence, and open to revision, so it's not as if we have to be 100% sure. But despite how profoundly well-established the basic idea is, the ongoing controversies regarding the details of rates, conditions, methods, etc. suggest that most scientists wouldn't be happy calling it a "law" until it was sufficiently diluted by committee, likely resulting in an overly vague, tautological mess.
2) While people say, "It's only a theory," to dismiss evolution, it hasn't been shown that they'll change their minds when it is "law" - at least, it doesn't become a matter of civil obedience, nothing bad will happen to them if they still refuse to accept it.
What'll more likely happen is that those rebellious, 'counter-establishment' creationists would parade this as an example of encroaching scientific doctrine, particularly when they exploit people who don't understand the caveat in my last point - that scientific laws are still contingent on evidence, and not immutable doctrine. There is already enough confusion about physical/civil law.. recall Al Sharpton dumbly (though jokingly) asking Hitchens if he "chooses to obey the law of gravity" every morning.
In a way though, they'll kind of be right about it seeming dogmatic, because
3) The use of terminology like 'laws' does seem somewhat antiquated in a paradigm of what you might call 'post-modern' science, where the limitations of induction mean we have to be humble about what we don't (can't) know. We really can't confidently declare something to simply be true - when the sun sets we can call it true for another day, but who knows what tomorrow will bring?
Of course, it's understood (among the science-literate) that what scientists mean by law isn't quite what the Vatican means, but the term is loaded with so much historical baggage.. the semantics of physical laws can seem (to me) like it's about reality conforming to our models, rather than our models to nature.
*shrug*
My last thoughts on this were a bit meandering.. basically, I don't think this is a great idea.
16. Comment #88073 by shaunfletcher on November 14, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I would LOVE to see a definitive on this from someone truly equipped to answer it (hint hint!), but its my impression that you cannot just start referring to something as a law because of the body of evidence for it.I mean that the 'law of gravity' is a theory, but in the sense that there is a theory that there is a law of gravity.
Evolution however is not a theory of the existence of a law, it is a theory of the existence of a process. There is nothing about evolution that is restrictive or limiting, it describes not inhibits.
Therefore it would be a nonsense to refer to it as the 'law of evolution'
No?
17. Comment #88077 by Monosilabbiq on November 14, 2007 at 2:08 pm
The pillars of creationism and ID are testable by science. The problem comes that if you prove scientifically that any of those pilars is false the prople who hold those "beliefs" change their mind and erect yet another set of pillars in slightly different words. Let us say one of the pillars of creationism was that the world came into existence less than 10,000 years ago - that can be examined by scientists. Those scientists findings can be peer reviewed. If they find that the "theory" has been disproved by the facts then the "theory" is discarded.To my mind this has already happened. The idea of creationism is a failed and rejected theory, and should on no account ever be accorded the respect of being referred to as a "theory".
18. Comment #88079 by Goldy on November 14, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Creationism is a hypothesis, an untested idea
Methinks hypothesis is too long a word for some - they at least kind of understand theory...sort of, in a non-scientific way... :-)
19. Comment #88081 by Robert Maynard on November 14, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Monosilabbiq (that's a cool name, by the way :)The idea of creationism is a failed and rejected theory, and should on no account ever be accorded the respect of being referred to as a "theory".But you just did.
I don't really have a problem with calling creationism a theory, though Creationism as a whole is more of a family of theories. It only becomes a problem when we distinguish theory as a term just describing a system of ideas, from theory as a particularly well established system of ideas in the scientific community. We haven't stopped calling Lamarckism a theory, even though it's been thoroughly overturned by Darwinism, and rejected as a failed idea. Every incorrect theory is still a theory - just a crummy one.
The problem with non-scientific theories, like conspiracy theories and creationism (which should not be counted as separate from conspiracies), is that they're practically cancerous - that is to say, while bad theories are generally stopped in their tracks by peer review, a null hypothesis result in an environment without peer review (and intellectual honesty) can instead result in NEW theories growing to support the original theory, necessarily formulated on the belief that the original theory can't be wrong.
So from the falsified hypothesis of "Earth is less than 10,000 years old", you get "Radiometric dating methods are unreliable (they must be because they falsify the previous hypothesis)", and "Scientific orthodoxy is atheistic and dogmatic (it must be, because they're quite happy to explain why radiometric dating is, in fact, reliable, falsifying the previous hypothesis)"
Inquiry rapidly degenerates into paranoia and delusion when you aren't ready or willing to derail certain trains of thought. :P
20. Comment #88086 by shemp333 on November 14, 2007 at 3:08 pm
We need to see how the words of science are being used against it, and evolve literally and accordingly. I think Clive Thompson makes an EXCELLENT point here! What can the scientific community do to counteract these obviously misunderstood (intentionally or not) phrases we are using.21. Comment #88087 by shemp333 on November 14, 2007 at 3:09 pm
This is a battle of words, and most of them of ours!22. Comment #88088 by Arcturus on November 14, 2007 at 3:15 pm
I told you so :) ... don't use words like materialism, evangelical atheism well ... theory now. When speaking to the average Joe, one has to start from scratch, and not assume that Joe has some understanding about what you speak. You need to define all the terms in the conversation before going on to more evolved stuff.Speaking of Creatonism ... they are fools, and that's a FACT! If the bible says something, who is Radiometric dating to contradict what God is saying. I can totally understand the deist way of thinking, but the Young Earth Creationist ... man, they are total wackos.
23. Comment #88091 by robert s on November 14, 2007 at 3:28 pm
I don't think this guy's grasp of scientific concepts is that much better than that of the people he's criticising.What exactly is he proposing should be enshrined as a law, anyway? "Evolution" covers a huge range of ideas - common descent, genetics, developmental processes, pathology, etc, etc. You can't just say all that's suitable for assertion as a law.
It has to be something short enough to print on a T-Shirt.
24. Comment #88093 by shemp333 on November 14, 2007 at 3:44 pm
What we have here is an absolute failure of communication. Let's fix it.25. Comment #88095 by shemp333 on November 14, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Excellent point made by robert s. Except, isn't evidence relating to each and every one of those fields enough to claim this as "law"?26. Comment #88096 by robert s on November 14, 2007 at 4:02 pm
I'm not arguing the strength of the evidence, I'm arguing my idea of what a scientific law is. It seems to me it should be at least:1) Universally true
2) A single idea that can be expressed in one sentence or formula.
ie. Conservation of energy is a law, thermodynamics is a theory. Saying they're the same thing isn't helping matters.
I'd be keen to see suggestions for 'laws' of biology that meet those criteria, because this comes up a lot.
27. Comment #88100 by Mango on November 14, 2007 at 5:13 pm
It seems to me that a large percentage of theists who retort that "Evolution is only a theory" know that they are playing a rhetorical trick.30. Comment #88107 by Kakashi_monkey on November 14, 2007 at 5:35 pm
I definitely think scientists need to be more bold with their work. Common people will be more imressed by scientists' claims when "law" is used rather than "theory". Plus, christians certainly bang on about their stuff, so scientists should get their turn.31. Comment #88111 by Bonzai on November 14, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I don't think science should sacrifice intellectual integrity and precision for the sake of PR."Theory" and "law" are two different things. The former is a coherent explanatory narrative which is a web of interlocking observed facts, interpretations of such facts, their explanations, laws, predictions of the theory and their verifications, etc; the latter consists of a single statement, usually rather precise and specific (e.g electromagnetic theory v.s Faraday's Law of induction; relativity theory v.s E=mc^2)
It's better to educate the public how to understand these terms properly.
32. Comment #88112 by 35bluejacket on November 14, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Let the theist's get into the definitions of laws and theories, maybe they will learn something about science. I like using the term "Law of Evolution". Give them a dose of their own medicine. I'll concede to "theory" if they can demonstrate my scientific mistake.33. Comment #88113 by Bonzai on November 14, 2007 at 5:53 pm
I like using the term "Law of Evolution" Give them a dose of their own medicine
You mean by demonstrating that we can be just as scientifically illiterate?
34. Comment #88115 by 35bluejacket on November 14, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Like I was saying, it will be a science learning experience for them, looking up definitions, they need that. Am I correct?35. Comment #88118 by eric.malitz on November 14, 2007 at 6:26 pm
evolution is a scientific fact. Natural selection, etc. is the theory part of it36. Comment #88122 by Russell Blackford on November 14, 2007 at 6:51 pm
What Bonzai said.I don't think there's an easy way out. We need to be doing the hard work of educating the public about such things as what "a theory" or "a body of theory" or "theoretical knowledge" actually is, in science. That's not necessariy easy, but changing the lingo at this stage of the game is not a substitute.
37. Comment #88123 by MihaiC on November 14, 2007 at 6:54 pm
I think this is an awful idea, especially because of linguistic reasons.I think 'law' means 3 things:
(1) Civil Law - gets its authority from Constitutions, is the formal expression of the social contract and can be modified and replaced by those it applies to (citizens)
(2) Divine Law and derivatives - same scope as Civil Law, but claims to be 'revealed' and 'endorsed' by God(s).
(3) Some seemingly universal and profound phisics theorems which are traditionally named 'laws' because at the time of their discovery there were thought to be Divine Laws by which God 'commanded' the Universe to work as he intends.
Evolution doesn't fit any of these 3 definitions of 'law'. It's more like a mathematical result from more fundamental notions.
38. Comment #88126 by sent2null on November 14, 2007 at 7:27 pm
actually brad ID is unfalsifiable so it doesn't even classify as a scientific theory. It is a failed hypothesis that many cling too simply because they reject the prescience of conclusions based on fact over conclusions based on faith. Until we break this silly little idea in peoples heads that there is some value or merit to "faith", all the semantic gymnastics in the world isn't going to do a thing to extinguish ignorance.39. Comment #88127 by PeterK on November 14, 2007 at 7:39 pm
I simply ignore creationists and creationism. Best solution.40. Comment #88128 by 35bluejacket on November 14, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Really, truth and honesty are the best policy. To be morally above religion is very important. It just gets frustrating sometimes. But you can't ignore ignorance for too long. "For ignorance and fanaticism are always busy, and need feeding." ("Inherit the Wind")
Print 
Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law
by Clive Thompson
Reposted from:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-11/st_thompson
Creationists and intelligent-design boosters have a guerrilla tactic to undermine textbooks that don't jibe with their beliefs. They slap a sticker on the cover that reads, EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT A FACT, REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF LIVING THINGS.
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.
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.
Turns out, the real culture war in science isn't about science at all — it's about language. And to fight this war, we need to change the way we talk about scientific knowledge.
Scientists are already pondering this. Last summer, physicist Helen Quinn sparked a lively debate among her colleagues with an essay for Physics Today arguing that scientists are too tentative when they discuss scientific knowledge. They're an inherently cautious bunch, she points out. Even when they're 99 percent certain of a theory, they know there's always the chance that a new discovery could overturn or modify it.
So when scientists talk about well-established bodies of knowledge — particularly in areas like evolution or relativity — they hedge their bets. They say they "believe" something to be true, as in, "We believe that the Jurassic period was characterized by humid tropical weather."
This deliberately nuanced language gets horribly misunderstood and often twisted in public discourse. When the average person hears phrases like "scientists believe," they read it as, "Scientists can't really prove this stuff, but they take it on faith." ("That's just what you believe" is another nifty way to dismiss someone out of hand.)
Of course, antievolution crusaders have figured out that language is the ammunition of culture wars. That's why they use those stickers. They take the intellectual strengths of scientific language — its precision, its carefulness — and wield them as weapons against science itself.
The defense against this: a revamped scientific lexicon. If the antievolutionists insist on exploiting the public's misunderstanding of words like theory and believe, then we shouldn't fight it. "We need to be a bit less cautious in public when we're talking about scientific conclusions that are generally agreed upon," Quinn says.
What does she suggest? 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.
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.
At least, that's my theory.
Email clive@clivethompson.net.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-11/st_thompson
Creationists and intelligent-design boosters have a guerrilla tactic to undermine textbooks that don't jibe with their beliefs. They slap a sticker on the cover that reads, EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT A FACT, REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF LIVING THINGS.
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.
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.
Turns out, the real culture war in science isn't about science at all — it's about language. And to fight this war, we need to change the way we talk about scientific knowledge.
Scientists are already pondering this. Last summer, physicist Helen Quinn sparked a lively debate among her colleagues with an essay for Physics Today arguing that scientists are too tentative when they discuss scientific knowledge. They're an inherently cautious bunch, she points out. Even when they're 99 percent certain of a theory, they know there's always the chance that a new discovery could overturn or modify it.
So when scientists talk about well-established bodies of knowledge — particularly in areas like evolution or relativity — they hedge their bets. They say they "believe" something to be true, as in, "We believe that the Jurassic period was characterized by humid tropical weather."
This deliberately nuanced language gets horribly misunderstood and often twisted in public discourse. When the average person hears phrases like "scientists believe," they read it as, "Scientists can't really prove this stuff, but they take it on faith." ("That's just what you believe" is another nifty way to dismiss someone out of hand.)
Of course, antievolution crusaders have figured out that language is the ammunition of culture wars. That's why they use those stickers. They take the intellectual strengths of scientific language — its precision, its carefulness — and wield them as weapons against science itself.
The defense against this: a revamped scientific lexicon. If the antievolutionists insist on exploiting the public's misunderstanding of words like theory and believe, then we shouldn't fight it. "We need to be a bit less cautious in public when we're talking about scientific conclusions that are generally agreed upon," Quinn says.
What does she suggest? 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.
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.
At least, that's my theory.
Email clive@clivethompson.net.
Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 75 |
1. Comment #88055 by Tania on November 14, 2007 at 12:21 pm
All we need is an additional sticker:BUT IT'S LIGHT YEARS BETTER THAN CREATIONISM/ID, WHICH IS SUPERSTITIOUS NONSENSE.
Other Comments by Tania
2. Comment #88056 by artemisa on November 14, 2007 at 12:23 pm
I like it, but the backward people are going to counter with " Now they're calling a theory a law"Nevertheless I still like it.
Other Comments by artemisa
3. Comment #88057 by Vinelectric on November 14, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Alternatively, educate the public about the difference between 'theory' and 'hypothesis'.Evolutionary change lacks the overall uniformity and predictability that the effect of gravity has on accelerating masses. The word 'Law' thus sounds inappropriate.
Other Comments by Vinelectric
4. Comment #88058 by Friend Giskard on November 14, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Ugh. "Law of evolution" sounds daft, and a bit dogmatic.I suppose "model" is a rough equivalent to "theory" that has none of the connotations of half-assed guesswork. "The evolutionary model of life on earth." But if we replace one word with another, after a time it will inevitably become tarnished the in same way .
Richard has often compared the theory of evolution (the common descent part, at least) with the idea that the earth is round, in terms of the certainty with which it is held to be correct.
What word to we usually use for that?
Other Comments by Friend Giskard
5. Comment #88060 by jimbob on November 14, 2007 at 12:58 pm
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.
I'm afraid I disagree. I'm very reluctant to play their game (politics).
In contrast, I'd humbly suggest that we all need to do much better with our terminology. We have to consistently point out the differences between:
Scientific theory: Propositions based in evidence which have stood up to rigorous testing. The more these theories stand up to scientific examination, the greater the degree of confidence we have --- it's confidence in the weight of evidence.
Dogmas/doctrines: Notions based on belief which are untestable, or are defended against any tests.
The attitude of scientists to their theories is to cherish them, but attack them. The better they stand up to attack, the better we can use the theory as a guide to practice. Scientists are grateful when theoretical weaknesses are exposed for obvious reasons.
The attitude of proselytizers to their dogmas is to cherish them and defend them. Defenders of the faith resist attack, and they often find ways to threaten or discredit heretics and apostates. (They also seem to lie and distort, and we should expose this immorality every chance we get).
So what? Well, don't say "theory" when a dogma is involved, and don't say you "believe" in a scientific theory. Rather, say the "evidence is overwhelming!"
Better, say "No, that's a dogma, not a theory!" when some ID advocate tries to hijack the term.
Bottom line: Let's get better at playing our game instead of playing on their terms!
Other Comments by jimbob
6. Comment #88062 by Goldy on November 14, 2007 at 1:08 pm
But aren't they ALL theories? So if someone says that evolution is a theory, one can counter with the argument that creationism is also a theory. One can then compare research between the two and see which has the stronger argument.If they still don't get it, what can one do? They never will.
Other Comments by Goldy
7. Comment #88064 by dazzjazz on November 14, 2007 at 1:14 pm
"The Law of Evolution" - I like it!Other Comments by dazzjazz
8. Comment #88065 by savroD on November 14, 2007 at 1:23 pm
I tried to ask the question to RD a few months back, and I'm sure I mentioned it in some other postings. Where is the Law of Evolution? Certainly, the fields of genetics and molecular biology has enabled the fashioning of some law; however, it's somewhat of a mathmatical proposition, similar to the law of gravitation. Although I lack the scientific credentials, I would really like to see this in my lifetime!Other Comments by savroD
9. Comment #88066 by jimbob on November 14, 2007 at 1:24 pm
But aren't they ALL theories? So if someone says that evolution is a theory, one can counter with the argument that creationism is also a theory.
No Goldy! That's playing THEIR game! Explain the difference between theory and dogma darn it!
;-)
Other Comments by jimbob
10. Comment #88067 by shemp333 on November 14, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Sounds like a concept way past its due. My question is, what process is there in science to upgrade a "theory" to a "law"? My ignorance of how this happens is very real. Anyone with a history lesson to give some background? It looks as if we should already be calling it the Law of Evolution. If that's the case, is it just a poor choice of words in regards to the "Theory of Evolution", or is there a way to gather a consensus to change the title? I do believe this change of title would be significant if gone through the proper procedure (and media).Other Comments by shemp333
11. Comment #88068 by Harko on November 14, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Evolution is a THEORY. Yeah, just like gravity!That would be catchy enough for a supplementary sticker?
Other Comments by Harko
12. Comment #88069 by bradpitcher on November 14, 2007 at 1:34 pm
But aren't they ALL theories? So if someone says that evolution is a theory, one can counter with the argument that creationism is also a theory.
Definitely not. Creationism is a hypothesis, an untested idea.
Other Comments by bradpitcher
13. Comment #88070 by room101 on November 14, 2007 at 1:43 pm
I agree with the majority of the posts...people need to understand that there is a difference in the scientific community as to what 'theory' means.However, I'm drawn to what the author is saying. Last night I watched the documentary 'judgment day' that chronicled the Dover, PA ID vs Evolution trial in 2004 on NOVA. Hopefully many of you did, as well. Although it was well done, I found some things quite disturbing.
Mainly, the 2 idiots who started the whole mess (Cunningham and Bonsall - as well as others) kept saying throughout the entire documentary that evolution is 'only a theory, so what's wrong with introducing a different theory?' Hell, even counsel for the defense (representing the ID'ers) used this in defense of their case. I've also noticed that the conservative media picked up on this. They say 'scientists have their views, so why can't alternative views be introduced? Why won't the scientific community and the courts allow this? Not allowing differing ideas in the classroom - isn't that fascism???' What nonsense...
And this to me is a disturbing trend. It's almost like science and truth aren't the important issues - it's language and spin that are important.
Other Comments by room101
14. Comment #88071 by Klaatu barada nikto on November 14, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Since it is untestable, is Creationism even worthy of the status of hypothesis?Other Comments by Klaatu barada nikto
15. Comment #88072 by Robert Maynard on November 14, 2007 at 1:48 pm
1) Isn't the enshrining of physical laws (as opposed to prescriptive social laws) contingent on a fair amount of mathematical certainty regarding the process, a degree of axiomatic assuredness that allows us to set out principles like "IF THIS THEN THIS, ALWAYS (bitches!)"..?Even laws in science are contingent on empirical evidence, and open to revision, so it's not as if we have to be 100% sure. But despite how profoundly well-established the basic idea is, the ongoing controversies regarding the details of rates, conditions, methods, etc. suggest that most scientists wouldn't be happy calling it a "law" until it was sufficiently diluted by committee, likely resulting in an overly vague, tautological mess.
2) While people say, "It's only a theory," to dismiss evolution, it hasn't been shown that they'll change their minds when it is "law" - at least, it doesn't become a matter of civil obedience, nothing bad will happen to them if they still refuse to accept it.
What'll more likely happen is that those rebellious, 'counter-establishment' creationists would parade this as an example of encroaching scientific doctrine, particularly when they exploit people who don't understand the caveat in my last point - that scientific laws are still contingent on evidence, and not immutable doctrine. There is already enough confusion about physical/civil law.. recall Al Sharpton dumbly (though jokingly) asking Hitchens if he "chooses to obey the law of gravity" every morning.
In a way though, they'll kind of be right about it seeming dogmatic, because
3) The use of terminology like 'laws' does seem somewhat antiquated in a paradigm of what you might call 'post-modern' science, where the limitations of induction mean we have to be humble about what we don't (can't) know. We really can't confidently declare something to simply be true - when the sun sets we can call it true for another day, but who knows what tomorrow will bring?
Of course, it's understood (among the science-literate) that what scientists mean by law isn't quite what the Vatican means, but the term is loaded with so much historical baggage.. the semantics of physical laws can seem (to me) like it's about reality conforming to our models, rather than our models to nature.
*shrug*
My last thoughts on this were a bit meandering.. basically, I don't think this is a great idea.
Other Comments by Robert Maynard
16. Comment #88073 by shaunfletcher on November 14, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I would LOVE to see a definitive on this from someone truly equipped to answer it (hint hint!), but its my impression that you cannot just start referring to something as a law because of the body of evidence for it.I mean that the 'law of gravity' is a theory, but in the sense that there is a theory that there is a law of gravity.
Evolution however is not a theory of the existence of a law, it is a theory of the existence of a process. There is nothing about evolution that is restrictive or limiting, it describes not inhibits.
Therefore it would be a nonsense to refer to it as the 'law of evolution'
No?
Other Comments by shaunfletcher
17. Comment #88077 by Monosilabbiq on November 14, 2007 at 2:08 pm
The pillars of creationism and ID are testable by science. The problem comes that if you prove scientifically that any of those pilars is false the prople who hold those "beliefs" change their mind and erect yet another set of pillars in slightly different words. Let us say one of the pillars of creationism was that the world came into existence less than 10,000 years ago - that can be examined by scientists. Those scientists findings can be peer reviewed. If they find that the "theory" has been disproved by the facts then the "theory" is discarded.To my mind this has already happened. The idea of creationism is a failed and rejected theory, and should on no account ever be accorded the respect of being referred to as a "theory".
Other Comments by Monosilabbiq
18. Comment #88079 by Goldy on November 14, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Creationism is a hypothesis, an untested idea
Methinks hypothesis is too long a word for some - they at least kind of understand theory...sort of, in a non-scientific way... :-)
Other Comments by Goldy
19. Comment #88081 by Robert Maynard on November 14, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Monosilabbiq (that's a cool name, by the way :)The idea of creationism is a failed and rejected theory, and should on no account ever be accorded the respect of being referred to as a "theory".But you just did.
I don't really have a problem with calling creationism a theory, though Creationism as a whole is more of a family of theories. It only becomes a problem when we distinguish theory as a term just describing a system of ideas, from theory as a particularly well established system of ideas in the scientific community. We haven't stopped calling Lamarckism a theory, even though it's been thoroughly overturned by Darwinism, and rejected as a failed idea. Every incorrect theory is still a theory - just a crummy one.
The problem with non-scientific theories, like conspiracy theories and creationism (which should not be counted as separate from conspiracies), is that they're practically cancerous - that is to say, while bad theories are generally stopped in their tracks by peer review, a null hypothesis result in an environment without peer review (and intellectual honesty) can instead result in NEW theories growing to support the original theory, necessarily formulated on the belief that the original theory can't be wrong.
So from the falsified hypothesis of "Earth is less than 10,000 years old", you get "Radiometric dating methods are unreliable (they must be because they falsify the previous hypothesis)", and "Scientific orthodoxy is atheistic and dogmatic (it must be, because they're quite happy to explain why radiometric dating is, in fact, reliable, falsifying the previous hypothesis)"
Inquiry rapidly degenerates into paranoia and delusion when you aren't ready or willing to derail certain trains of thought. :P
Other Comments by Robert Maynard
20. Comment #88086 by shemp333 on November 14, 2007 at 3:08 pm
We need to see how the words of science are being used against it, and evolve literally and accordingly. I think Clive Thompson makes an EXCELLENT point here! What can the scientific community do to counteract these obviously misunderstood (intentionally or not) phrases we are using.Other Comments by shemp333
21. Comment #88087 by shemp333 on November 14, 2007 at 3:09 pm
This is a battle of words, and most of them of ours!Other Comments by shemp333
22. Comment #88088 by Arcturus on November 14, 2007 at 3:15 pm
I told you so :) ... don't use words like materialism, evangelical atheism well ... theory now. When speaking to the average Joe, one has to start from scratch, and not assume that Joe has some understanding about what you speak. You need to define all the terms in the conversation before going on to more evolved stuff.Speaking of Creatonism ... they are fools, and that's a FACT! If the bible says something, who is Radiometric dating to contradict what God is saying. I can totally understand the deist way of thinking, but the Young Earth Creationist ... man, they are total wackos.
Other Comments by Arcturus
23. Comment #88091 by robert s on November 14, 2007 at 3:28 pm
I don't think this guy's grasp of scientific concepts is that much better than that of the people he's criticising.What exactly is he proposing should be enshrined as a law, anyway? "Evolution" covers a huge range of ideas - common descent, genetics, developmental processes, pathology, etc, etc. You can't just say all that's suitable for assertion as a law.
It has to be something short enough to print on a T-Shirt.
Other Comments by robert s
24. Comment #88093 by shemp333 on November 14, 2007 at 3:44 pm
What we have here is an absolute failure of communication. Let's fix it.Other Comments by shemp333
25. Comment #88095 by shemp333 on November 14, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Excellent point made by robert s. Except, isn't evidence relating to each and every one of those fields enough to claim this as "law"?Other Comments by shemp333
26. Comment #88096 by robert s on November 14, 2007 at 4:02 pm
I'm not arguing the strength of the evidence, I'm arguing my idea of what a scientific law is. It seems to me it should be at least:1) Universally true
2) A single idea that can be expressed in one sentence or formula.
ie. Conservation of energy is a law, thermodynamics is a theory. Saying they're the same thing isn't helping matters.
I'd be keen to see suggestions for 'laws' of biology that meet those criteria, because this comes up a lot.
Other Comments by robert s
27. Comment #88100 by Mango on November 14, 2007 at 5:13 pm
It seems to me that a large percentage of theists who retort that "Evolution is only a theory" know that they are playing a rhetorical trick.Other Comments by Mango
28. Comment #88103 by HereticChick on November 14, 2007 at 5:27 pm
What I don't understand, is how can we allow SCHOOL BOARD members to decide what is right or wrong to teach our children? How can our gov't legislate science? 99.9% of these congressmen and reps know nothing about science or biology! I think we should allow our top scientists to decide what goes into a science text book. At least it'll be the "right stuff" :)Other Comments by HereticChick
29. Comment #88106 by 35bluejacket on November 14, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Bravo!! Mr. Thompson. "Law of Evolution", has a nice ring.I saw this on a sign at Hooters: Gravity is not just a good idea, it's a law.
Other Comments by 35bluejacket
30. Comment #88107 by Kakashi_monkey on November 14, 2007 at 5:35 pm
I definitely think scientists need to be more bold with their work. Common people will be more imressed by scientists' claims when "law" is used rather than "theory". Plus, christians certainly bang on about their stuff, so scientists should get their turn.Other Comments by Kakashi_monkey
31. Comment #88111 by Bonzai on November 14, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I don't think science should sacrifice intellectual integrity and precision for the sake of PR."Theory" and "law" are two different things. The former is a coherent explanatory narrative which is a web of interlocking observed facts, interpretations of such facts, their explanations, laws, predictions of the theory and their verifications, etc; the latter consists of a single statement, usually rather precise and specific (e.g electromagnetic theory v.s Faraday's Law of induction; relativity theory v.s E=mc^2)
It's better to educate the public how to understand these terms properly.
Other Comments by Bonzai
32. Comment #88112 by 35bluejacket on November 14, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Let the theist's get into the definitions of laws and theories, maybe they will learn something about science. I like using the term "Law of Evolution". Give them a dose of their own medicine. I'll concede to "theory" if they can demonstrate my scientific mistake.Other Comments by 35bluejacket
33. Comment #88113 by Bonzai on November 14, 2007 at 5:53 pm
I like using the term "Law of Evolution" Give them a dose of their own medicine
You mean by demonstrating that we can be just as scientifically illiterate?
Other Comments by Bonzai
34. Comment #88115 by 35bluejacket on November 14, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Like I was saying, it will be a science learning experience for them, looking up definitions, they need that. Am I correct?Other Comments by 35bluejacket
35. Comment #88118 by eric.malitz on November 14, 2007 at 6:26 pm
evolution is a scientific fact. Natural selection, etc. is the theory part of it.Other Comments by eric.malitz
36. Comment #88122 by Russell Blackford on November 14, 2007 at 6:51 pm
What Bonzai said.I don't think there's an easy way out. We need to be doing the hard work of educating the public about such things as what "a theory" or "a body of theory" or "theoretical knowledge" actually is, in science. That's not necessariy easy, but changing the lingo at this stage of the game is not a substitute.
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
37. Comment #88123 by MihaiC on November 14, 2007 at 6:54 pm
I think this is an awful idea, especially because of linguistic reasons.I think 'law' means 3 things:
(1) Civil Law - gets its authority from Constitutions, is the formal expression of the social contract and can be modified and replaced by those it applies to (citizens)
(2) Divine Law and derivatives - same scope as Civil Law, but claims to be 'revealed' and 'endorsed' by God(s).
(3) Some seemingly universal and profound phisics theorems which are traditionally named 'laws' because at the time of their discovery there were thought to be Divine Laws by which God 'commanded' the Universe to work as he intends.
Evolution doesn't fit any of these 3 definitions of 'law'. It's more like a mathematical result from more fundamental notions.
Other Comments by MihaiC
38. Comment #88126 by sent2null on November 14, 2007 at 7:27 pm
actually brad ID is unfalsifiable so it doesn't even classify as a scientific theory. It is a failed hypothesis that many cling too simply because they reject the prescience of conclusions based on fact over conclusions based on faith. Until we break this silly little idea in peoples heads that there is some value or merit to "faith", all the semantic gymnastics in the world isn't going to do a thing to extinguish ignorance.Other Comments by sent2null
39. Comment #88127 by PeterK on November 14, 2007 at 7:39 pm
I simply ignore creationists and creationism. Best solution.Other Comments by PeterK
40. Comment #88128 by 35bluejacket on November 14, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Really, truth and honesty are the best policy. To be morally above religion is very important. It just gets frustrating sometimes. But you can't ignore ignorance for too long. "For ignorance and fanaticism are always busy, and need feeding." ("Inherit the Wind")Other Comments by 35bluejacket
41. Comment #88130 by will young on November 14, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Comment #88062
But aren't they ALL theories?
Creationism is mythology.
42. Comment #88131 by TheCelestialTeapot on November 14, 2007 at 9:15 pm
I agree with those posters who have said that we should not play the language game with the Creationists. It is difficult for the science community to combat the propaganda war the Creationists are playing when so few scientists speak publicly. Richard Dawkins is an excellent public educator when it comes to science, much like the late great Carl Sagan. Really the crux of the issue lies on education. If we changed evolution to a "law" the Creationists would focus on something else or exploit the obvious ploy. Also, by playing the semantic game we lose some integrity in the process and that is the real advantage science has over creationism. Again, it comes down to education and scientists and philosophers of science need to become more vocal. They need to dedicate a little bit of time outside of the lab in order to write and speak publicly about their findings. Peer-reviewed journals are great for having your work looked over, but not many members of the general public take a look at them. If scientists don't make their findings known through various venues, then what good are those findings to the rest of us? Some of us may argue that people need to take the time to research a bit and learn the information for themselves, but that doesn't happen often. Rather, the information should be thrown in their laps so that they have to contend with its truth value one way or another.43. Comment #88132 by TheCelestialTeapot on November 14, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Just to add....I think ignoring creationism and creationists is very foolish indeed. To some extent they have been ignored over the last couple of decades and now we are facing a very deadly problem. Yes, I wrote "deadly".
44. Comment #88133 by asupcb on November 14, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Evolution is a fact and the theory is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Most people just leave off the last part when in fact that is the part that is the theory aspect. Natural Selection is the theory that explains the fact of evolution.45. Comment #88135 by jefft0 on November 14, 2007 at 10:17 pm
This "debate" will only move forward when scientists learn how to respond directly to the lies as lies. RD has started to do this by describing his opponent's "willful mendacity". Other scientists also need to quit playing nice.We're not up against someone who is "exploring a different theory", we're up against someone who is figuring out ways to lie. We don't need words any fancier than that.
46. Comment #88137 by PsyPro on November 14, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Most of the comments here have focused on the issue of the title to the piece (``theory'' vs. ``law''). Yet, there is a more disturbing and more damaging terminology that the article raises that many of the scientific persuasion use, namely: I (we) believe that x...As a scientist, I avoid the word ``believe'', as it has prosaic connotations that almost always undermine my (or any scientist's) intent. To the typical lay person (ok, my students, at any rate), it seems, the use of ``I believe that x'' is always offered in the context of NOT having evidence; it is used to ward off logical or empirical rebuttal, as in: ``I have no evidence, but I believe it, so it is inviolate: it is not nice (appropriate, politic, etc.) to attack another's beliefs''. In common parlance, it is rarely used to mean ``I have a solid evidentiary basis that x''---which, in contradistinction, is how scientists use the term ``believe''.
I always admonish my students that neither I nor any one else who reads their essays cares what they believe (their sense of the term), but only what they can defend. So, there is no point in in using ``I believe" as the prefix to any claim, especially as it is used almost always to advance claims in the absence of evidence (``I think'' is used similarly). Rather, say, ``It is the case that x, and here is the evidence...''. If you can't, then don't say it at all.
48. Comment #88141 by Diacanu on November 14, 2007 at 11:16 pm
jefft0-We're not up against someone who is "exploring a different theory", we're up against someone who is figuring out ways to lie.
That's it exactly.
And given they're willing to lie, we're dealing with a group who wants to win at all costs regardless of if they deserve to.
49. Comment #88146 by ration on November 15, 2007 at 12:14 am
Evolution is a THEORY. Yeah, just like gravity!
This comparison always amuses me. My current understanding is that purely as scientific scientific theories gravity is much more incomplete than evolution if look past the "things tend towards the ground" observation.
50. Comment #88148 by clodhopper on November 15, 2007 at 12:28 am
Why should we play linguistic games on their terms? It's a recipe for a mess. So we say 'law' and they say 'ok, god made the law so he can suspend it whenever', and we than call it what? Where does it get us? Just demand the evidence neh?51. Comment #88150 by hcholm on November 15, 2007 at 1:34 am
There's Mendel's laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance) and the "laws of physics", so for me, the "laws of evolution" seems OK. At least in the plural form, I'm not sure what the single "law of evolution" would be52. Comment #88153 by Coel on November 15, 2007 at 1:54 am
My question is, what process is there in science to upgrade a "theory" to a "law"? My ignorance of how this happens is very real. Anyone with a history lesson to give some background?In asking this question you are buying into the ``theory = unproven'' idea, which is not how science uses the word. In science, ``law'' is used for something that can be stated in one sentence or one equation.
A ``theory'' is grander, it is a set of interlocking ideas and explanations, often encompassing several laws. Thus the theory of classical mechanics includes Newton's laws of motion, and the theory of thermodynamics includes four thermodynamical laws. Thus, theories are never upgraded to laws (though a ``hypothesis'' might be).
I do see the point people are making, that the popular usage is different, and helps the creationists. The problem is that there is no easy change here, since the proposal to call evolution a ``law'' would be a marked departure from what science means by ``law''.
53. Comment #88157 by quill on November 15, 2007 at 2:11 am
I usually just point out to the antievolutionists that evolution encompasses numerous laws, such as the laws of heredity or the law of natural selection.54. Comment #88158 by Mike O'Risal on November 15, 2007 at 2:13 am
Evolutionary theory isn't a law... it's a number of laws clustered together into one coherent model. I think it would be more appropriate to make that already existent fact clear than it would be to start redefining language to suit colloquial usage. That is only going to lead to more problems.For example, we can talk about laws of inheritance, laws of selection, laws of population growth. There are any number of mathematically quantifiable forces at work within the overall evolutionary model. When Creationists talk about "evolutionary theory not making predictions," for instance, the dodge is really that evolutionary theory *as a whole* isn't about making predictions; it's the application of specific principles embodied in the theory that are used to make predictions. Evolutionary theory as a monolithic concept is simply too broad to be applied in toto to some particular instance in biological science. That's not a shortcoming, anymore than the fact that we don't apply all of the laws embodied under "physics" to explain the Doppler shift.
We shouldn't call evolutionary theory a law because it *isn't* a law; it's many laws. In and of itself, evolutionary theory is like a higher taxon that comprises a number of more restrictive taxa, and it is these taxa — the order, family, genus and species — that are specific laws, in much the same way that Decapoda and Amphipoda are both Crustaceans.
If Creationists were to decide tomorrow that all crustaceans are shrimp, should we change taxonomy in order to shut them up for awhile... until they move on to their next set of demands?
55. Comment #88162 by MuNky82 on November 15, 2007 at 2:22 am
"We shouldn't call evolutionary theory a law because it *isn't* a law; it's many laws. In and of itself, evolutionary theory is like a higher taxon that comprises a number of more restrictive taxa, and it is these taxa — the order, family, genus and species — that are specific laws, in much the same way that Decapoda and Amphipoda are both Crustaceans."
How about using the plural of "Law" - Laws?
I know it is technically incorrect, but "Laws of Evolution" would indacte many Laws that lead the Evolution Theory.
Or how about the 'Conclusion of Evolution' or the 'Evolutionary Conclusion', even though it sounds horrible, "conclusion" would indicate investigation of evidence and thus concluding a valid/factual theory.
"Believe" is also weak in the sense that it sounds like a leap of faith. How about "accept", it sounds definite and powerful.
Example:
99.98% of scientist believe in the Theory of Evolution.
VS
99.98% of scientist accept the Evolutionary Conclusion.
58. Comment #88167 by Haymoon on November 15, 2007 at 2:54 am
In science the words hypothesis, theory and law have very specific meaningssee http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
Creationism/ID is a dogma or doctrine. Lets call it for what it is.
59. Comment #88169 by Duff on November 15, 2007 at 3:10 am
Why not let both camps keep "theory" in their descriptions. Lets say Evolution Theory is for grown ups and ID theory is for the simple people.62. Comment #88179 by GBile on November 15, 2007 at 4:36 am
We will really be in trouble if we would switch to the L-word.'Law of evolution', 'Laws of Physics'?? Then there must be a 'LAWGIVER' !
Guess who that would be.
Let's not do it, it will not work.
'Scientific theory' has a well established meaning. Anyone who wants can understand this.
63. Comment #88181 by anonquick on November 15, 2007 at 4:53 am
People like levels, grades, or scales.The fact of evolution should graded the highest level, and this level should mean something like 'certainty'. 'The earth is 6000 years old should be graded in the level which means something like 'completely rejected because it is no where near the truth'.
Evolution by natural selection should get a grade that means something like: "Everyone agrees that this is the truth, we are now fighting over some of the details".
What do people think?
65. Comment #88187 by 35bluejacket on November 15, 2007 at 6:28 am
Years ago I remember Pat Robinson telling his congregation that other religions are not fit to govern this country, and added; "I not only know it, I believe it!" Clearly he and his others think that "belief" is closer to the truth than "knowing".Not long ago I had a Dr. of Marine Biology onboard my vessel, responding to his student (a creationist) that he didn't "believe" in evolution, "I know it!"
66. Comment #88189 by beebhack on November 15, 2007 at 6:41 am
So we have to compromise our correct use of language because of stupidity?No.
67. Comment #88192 by Caeruleum on November 15, 2007 at 6:54 am
I don't think anyone has yet suggested using 'the principles of evolution'. This avoids the 'theory' word and suggests that evolution is based on a set of scientifically established mechanisms, which indeed it is.69. Comment #88196 by Aquambulus hirsutus on November 15, 2007 at 7:18 am
No doubt the creationists would come up with inanities like "you don't prove a theory by calling it 'law'". But it's hardly the creationists that this is aimed at. Like the author, I can imagine that if 'laws of evolution' became common parlance, people who don't normally give it much thought, might mentally file it under Things That Sane People Do Not Doubt. It'd save RD and others from having to explain, each and every time, that evolution is true. Maybe biologists should vote on the subject, like astronomers did on the planethood of Pluto?Off to print stickers saying "Laws CAN and DO get BROKEN".
72. Comment #88203 by 35bluejacket on November 15, 2007 at 10:22 am
Speaking of definitions. I have long concluded a few of them myself. That truth is simply knowledge and that evil is nothing more than ignorance. An anology would be light as knowledge and the lesser degree, that of shadow, darkness or evil. Truth will always win the battles over ignorance because man can not unknow truth when he learns it. Truth will allways hold the moral high ground because deception and ignorance are brothers. Truth and or knowledge is the power that advances civilizations.If I did'nt know better I would almost think that the awesome power of truth and knowledge were a gift from God to man.
73. Comment #88251 by Russell Blackford on November 15, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Re Comment #88137, this "belief" thing must be an American phenomenon ... at least mainly. I certainly haven't encountered it anywhere else in the world. (However, maybe PsyPro is from France or Turkey or something ... or Australia. That would be interesting.)Please, people, the word "believe" just indicates that some agent ... well ... has an attitude to a certain proposition of thinking it is true. It says nothing about whether the belief really is true, whether it is justified, whether the evidence objectively supports it, etc.
To use the commonplace example that I'm fond on, which I stole from somewhere, I might believe that there is chocolate in the cupboard. In moral psychology, the working idea is usually the Humean one that we are motivated by a combination of our beliefs (in this everyday sense) and our desires. Hence, if I desire some chocolate (my current attitude towards chocolate is that I'd like to eat some) and I believe there is chocolate in the cupboard (I think it true that "there is chocolate in the cupboard"), then other things being equal I will be motivated to go and open the cupboard door to look search for choccy.
I don't see how we could get by without this ordinary little word "belief" and its cognates ("believe", "believes" and so on). Nor do I see how we could operate socially without using a basic naive psychology in which we attribute beliefs and desires to people.
It's a real nuisance that some people (mainly in America?) seem to have elevated "believe" to mean something like "hold an opinion on faith as a personal commitment", or whatever. I hypothesise that this is tied up with America's religiosity and also with the hyper-emphasis in America on self-expression: kids seem to be taught at an early age that their personal opinions and ideas are of great importance, however ill-informed they are.
Don't get me wrong. I value self-expression and admire the way Americans always seem to be incredibly articulate, even when they are talking absolute nonsense. I'm not being sarcastic here. The self-doubt, self-deprecation, reticence, unwillingness to stand out in a group, etc., that we are taught here in Australia has its downside. That American way of doing things definitely has its attraction. No reflex anti-Americanism from me. But maybe there's a happy medium.
Anyway, my suggestion that the problem is a specifically American one, or mainly so, is hypothesis not theory. The main point is that the ordinary little word "belief" needs some rescuing, since we need a word with that everyday meaning and it won't be easy to revise such a basic part of our language to find a substitute
75. Comment #88370 by rustylix on November 16, 2007 at 9:04 am
The rebuttals to the claim that "Evolution is just a theory" always include defining the fact that in science the word theory means a well-substantiated explanation of data. Why not just rebut with a similar statement "Creationism is just baloney" that is not accepted by 99.8% of the scientific community.
No comments:
Post a Comment