A Little Clarification on Scientific Terminology

[Sukerkin]

A lovely short and simple piece on why there is sometimes a disconnect between scientists and the non-scientifically educated:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words

 

[oftheherd1]

A theory is not the same as a hypothesis, as a theory is a 'proven' hypothesis, that, in other words, has never been disproved through experiment, and has a basis in fact. - From Wikipedia

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for something that can actually be tested. But "if you just ask anyone what a hypothesis is, they just immediately say 'educated guess,'" - From the quoted article. Actually, an educated guess would be correct until the hypothesis is verified.

So Darwin realized he hadn't proven anything, granted that nobody disproved it either. He hypothesized evolution, and by his research came up with his theory. The theory stands only because nobody has disproved it. Again, granted we have come a long way from Darwin's day and his limited (in todays' 'knowledge') studies.

What do you think of that sir?

:boing1:

 

[oftheherd1]

And before the thread maybe gets hijacked, I think everybody knows my Christian perspective on things. Nobody else has to agree with it. If you don't agree, you need not try to convince me and I will not try to convince you.

Just as an aside, I do understand the scientific method. I understand there is scientific 'evidence' for many things. I accept any scientific 'fact' that does not disagree with my religion. When science and my religion are in conflict, I choose my religion. Nobody else is required to do so.

No big arguments on Sukerkin's thread please, unless it pertains to his OP. Thanks.

 

[Sukerkin]

ONe of the oft misunderstood platforms of the scientific method is that you can never prove anything. You can only disprove it. At least that's the simplest framing of Karl Popper's ideas e.g. as every swan you have ever seen is white then you make the hypothesis that all swans are white. But counting all the examples of white swans you ever see does not prove the hypothesis, it just adds weight to it's predictive utility and accuracy. Accrue enough evidence and it is as if something is true, right up to the point that you see a black swan.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Not very scientific..... the missed Thing-a-ma-bob and whatsyamacallit

 

[Tgace]

No agenda driven explanations in THAT article huh?

 

[crushing]

No agenda driven explanations in THAT article huh?

Education with timely real world examples of where these words are most often misused or misunderstood. I think it it's better than making up examples to demonstrate the meanings of the misunderstood words.

 

[Sukerkin]

No agenda driven explanations in THAT article huh?

Excuse me? It's what the words mean and how they are used by the people that employ them to describe what they do. It was meant to clarify not annoy.

{hands over internet mouth to leave it at that}.

 

[jks9199]

They are terms of art; they have formal meanings within their professions. Unfortunately, they also have informal or popular meanings. These are sometimes in conflict. Unfortunately, I think this does a better job of highlighting the lousy job regarding science and technology that's going on in education today. People learn to use technology -- but they don't learn how or why it works. For way too many people, most tech might as well be magic. I'm not suggesting that everyone should be able to build a smart phone from scratch -- but how about understanding some of the basics about radio and how they work? How about having enough understanding of basic science that you can catch the holes and faulty logic in some of the things being bandied about?

 

[arnisador]

Just as an aside, I do understand the scientific method. I understand there is scientific 'evidence' for many things. I accept any scientific 'fact' that does not disagree with my religion. When science and my religion are in conflict, I choose my religion. Nobody else is required to do so.

I actually don't have a philosophic problem with this--choosing to view the world through science/reason is a choice and choosing to view it through religion/faith is a choice. As long as schools teach science in science class and not religion there, people can make their own choices as adults. I obviously think one choice is preferable, of course.

It's when clergy paint science as something other than what it is, and insist it be taught as such in schools, that I have a problem. Part of the way that is often done is by intentionally conflating the technical and non-technical meanings of hypothesis, theory, etc. That's disingenuous--as though I tried to convince people that 'God' meant 'nature' and 'heaven' meant 'state of death' in the Bible.