{"id":797,"date":"2013-09-08T10:12:31","date_gmt":"2013-09-08T15:12:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/?p=797"},"modified":"2013-09-08T10:15:13","modified_gmt":"2013-09-08T15:15:13","slug":"either-scientific-american-or-i-dont-understand-the-word-theory","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/2013\/09\/08\/either-scientific-american-or-i-dont-understand-the-word-theory\/","title":{"rendered":"Either Scientific American or I don’t understand the word “theory”"},"content":{"rendered":"

Scientific American\u00a0<\/em>has an article about 7 Misused Science Words<\/a>. Number 2 is “theory”:<\/p>\n

Part of the problem is that the word “theory” means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone’s head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Although of course I applaud the broader point they’re making — saying something is “just a theory,” as, e.g., anti-evolution types do, isn’t an argument against its validity — this doesn’t sound right to me. A theory\u00a0may<\/em> have been experimentally substantiated, but it need not have been.<\/p>\n

Is string theory (which is notoriously untested by experiment) not a theory? Was general relativity not a theory during the several decades during which it had minimal experimental support?<\/p>\n

The article supports this definition with a link to a post<\/a> at something called Livescience, which says (in its entirety)<\/p>\n

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step\u2014known as a theory\u2014in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In my experience, this is not how scientists use the word. I know lots of physicists who come up with theories willy-nilly, and don’t feel the need to wait for experimental evidence before labeling them “theories.”<\/p>\n

In the unlikely event that any creationists read this, let me reiterate: I am not saying that a theory\u00a0necessarily<\/em> lacks experimental support, so saying something is “just a theory” doesn’t constitute a logical argument against it. In particular, Darwinian evolution is a theory, which happens to be buttressed by phenomenal amounts of evidence.<\/p>\n

Granted, this is pretty much just a quibble. I’m just easily irritated by cartoon descriptions of “the scientific method,” formed without paying much attention to what scientists actually do and then glibly repeated by scientists.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Scientific American\u00a0has an article about 7 Misused Science Words. Number 2 is “theory”: Part of the problem is that the word “theory” means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or … Continue reading Either Scientific American or I don’t understand the word “theory”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-797","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/797","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=797"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/797\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=797"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=797"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=797"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}