Comment on I definitely never unsubscribed from a YouTube channel just for that...
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 1 month ago
Read the other day that there actually isn’t any official distinction. It’s just colloquially used that way in some scientific circles but definitely not all. Probably not by etymologists.
dogsoahC@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Normally, I’m all for language changing over time. If some word is used a certain way, so beit. But not here. Not in a case where people can end up saying dumb shit like “Evolution is just a theory.” I will physically fight people on that, If need be.
lauha@lemmy.one 1 month ago
Theory meaning “unproven assumption” is one of the definitions in Merriam-Webster so it is not a new definition.
You’re just angry word means something you don’t want it to mean. Just like the literally-figuratively crowd.
rtxn@lemmy.world 1 month ago
If you consider misuse to be a valid form of etymology, I have a question to axe.
Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The aks variant pronunciation of ask is fine. It is part of a dialect.
kaffiene@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
It’s not gross misuse, it’s how the word work in common use.
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 1 month ago
I think anyone who uses the word “literally” to mean anything other than “in a literal sense” is a moron who never actually thinks about what the words coming out of their mouth mean, and I always will.
Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 1 month ago
People who do not seem to understand that language is different than they wish it to be, are the actual morons. Not only morons, but pampas morons. Language is messy, imprecise, and always in flux. Language is a construct of the collective of its speakers, not you alone, nor anyone else. This is why we have specific lexicons for various industries, and academic fields. Even those are constantly being updated, and revised.
kaffiene@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
The use of literal to mean figurative has been common for hundreds of years (literally). If it’s good enough for James Joyce, it’s good enough for you
flora_explora@beehaw.org 1 month ago
You hate so much on people that use literally this way, but are do the same thing yourself…
Wikipedia
joyjoy@lemm.ee 1 month ago
To be perfectly fair, you can’t “prove” or “disprove” a theory. You can only discover new evidence that supports the theory or another competing theory. Multiple competing theories can be equally accepted as correct.
Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
The issue is people using exactly that definition to reject science. We also have a theory of gravity, but gravity itself is an observation. Evolution should be too, regardless of our theories about it.
Also, String Theory isn’t doing anyone any favors.
PyroVK@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
I remember seeing somewhere that the “colloquial” usage is actually the original and that the scientific community is the one that changed it. I do agree that the evolution argument is stupid but it’s hard to blame the non scientific populace for not knowing the distinction. The evolution denier just don’t have a lot else to stand on.
joyjoy@lemm.ee 1 month ago
And so is gravity, and the concept of colors.
victorz@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Could you explain the difference to me? 🙏
tate@lemmy.sdf.org 1 month ago
In physics we call some results “laws” and some “theories.” The difference has absolutely nothing to do with our certainty in the validity of the results.
Newton’s Laws of motion are called that because they can be written as concise mathematical equations, and allof the content is there. Einstein’s Theory of special relativity is just as valid, and even contains Newton’s Laws as a special case, but the content of the theory can’t be written in simple, concise equations. There are several equations included in special relativity, but they do not represent the entire content. For example, the most important statement of the theory cannot be written in equation form at all: “The measured speed of light in a vacuum will be the same for all observers in inertial reference frames, regardless of the relative speed of their reference frame.”
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution likewise cannot be written in concise statements (mathematical or otherwise), but our certainty in its validity is no less than in Newton’s Laws.
Another important subtlety: I was careful to say that we are certain of the validity. People who don’t know better are fond of saying that Newton’s Laws are wrong. This is a fallacy. Scientific laws and theories can only be valid or not, they can never be true.
ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 month ago
Now do theorum
JoeyJoeJoeJr@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
A law describes what happens, a theory explains why. The law of gravity says that if you drop an item, it will fall to the ground. The theory of relativity explains that the “fall” occurs due to the curvature of space time.
victorz@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I was referring to the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.
Theorem would also be interesting to add to the mix.
tate@lemmy.sdf.org 1 month ago
Science can never answer “why.” In your example, the question why is just moved, from “why does it fall?” to “why does mass distort space-time?” In both cases physics just describes what happens.
snek_boi@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
I appreciate your passion for scientific literacy - it’s crucial for combating misinformation. However, I’d like to share some perspectives that might broaden our understanding of scientific knowledge and how it develops.
First, it’s worth noting that the distinction between “theory” and “hypothesis” isn’t as clear-cut as we might think. In “The Scientific Attitude,” Stephen McIntyre argues that what truly defines science isn’t a rigid set of rules, but rather an ethos of critical inquiry and evidence-based reasoning. This ties into the “demarcation problem” in philosophy of science - the challenge of clearly defining what is and isn’t science. Despite this ongoing debate, science continues to be a powerful tool for understanding our world.
Your stance seems to align with positivism, which views scientific knowledge as objective and verifiable. However, other epistemological approaches exist. Joseph A. Maxwell’s work on critical realism offers a nuanced view that acknowledges both the existence of an objective reality and the role of human interpretation in understanding it.
Maxwell defines validity in research not just as statistical significance, but as the absence of plausible alternative explanations. This approach encourages us to constantly question and refine our understanding, rather than treating any explanation as final.
Gerard Delanty’s “Philosophies of Social Science” provides a historical perspective on how our conception of science has evolved. Modern views often see science as a reflexive process, acknowledging the role of the researcher and societal context in shaping scientific knowledge.
Larry McEnery’s work further emphasizes this point, describing how knowledge emerges from ongoing conversations within communities of researchers. What we consider “knowledge” at any given time is the result of these dynamic processes, not a static, unchanging truth.
Understanding these perspectives doesn’t diminish the power or importance of science. Instead, it can make us more aware of the complexities involved in scientific inquiry and more resistant to overly simplistic arguments from science deniers.
By embracing some psychological flexibility around terms like “theory” and “hypothesis,” we’re not opening the door to pseudoscience. Rather, we’re acknowledging the nuanced nature of scientific knowledge and the ongoing process of inquiry that characterizes good science.
What do you think about these ideas? I’d be interested to hear your perspective and continue this conversation.
kaffiene@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
No! I want to tilt an windmills instead!!
/jk you’re entirely right
gandalf_der_12te@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
Then again, why bother? If people want to say dumb shit, what concern is it of yours? It’s the same when people say “the earth is flat”. It’s not, but I would never fight someone over it. That’s just not worth my time in most cases.