What's wrong with the dismissive "It's just a theory." reasoning?

@ETpro: “What’s the most effective way to help those unschooled in science understand the differences in individual hunch-style theory, scientific hypothesis, scientific theory and scientific law?”

Great question. It seems, however, that people who use theory in the “hunch” sense when discussing science aren’t merely ignorant of the concept of a scientific theory. Many of these people appear to be intentially misusing the word. There are apologists that have been doing their thing for many years, and have been called out on their lack of understanding of scientific theory for just as many years. The fact that they continue to practice this deception is intentional. There’s no way around it.

We recently had a thread about how amazing science education is in public schools in the U.S. (~), so I think average people with a high school diploma know the difference – or knew there was a difference at one point. Maybe they need a reminder.

It’s too bad that scientists can’t just decide on a new term altogether, as “theory” appears to have been ruined. But I can’t see this as solving much other than to hand certain groups another piece of ammo in their conspiracy theories about how science is trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes.

Making a theory so complicated that one needs schooling does not make it different from one that is simple and need no schooling understand.

So long as they are unable to show the full story, they should be treated as the same, for they are.

This is the problem with the English language. One word can mean many things. In science hypothesis is basically synonomous with how laymen use the word theory. This link explains what scientific theory means. I guess you could provide that to people who are unaware.

The only thing I have is “So is gravity. But if you want to jump off this building and fly off into the cosmos, go right ahead.”

LOL.

I’ve quit trying. People who say “it’s just a theory” are true believers and you can’t argue or teach true believers.

@Rarebear Yes you can! I’m living proof of it.

I had to do some digging for the apposite quote on the topic from Isaac Asimov, to wit:

… My answer to him was, “John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”

Later in the same essay he proposes:

Nowadays, of course, we are taught that the flat-earth theory is wrong; that it is all wrong, terribly wrong, absolutely. But it isn’t. The curvature of the earth is nearly 0 per mile, so that although the flat-earth theory is wrong, it happens to be nearly right. That’s why the theory lasted so long.

Here is the entire essay.

One has to appreciate the irony of the title: The Relativity of Wrong.

@CWOTUS Or as mentioned in the Big Bang Theory: “It’s a little bit wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable. It’s very wrong to say it is a suspension bridge.”

Hypothesis vs. Theory: they are not synonymous.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Hypothesis_vs_Theory

@gailcalled I think you didn’t read my sentence well. I did not say a hypothesis is the same as a scientific theory, I said hypothesis is the scientific term that is basically synonomous with how a layman uses the word theory.

To those who do not understand scientific evaluation, each theory is equal to all other theories. So the “theory of evolution” is equal to the “theory of creationism” and the “theory of intelligent design”. But as pointed out, not all theories are created equal, and once discredited they no longer get to keep their standing as a theory.

There is another whole website / community devoted to this idea, called, appropriately enough, LessWrong.

There is no question here, if they don’t understand what a scientific theory is and why it’s different than one person’s personal theory, they have a cognitive issue. Nothing more. Which is why arguing with people about religion/evolution is so often unproductive. They have the wrong definition in the first place and can usually not be reasoned with because of that.

@tom_g No question that it is often willful ignorance—the only king that is almost impossible to destroy by providing the individual involved with more accurate information. But I thin that the majority of offenders simply don’t understand the difference.

@kess Scientists don’t make their theories any more complicated than they need to be to explain what they deal with. I wish the same were true of some people here, who use language to say nothing in hopes that others will be fooled into thinking they are incredibly profound gurus.

Since you seem (though your language is difficult to understand) to be saying that all theories “unable to show the full story” are the same, then perhaps you’d be willing to take up @Seek_Kolinahr‘s challenge of walking off a building and flying, since the theory of gravity should be treated the same as the theory of levitation.

@JLeslie Thanks for the link. Much appreciated.

@Rarebear You believe that? Sorry, I just couldn’t resist.

@CWOTUS Thanks so much. I will definitely read that essay.

@Seek_Kolinahr What? Tomatoes aren’t suspension bridges? When did science establish that? :-)

@gailcalled Even though that isn’t what @JLeslie (or I, for that matter) was suggesting, thanks for the link. It’s a useful resource.

@zenvelo I certainly hope that most people today recognize that the theory that the earth is the center of the solar system is wrong, and that it actually isn’t flat like a dinner plate and floating in a sea.

@CWOTUS I’m less wrong because I’m a member there. :-)

@deni I wonder whether it’s a cognitive issue of an educational one.

@ETpro
Gravity is what it is, while Theory of Gravity is what guessing men think it is.
How can you know the difference between the two?

Hint, Gravity does not need a mountain of written material to explain itself and following your own goodly advice can help immensely.

Very interesting that you come up with this “incredibly profound gurus” comment.
You would understand its origin, when you understand Life is like a window, which is a mirror.

This will be fun. The above poster could not be more wrong, but I’m on my iPhone so this answer is going to have to wait. Incoming round fired high. When will it land and how big will the explosion be? Hmmmm

@kess Facts are facts, whether you understand them or not. No fact requires explanation to be true, and the length of the explanation has no necessary bearing on the validity of the explanation or the theory which it explains.

And you talk a whole lot for someone who never says anything.

@Seek_Kolinahr please say something instead of accusing…

Fact is Gravity is gravity…
Fact is “Theory of gravity” is not Gravity, thus is in need of a written validation.

Do you know the difference?

I have said nothing beyond this, and don’t need to actually.
I have not said much…just gave you a lot to think about,
but you only think along the nay side…

The theory of gravity effectively is the written explanation of what gravity is, as currently understood by those who spend their time figuring such things out. It’s not a laissez-faire “uh, it’s what holds my coffee in the cup” explanation (though that is part). A scientific theory is not a guess. It is tried, tested, peer-reviewed and independently verified data about what gravity is and what it does that come as close to absolute fact as any scientist will claim. Yes, it is subject to change based on new data. That doesn’t make it wrong now. The theory now is the best possible explanation the data we are able to observe will provide.

@Seek_Kolinar
There is need of long explanations because gravity has been made more complicated than it actually is…

Thinking long does not make thinking right, it actually show that you are thinking wrong.

Hutha-wha?

Y’know what, I have to hear this.

Please, O wise one, what is the simple theory of gravity that these idiot physicists are so stupid for not realizing?

To tickle your nay thinking cap…..
Go follow Etpro advice to me and you would know.

You see, when I ask a scientist, they just tell me.

You argue with me…who tells you what you do know
But you don’t argue with those who tells you what you don’t know and they don’t know(theories).

In the end you don’t know what you knew to begin with..

I don’t need someone to tell me what I know. I can do that. Because I… already… know… it. And I do plenty of arguing with people who know things that I do not about various topics. When I find their arguments to be persuasive, I add that knowledge to what I know already, making necessary alterations to my worldview along the way. It’s called being intellectually honest.

This is boring already.

Look, gravity is more that “what makes you fall”. It has calculable effects on everything in the universe. There are people who are much more knowledgeable than I on the topic spending many many man-hours figuring all that stuff out while I’m at home reading The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy for the 400th time.

Knowledge gained simplify things not make them complicated…

So if you desire complication in order to convince you,
You deviate from knowledge as you justify the theory of gravity.

I don’t desire complication. I desire explanation.

You’ve still not managed to say anything substantial.

If you did follow my advice, which is your own advice,
you would not be here looking for anything more substantial….

What I can give you are not interested in having…though you try to act like it.
Why the double face?
You could have said what it is you truly wanted to say and be done with me a long time aback.

* eyeroll *

This thread took a strange turn.

Simply say the word theory has two meanings. In common language it’s about a speculative explanation, in the language of science it’s a principle or body of principles for explaining observed facts or phenomena.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_(disambiguation)#

I like the way some people try to argue for creationism by using “scientific” jargon.

@Seek_Kolinahr See what I mean? It’s not worth the effort. He’s obviously trying to clumsily relay some sort of postmodern clap-trap, and these guys are even worse than the religious true believers because they’re smug.

Smugly talking in circles. Spouting absolute, empty nonsense but in a way so that they think it actually sounds “profound.” It doesn’t. It’s nonsense.

@kess…. you said, gosh… I can’t even begin and I am not going to bother, ... I agree with @Dutchess_III . (but I am desperately hoping that @kess does not teach in any way shape or form.)

To answer the question, properly, you need to introduce people to reading the papers themselves. Published, peer reviewed studies. Even my 8 year old understands basic scientific research principals. These test results bode poorly for Americans and science knowledge. http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/science-knowledge/results/

Not to mention with a misogynistic veil, “guessing men”? Really?

@cazzie BAM! I got every one right. Who’s in the top 7% of the bell curve? Me, bitches.

@cazzie @Seek_Kolinahr I’m with Seek—got them all right. Those questions were ridiculously easy (I answered them in about 30 seconds after three glasses of wine at dinner) and it frightens me a little bit that 93% of the population can’t answer them all.

I just banged through the test and also got them all right in under a minute…which makes sense because either you know the answers or you don’t.

Well that was easy. I nailed the test too. The hard thing is figuring out how to help the 93% who don’t know such simple stuff. And then there is really hard, like making any sense out of the discourse that our resident guru types out.

Damn it, I missed one. I guessed hydrogen on #7. Hanging my head in shame.

@augustlan I just took it and got them all right, but the question you missed was missed by a lot of people. Only 31% of college grads got it right, not sure if you noticed. Here is the results link, I am not sure if it will still work. For whatever reason I remember clearly learning that oxygen is not the largest percentage of the air we breath and ______ is. I don’t know why it made such an impression it easily could have been something to forget. I didn’t write the answer in case someone else wants to take the quiz.

@ETpro It was all pretty much sixth grade science stuff. Of course, I was a Bill Nye/Beakman fan…

I was never told that there was a career called ‘science writing’ when I was in school. Time to fix that, you think? In any event, it will always be a strong hobby if I go back to accounting. I can’t seem myself sticking with the child development stuff. My dark side is too big and too dark.

I know the difference between a hypothesis, law and theory, and I’m sure I’m not alone in the opinion that some theories are stronger than others. The idea behind the strength of a theory is supposed to be based upon it (the theory in question) being valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.

I’ll take the Big Bang Theory for example, there is evidence which supports it such as the red shifts of light and detectable background radiation. However, at the same time there is counter-evidence against this theory as well. Does this mean that I should drop my support of the Big Bang Theory as the best explaination that we have so far to try to explain the origins of our universe in place of a personal opinion or wishful thinking? No, but I still have doubts about it.

@Paradox25 I would never ask anyone to accept a scientific theory on blind faith. Scientific theories are generally imperfect at birth, and amended as new information comes in over time. Still, they are vastly more useful than individual hunches and SWAGs.