kbertsche writes:
No, I want to use the word the way that they (the layman) use it. Or rather, I don't want to use the word at all because the scientific definition and the lay definition are so different.
Not using the word at all is an option, if there really is the difference in understanding that you claim.
Maybe I've been a scientist for too long; I prefer to communicate some basic scientific concepts rather than deferring completely to lay terminology. The concept that scientific theory is not provable but must be in principle disprovable is very fundamental to science. I have given a number of talks to describe science and the scientific method for non-scientists, and this is something I always stress. I have not had difficulty in communicating the concept.
I agree. What makes intelligent design and creationism non-science is the fact that they are not falsifiable, nor subject to hypothesis testing. It is hard to argue this fundamental point if you use "proof" in the lay sense. "The mystery and majesty of creation is proof of God". How would you argue against such a notion once you have ellided over falsifiability as a criterion for scientific argument, and have chosen instead to accept the "weight of evidence" or somesuch?
™ Version 4.2
