The meaning of Theory is a modern myth.

When I was in high school I was taught the now conventional meaning of 'Theory' and 'Hypothesis' as esposed frequently on this board by my fellow evos. However, as I ready more historical science I've come to the conclusion that this is an entirely modern invention.In fact, the word "Theory" doesn't mean anything in Science. It's just an arbitary chosen title; just as earlier generations of scientists tacked 'law' onto their (or, to be fair, onto other people's) work so did 'theory' become the prefered tag. Darwin's works were never talked about as a hypothesis then, later, under the weight of great evidence, promoted to a theory. Scientists who were convinced by it just started calling it a theory. Similarly with Einstein's theories of relativity - never known as a hypothesis simply taged a theory (and so tagged before the famous gravity lensing test).For 'Is It Science?', I guess?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Sure, it's just a tag. And one that was frequently abused, to boot. There have been a number of attempts to define theory more concretely over the years, just as there have been innumerable attempts to define species over the years. However, as I mentioned in the other thread, theory today has become somewhat more concrete - it represents an idea that links a large number of different observations and explanations; it spawns fruitful lines of investigation; and may spawn whole new sciences. It is a term used commonly in science to "dignify" some idea as more than just a guess.BTW: I was also taught the myth of a hierarchy of science in school: observation => hypothesis => theory => law. We don't even USE law anymore, and the whole hierarchy concept is bogus. Ideas don't get promoted. Unfortunately, we also don't change archaic designations (i.e., we don't demote laws etc). It can be confusing for just about everybody.Nonetheless, I think there is some validity to modern useage of theory. Moreover, in the face of repeated challenges from creationists and others of that ilk, I think it's a useful term.

I think this way of describing things might invite confusion. I don't think nomenclature is your main topic. While a discussion about the meanings of hypothesis, theory and law would be very interesting, I think your primary interest lies elsewhere.You seem to be saying that some theories were given greater credence than they deserved given available evidence at the time, and that they didn't follow a progression from hypothesis to theory. But there is no formal procedure for hypotheses becoming theories. Theories are ideas that have become generally accepted by the scientific community, but there's no formal vote, not even an informal poll. Like words that spring unannounced into common usage, ideas become theories through a process that is also unmonitored, unseen and not well understood. With modern jargon, suddenly everyone is saying "My bad" or reversing the meaning of "Duh" by adding a sarcastic twist, and who knows where they came from. While some hypotheses advance toward the status of theory by following a path within everyone's gaze, like the existence of the Higg's Boson, others spring suddenly upon us, like the accelerating universe.Regarding the examples you provided, Darwin's theory of evolution and Einstein's theory of relativity, I don't know how either was referred to in the years following their introductions, but if they were called theories right out of the box, why would you care? The key issue is how their ideas became accepted within the scientific community. After all, tons of theories have been rejected, but we still call them theories, such as geocentric theory, flat earth theory and so forth. The name isn't what's important.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 01-05-2005 12:43 AM

The word "hypothesis" is heavily entrenched within the scientific method. Each experiment is a test of the hypothesis as well as the null hypothesis. If we were to strictly stay with the scientific method, the word "theory" should never be used. Either something is a supported hypothesis or it is a falsified hypothesis. But, scientists being the people they are, needed a shorthand for hypotheses that were generally accepted and well supported. At one point the word "law" was used, which connotated a concrete and absolute truth to one's hypothesis. Over time, as these "laws" started falling by the way side, scientists backed off a bit and used the word "theory" which gave them an out if it turned out to be wrong. Theory is an outgrowth of ego, in a manner of speaking. It is also a way of distinguishing between hypotheses have made it past rigorous scrutiny and those that are held tentatively by a minority of scientists and have only passed limited scrutiny.I will agree that "theory" is arbitrarily assigned, but it is still done carefully. An even more eggregious error that scientists make is speaking of theories as if they were absolutely proven. I often catch myself doing this. Scientists don't do this as a way of entrenching tentative ideas as proven fact, but in the same shorthand that created the word "theory". Over time, it is a bit tiring to incessantaly say "it may" or "tentatively proven", etc. It is easier to say "it does". When speaking to the public we should always keep this in mind.

I recently heard Tony Snow on FOX NEWS claim that all science was was a rough guess, and we should let creationism in school since it is also a rough guess. I think a lot of people get that impression when they hear scientists speak about there theories formally, i.e., "we have supported the hypothesis". Prove is never used. The reason is because of the scientific philosophy, that no position can be known for certain, only supported by evidence or not supported by evidence. My Cell Biology professor used to always tell me about "stories" he was making up about the cell. Of course, he was talking about his hypothesises. One of his "stories" was that myosin was creating the tensile strength of actin filaments in the flagellate form of Neagleria gruberi. Not your typical bedtime stories which people associate with "stories".It's the same thing with "theory" and "hypothesises". Non-scientists use these words informally. They also use words like "fact" and "proven". Unless they understand the formal definitions and scientific philosophy, they are going to get the wrong impression.This all just a rant inspired by Loudmouth's comment about saying "it does". That's what people want to hear you tell them when you have a well supported theory (like the ones which inspired such great technology we use). Of course there is always that fear of being elitist and paternal, but I don't see it like that. We're simply translating from formal language to modern vernacular.This message has been edited by JustinCy, 01-05-2005 23:58 AM

My primary interest is that I don't believe the story we tell Creationists when they say "but evolution is just a theory" is true. Lying in the name of truth is never justified; and we, who are right, should work hardest to maintain that line. Exactly!

So your point is that the idealized formula of the scientific method which preaches a progression from hypothesis to theory is rarely followed? If so, then I suppose I agree with you, but the problem is that the steps of the scientific method are the best that we can do at reducing what is in its very essence a creative process to mere rote. I'd draw an analogy to writer's workshops. Writing is a very demanding creative process, and while the ideas and methods presented and discussed at workshops can be very helpful, in the final analysis, good writer's don't really work that way most of the time.Also, because science is a community endeavor, acceptance of theory has a large social aspect, so there's the problem of reducing a social phenonmenon to a describable and understandable process. I likened it before to the process of introducing new jargon - no one knows where the new words or expressions arise from, they just happen. Or consider another social phenonenon: Where do jokes come from? Somehow, they just happen. So how do theories become accepted? Most of the time, it just happens, and there's nothing substantial or recorded that one can point to that marks the event.The question you're raising is whether we're lying to Creationists when we describe the scientific method as the way science works. That's a tough question. We teach the scientific method in school, too. Are we lying to our kids?I don't think so. An immature understanding of science, whether of an adult or a child, is not going to be helped by complicating your presentation with qualifiers about how things really work in the messy real world. First present the idealized process, and once that point gets across, then you can discuss how the exigencies of the real world have an impact.--Percy

I think it is valid to consider that the "theory" on some subject is the sum of all the knowledge on that subject. Larger theory is made up of smaller theories.Thus, the theory of (biological) evolution is all that is currently known about the processes of (biological) evolution. Some of the information will be flawed, subject to further refinement, and there will always be room for more information to be added.In geology, the theory of (geological) evolution is the sum of what is known about the processes that have resulted in the Earth's current geological form.The "theory" is nothing less than "everything we know about how it happened".MooseComments on my "signature":
Evolution - Changes in the environment.
Theory of Evolution - What we know about the interactions of the components of the environment.An environment can be broken down into smaller "sub-environments". Theory can be broken down into smaller "sub-theories".I am not Bruce Graham, and my cat has never pissed on my computer.This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-06-2005 10:34 AMThis message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-06-2005 10:38 AM

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham