Mine is envy vs jealousy.
Jealousy is just envious because it didn’t make it into the Seven Deadly Sins.
The word theory has become (or at best is becoming) a clusterfuck of whatever, much like the word literally.
And we don’t even have (normal/easy/exact) replacements for those words.
Those words were already the scientific terms for nerds. But normies normied them into normedom, literally theorised into a fuck.
(Also unfortunately Im a normie, but that doesn’t mean I can’t bitch about it)
I like the word “model”, I think it’s a better fit even. We’re modeling reality. Some models turn out to be shit, while others are well tested giving confidence that they mimic reality well.
Yeah I like that.
I use “theory” for theoretical things, like theoretical physics and math, that can be proven (in a mathematical way).
I use the word “model” for practical things, like practical physics. Models don’t need to be proven, but their accuracy can be more or less helpful, depending on the context.
“But that’s just a hypothesis…a GAME hypothesis.”
…I’d sub to that channel
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.
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.
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.
If you consider gross misuse (i.e. mixing up “theory” and “hypothesis”) to be a valid form of etymology (e.g. making new words), I have a question to axe.
(I apologize to linguists’ families who now have to clean up bodily fluids and/or arrange a funeral.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
where people can end up saying dumb shit like “Evolution is just a theory.” I will physically fight people on that, If need be.
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.
Descriptive linguists unite! Words evolve and that’s okay. Really science should pivot away and start calling more proven theories a different word if they’re upset about the confusion.
The etymology of the word theory comes from a word with a meaning closer to “to look at or speculate” so even in that sense science kind of hijacked a word that was further from the modern scientific understanding of the word “theory” and descriptively transformed it themselves for use in their community. And that’s okay too.
I’ve ranted about this so much to people close to me. Scientific community just needs to adopt a new word like you say, theory is a lost battle
I accept it in colloquial discourse. I’m not happy about it, and I will smartass at everyone who isn’t asking, but I accept that I’m probably fighting a losing battle. But in science, it’s absolutely non-negotiable for words to mean what they mean, and not their own opposite.
Tell that to conventional current vs electron flow. Science is ever updating with new information and the words we use to describe it will change over time as well, but I get what you mean. Prescriptive linguistics especially in formal settings like scientific writing is helpful for clear communication.
Various fields have to adapt their terms all the time. For example, “idiot”, “moron”, and “mental retardation” were all official medical terms. Then they got used as an insult by the population at large, and got so bad that the medical field had to abandon them.
