Hypothesis and theory. Do their scientific meanings hold any stature anymore?

Question

After spending quite a bit of time on Y!A, I've noticed many people throw around the word "theory" for every single unproven idea. Whether it's has any feasible validation or has been tested or not, or even if it's testable, for that matter. While the word "hypothesis" seems to have been nearly eradicated from scientific discussion in online forums.

The other contemplation I've been getting frustrated with is when someone passes something off as "just" a theory. For something to have scientific validity, does it not need an ample amount of reasoning, observable results, in combination with the inability to prove it wrong?

Perhaps I should post this in a language or culture category, and not a science one, because it seems to me that, if enough people start using words in the "wrong" manner, the word evolves and takes on a new acceptable meaning. So maybe, if "theory" suddenly means "unfactual" then what word do we need to create or revive to avoid the confusion of that public conception of "theory" and a truly valid scientific theory?

Answer 1

Good question. I don't think a new word would do much to change a cultural attitude though once a concept has had a negative value placed on it it doesn't matter what you call it IMO. I don't think that means we should give up trying to educate people though.

Take, for instance, the word "virgin". The ancient concept of a virgin had absolutely nothing to do with sexual activity. It spoke of a particular state of independence from the need for a mans support. The reasons for the change in attitude are not particularly important to this discussion. The important fact is that no matter how many words or phrases we create to signify that state of independence...."virgin" will mean something entirely different until attitudes change. And that is a complicated and lengthy process.

In the meantime I think the best plan is to try to maintain dignity as a discipline and continue to patiently"define" the word correctly over and over. The ones who are able to "get it" will. The others.....well ,their misconceptions about the word "theory" are the least of our problems, especially when they make it into government power.

Just my 2 cents :)

EDIT: A little irony here. I'm reading an old (1950) book called "Science is a Sacred Cow" by Anthony Standen. The first paragraph reads:

"When a white-robed scientist, momentarily looking away from his microscope or his cyclotron, makes some pronouncement for the general public, he may not be understood, but at least he is certain to be believed. No one ever doubts what is said by a scientist....."

Maybe white robes should be brought back????Sometimes I do think it's as simple as that, attire and image. Things that set a group apart, like police uniforms. There are a few, very professional sounding posters here who are less likely to be questioned, I've noticed, even when they're wrong.

Answer 2

I remember a book review by David Mermin in Physics Today (the book was The Golem: What You Should Know About Science by Collins and Pinch) where he used the analogy of a tapestry to make to case that a physical theory is a highly interwoven collection of observations, experimental tests, and reasoning.  That's what gives a good theory the sturdiness it has.

I'm not suggestiong that 'theory' should be replaced with 'tapestry,' but maybe the analogy would help some people get past thinking a 'theory' is nothing more than an idea.

The real trouble is that the word 'theory' already has a double meaning.  In some contexts it *does* mean 'just an idea.' If a crime investigator comes up with a theory of what happened, it's a theory on a much smaller scale than the theory of relativity.  Still, one would hope it would have some logical reasoning behind it.

Then there's the phrase "purely theoretical," as if to say there's nothing 'real' behind it at all -- that is, pure conjecture.  We're stuck with this source of confusion.  I think all we can do is continue to point out the solid foundations that underlie our theories in physics and hope people can get a better grip on them.

Answer 3

You're raised an very important question. I've also noticed how people are confused over what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. In fact, I see this (and write answers correcting it) on a daily basis. It seems to be part of a worrying trend of general ignorance towards how scientists derive knowledge about the world. This scepticism in turn is generating a climate of suspicion and mistrust which is totally unfounded.

Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, and we should start calling the Big Bang, Evolution and others "models" or some other term. However, I think the problem is more deeply rooted than in semantics. There is a clearly a problem when it comes to educating the public about science.

Answer 4

Many are semiliterate.

Answer 5

When I was taught scientific method,

"theory" was any old idea you came up with, and

"Hypothesis" was the tool used to construct an

experiment to test your theory.

'Under 'x' conditions if 'a' happens it proves/disproves the theory.'

When a theory that had earned some respect it gained the capital T.

Answer 6

even 'hypothesis' is too strong a word for the @#$% that is tossed around in here.

Bar Boasts is closer.

If you drink too many beers and then say "Hey, I think the <hic> planets are just one atom in the nose of a giant dog"  you are laughed at.

in YA they post in Astronomy & Space.

Answer 7

The problem is that ignorance is common and tends to prevail in any discussion allowing everyone free access and equal standing. Is that a bad thing? Only if the the ones with knowledge let it get to them and get frustrated to the point where they start to berate or ridicule those that know a lot less than they do. This is an easy trap to fall into; I do it on occasion, especially when the ignorance is combined with arrogance. However, I really think that the exchange is valuable and that the free access, despite the total lack of understanding, is a good thing. They may not understand all the semantics - some of them never will - and the evolution of meaning has already occurred among everyone but the technically trained - but I think we make more progress than we think we do just by being here.

Answer 8

general cluelessness seems to be a requirement to participate in this forum. i see no problem with words like theory and hypothesis, bcuz i know what they mean, and use them correctly. outside of this ridiculous forum, others do too.

Answer 9

It's funny.  But if i hear the word "theory" from someone who really knows what they're talking about, and is clearly careful with their words, i know exactly what they mean.

May as well add "law" to the list. A "law" is something fundamental, that can be considered as fact.  For example, Newton's Laws of Motion.  Opps, not quite so good an example.  Some say that General Relativity may go the way of Newton's laws.  That is to say, in some detail, it will need some correction.

In the face of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal, it's really hard to nail much of anything down.

The difference between theory and practice is that, in theory, they're the same.