I think the point is that "theory" has more than one meaning.
You use "theory" in a strict scientific sense by which essentially everything we "know" is simply a description of the best model we currently have for explaining the evidence. A scientific "theory" can be supported by overwhelming evidence without being certain. Einstein trumps Newton, and so forth.

Common use of "theory", however, is just something you guess at without much evidence to support it. Evolution is not this, and so is not a "theory" as most people use the word.

Intelligent Design advocates love this conflict of meaning because it belittles evolution in the eyes of those (the large majority) who don't follow the difference.

I think.
( Ugi , it's a game of give and cake, Thu 19 Mar 2009, 16:30, 2 replies)

You can't use "theory"
to mean anything other than it's absolute scientific meaning, really. It has a very specific and definite meaning.

I see your point about common usage of words being acceptable, but in this example, that's simply not the case. There is no flexibility in the meaning of theory. It means what it does. The word for something you guess at and have little evidence to support is "hypothesis"

Using it to mean anything else is basically just stating "I don't know what this word means, but fuck it, I'll use it anyway"

which at best is a little silly.

EDIT - and again, see your point about ID. But that can just be (slightly childishly) countered with - "hold on, you're so retarded you don't even know what a fairly simple word MEANS and yet you want us to accept a complex scientific explanation you've just formulated?"

rather than essentially lowering ourselves to their level purely for the purpose of debasing their argument.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 19 Mar 2009, 16:38, closed)

The problem is it does mean "conjecture"...
.. in most common definitions.

I take the second definition from dictionary.com as an example, but 6th & 7th are more damning.

Theory : a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Thus the "theory" of evolution is conjectural and not a fact.

I do not believe this at all, but that's what it means to most people.

I would be delighted if you would take on the task of explaining the true meaning to the populous at large (please start with the US), but until that is achieved, evolution is not a "theory" as most people use the word.

Edit - This is the danger of scientific words having "real world" meanings, but is that worse than when papers were written in Latin and only other scientists could understand them? The only solution is a good broad scientific education for all, but that becomes an ever more distant dream.
( Ugi , it's a game of give and cake, Thu 19 Mar 2009, 16:59, closed)

But it ISN'T a fact, though
that's the problem. It is conjectural.

Also, it's "real-world" meaning IS scientific.

I know I may be debating semantics - and I see your point - but in the case of this word, to suggest we should allow this because that's what it means to "most people" (actually I'm not convinced that's true either) doesn't wash.

I'll happily accept misuse of scientific definitions by the general public in non-scientific arenas, but in this case you're talking about a complete misuse of a word's meaning within a context whereby ONLY that meaning is valid, and that's not acceptable, at least to me.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 19 Mar 2009, 17:10, closed)

I agree that it's not a fact.
And I never meant to imply that I thought it was. Apologies if that's how it seemed. I was presenting the anti-evolution argument as it is often presented.

The thing is that it's not a guess either, which is much closer to what "theory" means to most.

I will happily accept that one should not say "it's not a theory" because strictly it is. It's rather like saying a pumpkin is not a fruit. The fact that it is does not mean you should put it in your fruit salad.
( Ugi , it's a game of give and cake, Thu 19 Mar 2009, 17:25, closed)

YEAH!
There's a difference between a conjecture and a shot in the dark.

Evolutionary theory is the former. Creationists treat it as though it was the latter.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Thu 19 Mar 2009, 17:44, closed)

I agree
I'm just refusing to give up on correct meaning because of how fuckwits interpret it ;)
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 19 Mar 2009, 18:05, closed)

^This^
"Theory" to the scientist has a much more defined meaning - something along the lines of the best, most parsimonious explanation of phenomena, combined with predictive ability derived from that explanation.

So it's not a licence to say "Well, I think that...". You need money where your mouth is.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Thu 19 Mar 2009, 17:42, closed)

That's what I said, though.
evolution is a theory. The fact that the uneducated don't know what theory means isn't a valid reason to say that it is something different.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 19 Mar 2009, 18:03, closed)

I know.
I just parroted you to sound clever.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Thu 19 Mar 2009, 19:10, closed)

I don't know why.
I think by managing to deal with everything that will come up on this QOTW in one post, you've saved us all a lot of bother and one may suggest you are clever enough.

but no, I'm not offering a reacharound ;)
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 20 Mar 2009, 9:40, closed)