![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Controvesial Quote of the Day
Mar. 1st, 2006 02:04 pm"Evolution has occurred, but parts of it are flat-out unproven theories."
"Flat-out unproven theory" is, to a scientist, an oxymoron. You don't call a thing a "theory" if it is "flat-out" unproven. It is, at that point, a "hypothesis." You do an "experiment" to test the hypothesis. An idea that explains the results of many experiments and also predicts the results of future experiments - that's getting closer to a "theory."
Theories have to be falsifiable. That means "expressed in such a way that one can prove them false." You can't prove them to be true. You can only prove them to be not false by looking for the things that would prove them to be false and failing to find it. A "proven theory" has not been proven true; rather, it has been proven not false despite many attempts to poke holes in it with large sticks. This is the case for every theory in the science textbook - not just evolution.
On the other hand, when a layman (or a lazy, off-duty scientist) says, "I have a theory," he usually means that he has an untested idea, or an idea that fits preliminary data - what the scientist would call a hypothesis.
My estimation is that between forty and sixty percent of the evolution/ID debate revolves around the use and misuse of the word "theory." But that's only a hypothesis.
- Nevada masonry contractor and would-be state constitutional-amender Steve Brown neatly summarizes the language divide between scientists and laymen.
"Flat-out unproven theory" is, to a scientist, an oxymoron. You don't call a thing a "theory" if it is "flat-out" unproven. It is, at that point, a "hypothesis." You do an "experiment" to test the hypothesis. An idea that explains the results of many experiments and also predicts the results of future experiments - that's getting closer to a "theory."
Theories have to be falsifiable. That means "expressed in such a way that one can prove them false." You can't prove them to be true. You can only prove them to be not false by looking for the things that would prove them to be false and failing to find it. A "proven theory" has not been proven true; rather, it has been proven not false despite many attempts to poke holes in it with large sticks. This is the case for every theory in the science textbook - not just evolution.
On the other hand, when a layman (or a lazy, off-duty scientist) says, "I have a theory," he usually means that he has an untested idea, or an idea that fits preliminary data - what the scientist would call a hypothesis.
My estimation is that between forty and sixty percent of the evolution/ID debate revolves around the use and misuse of the word "theory." But that's only a hypothesis.
