Change the scientific definition of Theory to mean a hypothesis and call all theories fact (e.g: fact of gravity, fact of evolution)
Posted by adhding_nerd@reddit | CrazyIdeas | View on Reddit | 68 comments
Just admit that science lost the war with stupid people. We'll never beat "well evolution or climate change is just a theory" Let's just reducing theory to mean hypothesis and can former theories facts.
Old-Wolverine327@reddit
Trying to win intelligent arguments with stupid people is a losing battle. They argue in bad faith and aren’t capable in introspection. Ignore them and move on.
adhding_nerd@reddit (OP)
The issue is our country is made up of stupid people.
Old-Wolverine327@reddit
Sadly the truth.
davisriordan@reddit
I have always felt the scientific terminology is too unclear. Even the basic scientific process is misunderstood as setting out to prove your guess, not test arbitrarily if you can find evidence to support that idea.
P0Rt1ng4Duty@reddit
''Oh, you can only do the math to 99.99999999999999999% certainty? Call me when you get three digits on the left of that decimal.''
davisriordan@reddit
Yeah, that's part of it too. So I did engineering. We learn from psychology to assume that people will overload stuff by up to 10% above whatever the listed weight limit is, but it should generally be built 30% stronger than that to account for both this and wear and tear between inspections.
This is why planes keep crashing, trains keep derailing, and teslas have a higher driver immolation rate than the Pinto.
P0Rt1ng4Duty@reddit
This realization came to me while watching credentialed scientists testifying in court.
''Well you've seen video of the deceased being hit by a meteor two days after their comprehensive physical, can you say 100% that they died from being struck by the meteor?''
''Well no, that's not how science works.''
davisriordan@reddit
I mean, a good scientist would say, yeah, I could tell time of death from existing decomposition studies and identify approximate time of death with the reported impact time or astrological sightings.
Tensor3@reddit
That doesnt make it 100%. You cant prove they didnt spontaneously die right as the meteor hit.
davisriordan@reddit
No, but that is an unreasonable expectation unless there are extenuating circumstances, right? I mean prove someone didn't have a heart attack right before getting shot. My understanding with law is it's about finding proof of the unreasonable. The unreasonable premise to me is spontaneous death when an apparent cause of death exists. Like that guy asking the mortician if the victim could have been alive without his brain.
RambleOff@reddit
Wouldn't they stop you from continuing right after you conceded the "no"?
uap_gerd@reddit
The Dictator?
davisriordan@reddit
Nah, some old reddit post about the dumbest court moments lawyers had seen. The lawyer's best option was to try to claim the victim might have been alive when the autopsy started, so the mortician actually killed him, which is idiotic, but he had to try something.
P0Rt1ng4Duty@reddit
Yes but they'd also include that the victim had an enlarged heart and high colesterol in their report, so they wouldn't be able to say that the victim had a 0.00000000000001% chance to suffer a cardiac event prior to the meteor smackdown.
We all know the rock killed them and that a 0.00000000000001% chance is equal to zero. But in science there's no absolutes until there's no remainder.
davisriordan@reddit
Yeah, but usually if that flies, it's because someone didn't get a lawyer. It's unreasonable to accept an unprovable premise when a reasonable one clearly coexists.
P0Rt1ng4Duty@reddit
The phrase they usually use is ''within a reasonable degree of medical certainty,'' then during cross examination the opposing lawyer turns that into ''oh, so you're not positive then?''
Even with dna analysis. They get a 'perfect' match between a sample and some person and they say somethin like there's a 1 in sixty quintillion chance that the blood belonged to another person.''
The only time they say ''I know this blood came from that person'' is when the sample was taken directly from the person by a phlebotomist, put in a sealed tube, and delivered to their lab with the seal unbroken.
davisriordan@reddit
Yeah, but back when DNA was first used in court it was only a 96% accuracy rate for any match. However, the public believed it was better, so juries trusted it.
Drunk_Lemon@reddit
Yeah, its important to try to idiot proof things. No matter what, people will find a way to screw it up and blame whoever designed it. Like so what I went over the weight limit by 3 times the weight limit? It should be able to handle that! /s
dosassembler@reddit
I never worry about driving my 25,000 lbs straight truck across the 12 ton bridge across the ohio river. Until i see a semi coming the other way.
davisriordan@reddit
Bridges are usually more time/weather based, your trucks weight is usually negligible to the structural integrity. However, you should ask about this in the civil engineering subreddit if you have any concerns, someone there probably tracks bridges.
davisriordan@reddit
There is no /s in real life, and it makes sense in a way, sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do.
NationalAsparagus138@reddit
Science isnt even really about finding evidence to prove your guess, it is more about finding a lack of evidence to disprove it. Which is why theories can’t be taken as fact.
nykirnsu@reddit
They said it isn’t about finding evidence to prove your guess
davisriordan@reddit
You can't prove a negative, you always have to find supporting evidence. That is one of the common misconceptions. Prove gravity isn't two forces acting simultaneously? You can't unless you can prove two separate forces exist.
Gravebreaker@reddit
People misinterpreting the definitions of these terms do it specifically to manipulate. If you change the meanings, or how you state them, they will find alternative semantic arguments. Their goal is not communication, it is obfuscation.
Almost any time you see someone "misunderstanding" a word, giving it an alternate definition than the communicated one, or adding a pejorative context to a word, it is done so because of a bias. One taught to them or one meant to shift opinions towards a position that benefits them.
VFiddly@reddit
That's not really how it works.
For example, Newton's theory of gravity is... not a fact. It's a model. We already know it's not actually completely true. But it's still a useful model.
A lot of things in science aren't stone cold facts, but are still useful. Science is often more about models and predictions than it is about actual facts.
Aptos283@reddit
Makes me think of that one Box quote “All models are wrong, but some are useful”. There are a lot of models that are extremely useful, but just not perfect. One of the goals of science is just to get a model that’s better and better.
Giantkoala327@reddit
Is that a quote from george box of the Box-Cox transformation!!
Common-Swimmer-5105@reddit
So then swap fact more model, problem solved
Archangel1313@reddit
This implies a sense of finality that scientific theories do not support. Even if a theory is widely considered to be "true"...there is always room for refinement and the inclusion of new discoveries. This means that your "facts" would change over time...and that is problematic.
TOMC_throwaway000000@reddit
Because calling theory fact is antithetical to what science strives for
When you call it fact, you are saying without any reasonable doubt there is zero room for improvement or change or better understanding; there is nothing new here to learn.
The entire point is to keep learning and better understanding, gravity as an example- sure we have pretty close models and examples to explain it, but are all the details fully figured out? No way.
Who’s to say that a better understanding of those missing details might not lead to breakthroughs in other fields that fundamentally change and improve day to day life? If we consider it solved why bother pushing on
provocative_bear@reddit
Science is supposed to reflect humanity’s best representation of Truth, not pander to the stupid dumbdumb masses. No scientific “theory” is a fact, it’s a working model of something, and almost always an incomplete imperfect model. We kept finding caveats to things that were once called scientific Laws, that’s why we don’t do that anymore.
Hypotheses also aren’t theories. They are guesses to very specific questions, generally the result of an experiment. Hypothesis undermines the work and the wide breadth of a scientific theory, imperfect as they may be.
Some people are just willing to abuse the English Language to undermine science and understanding. Fuck those people, they deserve no respect and no cowtowing.
Suzina@reddit
The next day: "I've got a fact about that.."
"Facts" become a new word the public uses for hunches.
Few_Peak_9966@reddit
Fundamentally NOT what science is.
Cosmic_Hephaestus@reddit
They are called theories because they’re open to change and new information
Straight-Donut-6043@reddit
Theories aren’t facts. They are the best possible explanation of facts.
adhding_nerd@reddit (OP)
Yeah, no shit, we're just swapping definitions.
RockAndStoner69@reddit
I'm having a hard time admitting anything to stupid people.
Jaceofspades6@reddit
Theories and hypotheses are already different. Ideas go from theory to hypothesis to law.
The larger issue here is that as humans are limited to practical experiments accomplishable on earth. We have no way to determine the mass of the earth, we can get close but there are not exactly tools to weigh a planet. We can measure how gravity effects objects here but we have no way to validate that against another planet. Specifically we can observe a lot of celestial bodies that do not follow our understanding of gravity.
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Low-Put-7397@reddit
theories are not facts. they're just the best guess anyone has. a hypothesis is something a theory tests
jerrythecactus@reddit
They aren't guesses either, they're tested and approved independently by scientific institutions. Theories can be incorrect but usually this is due to insufficient information rather than because somebody arbitrarily decided something is true.
Low-Put-7397@reddit
they're guesses. they dont explain the ontology of anything, and most of the time aren't 100% accurate. they are just the best idea/closest approximation anyone ccan come up with at the moment.
notacanuckskibum@reddit
No a hypothesis is a statement that can be tested. Theories are explanations of cause and effect. Theories produce hypotheses. If none of the hypotheses produced by a theory have been disproven then it’s a damn good hypothesis.
Humans reproduce through sex is a theory. Women who are virgins never produce babies is a hypothesis resulting from the theory.
If you think hard enough nothing is an absolute fact, theories that have never been disproven are the best we’ve got.
adhding_nerd@reddit (OP)
Yeah, from wikipedia "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be or that has been repeatedly tested and has corroborating evidence in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."
WE understand the difference but unfortunately nuance is fucking dead as far as the masses are concerned. The colloquial definition of theory is too overloaded so instead of a failing education system trying and failing to instill that in kids, lets just change the scientific definition to match the colloquial ones.
Besides, how much is anything a fact? Do we actually live in a simulation? Existence is just a theory. Fact is also a word that we can define, so we can just change the definition that is more colloquially accessible. Lets make up a new word for our current definition of facts, like "Truths" or some shit, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ but it's a losing battle to communicate it to the masses.
Dedli@reddit
Welcome to the "should" part of crazy ideas
We should just call them facts because they're closer to fact than to the general understanding of the word theory.
No
Stuck_in_my_TV@reddit
It’s because there really aren’t “facts” in science. There are things that are true most of the time, but nearly everything breaks down at the extremes. Science is all hypothesis and constant testing to see how valid they are and when they break down.
Impossible-Emu-8756@reddit
All this would accomplish is the dismissing of the word fact.(Not that it hasn't been diminished already)
Taking gravity as an example, gravitational waves were only detected in 2015.
Antitheodicy@reddit
It’s messy because common language and scientific language are fundamentally different ways of talking about things. I think it’s completely reasonable (if a bit weird-sounding) to refer to “the fact of evolution” in conversation, because it fits the way we use the word “fact” in common language: something that is true with a certainty that goes beyond reasonable argument.
But “theory” does have a specific meaning that’s different from “fact” in scientific language, and I’m not sure it helps anyone to try to force scientists to use less precise language in their discussions and papers. Besides, bad faith arguers will always find some way to twist whatever words you use against you. Changing the words just moves the goalposts.
adhding_nerd@reddit (OP)
The language wouldn't be any less precise, it would just be swapping the definitions to line up better with their colloquial approximates.
Antitheodicy@reddit
So we use “fact” to mean a well-tested and widely accepted model of a system, and what, “theory” to mean a piece of observable information? That seems really unnecessarily confusing.
adhding_nerd@reddit (OP)
Theory would either become a synonym for hypothesis or just not have a scientific definition for it. And remember we're in /r/CrazyIdeas, not totally sound plans.
Darnitol1@reddit
No. I love the scientific method and I’m a huge science nerd. Science is not a body of “facts.” Science is a process for resolving the best understanding of the truth. A theory is the best current understanding of a thing, but the scientific method not only invites scrutiny, it demands it. There’s really no such thing as a scientific fact; there is only the best known current information. Nearly all of it will be supplanted by newer, better information eventually.
adhding_nerd@reddit (OP)
I'm just talking about swapping around the definitions, perhaps I didn't explain it the best. If we change the word "theory" to the word "fact" but keep the definition the same and WE will know "fact" doesn't mean 100% true but dumb people will hear "fact" and not just think it's a random guess.
Darnitol1@reddit
Fair. I guess I’m embroiled in science enough that I’m not concerned that laypeople don’t know that the scientific and vernacular definitions of “theory” are different.
realityinflux@reddit
Yikes. No. No. No.
NationalAsparagus138@reddit
A hypothesis is an untested statement about a relationship between things. A theory is a well tested statement. A law is a statement backed by evidence about how something works in a controlled environment. Theories can still be wrong and so can’t be taken as fact. Climate change and evolution are theories backed up by data collected by various means, but could be misinterpreted or collected inaccurately by tainted means because they are almost impossible to test in a controlled environment due to their scale (which is why they aren’t laws). Just because they are theories doesn’t mean they should be dismissed or ignored, just seen as the most likely outcome.
goodcleanchristianfu@reddit
Arguments about evolution and the big bang really skewed conversations about the word theory. The word theory is used in scientific literature to mean everything from a narrative explanation of something with overwhelming evidence, to guesses with very little evidence behind them, to entire fields, like germ theory - not referring to any specific proposition. And string theory (an entire field within physics) is at least arguably unfalsifiable, which by some traditional definitions means the entirety of string theory is not science at all, even though its researchers are physicists and their papers get published in physics journals. I think you're overstating the consistency of the use of the word theory - it very often does mean something other than a well-established scientific principle, even as scientists use it.
Regardless, you have to realize your solution solves nothing - it would just change the debate to one over what should be called a fact.
adhding_nerd@reddit (OP)
I remind you this is /r/crazyideas, not perfectly reasonable ideas.
devpuppy@reddit
“explanation”
JoshuaSuhaimi@reddit
i totally agree
"i have a theory" should really be "i have a hypothesis" but it's misused so often we should change it
or make it like geometry and call them postulates
adhding_nerd@reddit (OP)
Yeah, like ever 6th grade science teacher tries to hammer this home but it doesn't stick for far too many.
Turbulent-Name-8349@reddit
You chose some really bad examples there.
And
The argument is over percentages, not facts.
klaxz1@reddit
A hypothesis is a hypo-theory
People treat the word “theory” the same as cops like it’s some kind of hunch.
bhoran235@reddit
"Our current understanding of"
Mutant_Llama1@reddit
It's an explanation supported by evidence. Depending on what evidence you go by, you can get different theories for the same thing.
Special_Watch8725@reddit
I think replacing the term “theory” with something else wouldn’t be bad. I like “account”. It’s like a narrative for explaining something, but backed up with receipts.