Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/07/did-time-exist-before-the-big-bang.html

>   Unrelated to the point itself, but I couldn't help but notice how the
> article uses the word "theory" with the *colloquial* meaning rather than
> the *scientific* one (the more scientific term would have been "hypothesis"
> or perhaps even "conjecture").

>   If even scientific publications confuse the colloquial and scientific
> meanings of the word "theory", is it any surprise that laymen do that too
> (and hence all the arguments of why the theory of evolution is "only a
> theory")?

  This got me thinking: Given that the word "theory" is used with two
completely different meanings even in scientific publications, being
hence a potential source of confusion, why don't they start using a
different, more unambiguous term for "scientific theory"? For example,
"scientific model", or simply "model".

  For example, evolution is an observation and "the theory of evolution"
is a model that describes how it works. Wouldn't it, thus, be more aptly
named "the model of evolution"?

  Likewise, for example, "they theory of relativity" is a model that
describes how some observed physical phenomena work. Wouldn't it, thus,
be better named as "the model of relativity"?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message