On 4/20/2011 10:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:08:25 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> No it can't. Not in science.
>
> I didn't say "in science".  In common usage, and that's part of the
> problem with the Creationist argument (which I stated before):  They
> misuse the word "Theory".
>
> Now, if you couple the idea that ID is not science but evolution is, you
> can use "theory" in describing both - because one has the context of not
> being science, and one has the context of being science.
>
> It is a legitimate *linguistic* usage of the word.  My point was to
> illustrate that this is the device used by creationists to argue that
> it's science, and it's born out of ignorance of the *scientific* usage of
> the word as compared to the 'common usage' use of the word - or it's born
> out of malicious use of the same word intended to cause confusion in
> those who don't understand that words can actually mean more than one
> thing, and that the *context* is important.
>
> Jim

Ok, lets put it another way.. Fag may be a legitimate word to be used to 
describe a cigarette in some places, but using it a lot in the context 
of a gay right rally, because you flat out fail to grasp what the 
difference is, is probably a bloody stupid idea.

So, sure, using the layman's "theory" might be legitimate, its ***not*** 
legitimate if the thing being discussed is scientific evidence, since 
doing so is not going to help you find out which is which, any more than 
running around San Francisco during a pride parade yelling, "Anyone have 
a fag?", is going to get you a tobacco product.

As someone that cares about the distinction, and this goes for most of 
the people "in science", I don't give a flying frak what the "layman's" 
definition is. Its allowing that definition to go unopposed that creates 
everything from sympathy for Anti-vaxers, to climate change denialism, 
to, "Its not creationism, honest!" 'teaching the controversy' nonsense. 
If any fool can claim *anything* they pull out of their ass is a 
"theory", how do you expect anyone to know the difference between the two?

Definitions matter. And, if the definition that is undermining good 
sense is a problem, the solution isn't to shrug your shoulders and go, 
"Ah, well, they use the word differently." No, the solution is to make 
it clear that the murky gibberish version used by the public is *not* 
the correct definition of the word, and more to the point, get 
politicians, news agencies, and other people, where ever possible, to 
stop bloody using it interchangeably with, "I pulled this out of my ass 
this morning."

Post a reply to this message