Hi all. I’m new to the site. Thought I’d just test the water, as it were, to begin with. Please excuse any clumsiness, inappropriateness, etc. due to unfamiliarity.
My own pet peeve over the past few years, increasingly so, is the perfectly ludicrous things that science educators, usually scientists themselves, routinely say about science these days. The culprits run the gamut from “real world” high profile scientists to hugely popular Youtube educators, and the culprits, not coincidentally, are invariably ignorant – thoroughly and appallingly ignorant – of the philosophy of science. That means pretty much all of them nowadays, I’m afraid to say, so dire is the situation. Physicist Sean Carroll is the only exception that comes to mind.
Indeed, I sometimes wonder whether I’m the only person on the planet to have noticed. I’d be inclined to describe this is an unrecognized scandal of the present day, namely, science educators routinely disseminating complete and utter rubbish, grossly misleading the public in the process. Tell me I’m not alone!
Well, what are these crazy things? Just one example (among many similar) to get us started, perhaps the most widespread myth of all. You’d have to be living on Pluto or something not to have heard the following on the word “theory”. What follows is the short version of a massive edifice of mythology which has been constructed, with minor variations depending on the myth-monger of the day, all by now so deeply engrained that to draw attention to the problem invites only ridicule and incredulity. Here goes . . .
“The word ‘theory’ in science means something quite different from its colloquial usage. In everyday discourse, a theory is just a guess. By contrast, in science the word refers exclusively to something that has been rigorously tested, is highly confirmed, and is supported by vast amounts of evidence. A theory is as good as it gets in science, sitting proudly atop the scientific hierarchy. A theory is the best explanation for some set of phenomena or other. Unlike a nonscientist’s theory, there is nothing speculative about a theory in science. You must never say of a scientific theory that it’s ‘just’ a theory.”
What’s wrong with that then? What’s wrong is that none of it is true, indeed it’s outrageously false.
First, a nonscientist’s theory is not necessarily just a wild guess. Think airline crash investigators. Think even Joe Bloggs with his “my wife is unfaithful” theory which he’s been gathering evidence for over the past few months, with the help of a private investigator perhaps. Were I a betting man, I’d place a lot more on Joe’s conjugal infidelity theory being true, than I would on any of the “thousands” of string theories alluded to by leading scientists, or the “multitude” of theories of gravity alluded to by Wheeler et al in a leading textbook. Who wouldn’t!
Conversely, according to myth-mongers galore, when we hear or see a competent scientist use the word “theory,” we can safely infer that he is referring to something that is (i) rigorously tested, (ii) highly confirmed, (iii) supported by mountains of evidence, and (iv) is the best explanation.
Now compare myth against reality with a fairly typical quote from physicist Steven Weinberg. Remember, according to the myth, there is no such thing in science as an “untested theory”, or an “unsupported theory” or a “speculative theory”, indeed the very juxtaposition constitutes a contradiction in terms, like “married bachelor” say.
“𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 [𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘵𝘺] 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘩𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘩𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘺 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘴.”
-- essay “Newtonianism and Today’s Physics”, found in “300 Years of Gravitation”, p16
Now, one or two instances such as Weinberg above might plausibly be explained away somehow or other by the myth-mongers. Perhaps Steven was drunk; perhaps someone was holding a gun to his head, etc. Or it was careless usage; he’s misusing the word. But just ask and I’ll quote you first-rate scientists by the hundreds (Einstein, Feynman, Darwin, etc.) saying similar things! At this rate, the myth-monger may end up defending the patently absurd conclusion that a million working scientists are all misusing the word – semantic klutzes every one of them – while only he and his ilk are privy to the proper usage.
In short, according to the myth, the word “theory” has a very different meaning in science from nonscience, and that difference lies in degree of confirmation and evidentiary support. Every scientific theory, therefore, is more worthy of belief than every theory outside of science.
And this, I submit, is nonsense of the first order, demonstrably so. Comments, criticisms welcome.
