Standard Definitions for Science Threads

Vanity ^ | 31 January 2006 | PatrickHenry and Coyoteman

[PatrickHenry]

This thread is intended to be a workshop, where we can thrash out the definitions on which all the science-literate freepers can agree. When we are agreed on one final list, we can then link to it in future threads, in the hope of bringing some order to the linguistic chaos that too often prevails in the science threads.

In discussions about science and philosophy, we must be careful about our terminology, so that we're all using words in the same way. Dictionaries provide multiple definitions, but not all are appropriate in a specific context. It only generates confusion to substitute one meaning where another is clearly called for.

Every specialized discipline has its own terminology. That's what you must learn and use when dealing with that discipline. For example, the word "law" means one thing to a lawyer, another thing to a physicist, and yet something else to a grammarian. If you want to discuss "the law" with a professor of law, you'd best not confuse the conversation with other usages of that word. If you use the wrong terms, you'll fail to communicate. And no, you won't "win" the debate when others fail to reply on your terms. If they don't reply, it's because everyone who knows the topic finds your discourse meaningless.

If you insist on having your own personal language, which no one but you can comprehend, you are abandoning the best tool humanity has ever developed for becoming civilized. If your thoughts -- such as they are -- are intelligible only to you, then you'll have to be content to have your own personal debate -- with yourself.

These are Coyoteman's definitions:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Model: a simplified framework designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)

Observation: any information collected with the senses

Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Religion: (theistic): "1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship." Non-Theistic: "The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life."

Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.

And this is my own humble offering, which I've posted from time to time in various threads, and which I haven't yet attempted to integrate into the foregoing:

FAITH, REASON, KNOWLEDGE, AND BELIEF

Strictly speaking, what one "believes" on faith and what one "knows" are different things.

Belief: One can "believe" in the existence of the tooth fairy, but one does not -- in the same sense of the word -- "believe" in the existence of his own mother.

Faith: Belief in the first proposition (tooth fairy) requires faith, which is belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof.

Knowledge: The second proposition (mother) is the kind of knowledge which follows from sensory evidence.

Logical Proof: There is also that kind of knowledge (like the Pythagorean theorem) which follows from logical proof. In either case -- that is, knowledge acquired from sensory evidence or demonstrated by logical proof -- there is no need for faith, and that term is inapplicable to such knowledge.

Scientific theory: In between mother (knowledge from sensory evidence) and the Pythagorean theorem (knowledge from logical proof) are those propositions we provisionally accept (or in common usage "believe"), like relativity and evolution, because they are currently successful scientific theories -- testable, and therefore falsifiable explanations of the available, verifiable data (which data is knowledge obtained via sensory evidence). Here too, there is no need for faith, and that term does not apply in the context of scientific theories.

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proven. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proven, because -- at least in principle -- a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proven) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Confidence: When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. The word "faith" is inapplicable in this context.

It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith. Purely theological matters that are believed on faith are not capable of being tested, and thus theological doctrines are not scientific.

Reason: "Reason -- the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses -- is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival." -- Ayn Rand

Many people come into these threads unaware of the vital distinctions between reason and faith. It is necessary to distinguish between an axiom (which is a logical necessity) and an article of dogma (an arbitrary assumption), between objective fact and subjective experience, and between hypothesis (a proposed, testable explanation of an observed phenomenon) and conjecture (a guess based on virtually no data). Understanding these fundamental concepts allows us to distinguish reason-based science from faith-based doctrine. Reason and faith are commonly confused, but they are very different intellectual enterprises, with different goals. When properly understood, they are not in conflict.

[PatrickHenry]

I may regret this. Anyway, if those I've pinged aren't interested, feel free to ignore the thread.

[PatrickHenry]

Vanity ping.

[The_Victor]

Can you get the people who need to see this to actually read it?

Bump for education.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You probably will. ;)

I propose that the definition for faith be modified along the following lines:

the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation.

As a non-religious example, my marriage vows to my wife. We don't know we're going to stay together but we have faith that we can work out our problems and stay together.

[balrog666]

Needs work.

[atomicpossum]

Fanatic - Anyone who disagrees with me.

[Old_Mil]

It is interesting that it is only in the scientific endeavors that individuals seem to be predisposed to paint the term theory with the veneer of fact. I suspect this has to do with the increasing politicization of science by liberals and a desire to present Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian ideas as carrying more evidentiary weight than they actually do in real life.

Interestingly, Webster has no problem also explaining the word with the terms:

"speculation, an unproven assumption, a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action," and "conjecture."

I would think that such description of the word would be more appropriate for all fields of endeavor.

[balrog666]

That was a joke.

But I think we need more discussion of the term "speculation" for the edification of a certain few of the Anti-science crowd.

Off the top of my head, I would say that all scientists speculate to some degree and many discuss, and some even publish, such thoughts (particularly to get some quick and easy feedback). However, such speculations are not indicative of beliefs held, not intended to indicate a direction for future research, but to simply to explore an idea, no matter how off-the-wall it may be, and see if any fruitful insights are realized. OTOH, some of it is intended to be read with tongue firmly in cheek. And most of the thumpers can't seem to tell the difference.

[Quark2005]

Interestingly, Webster has no problem also explaining the word with the terms:

"speculation, an unproven assumption, a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action," and "conjecture."

What Webster's (online) dictionary has to say about the word theory:

--SNIP--

1. A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory".
2. A tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices".
3. A belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales".

--SNIP--

Webster's then goes on to explain that Definition #1 is the definition used in scientific literature.

[RadioAstronomer]

I have a link I will post when I get home that fits in this nicely. :-)

[longshadow]

Webster's then goes on to explain that Definition #1 is the definition used in scientific literature.

And so long as the willfully ignorant cling to the fanciful notion that dictionary definitions are like some sort of egalitarian etymological smorgasbord, where they get to pick and choose which definition they want to interchangeably apply, and when, there is no hope of counteracting their ignorance and mendacity.

[MRMEAN]

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

Albert Einstein

[furball4paws]

I don't have any problem with C-man's definitions nor do I with your additions. I suggest that at the start of any Crevo thread this be posted along with the ping list. Then we can conviently refer back to that post when necessary.

But as The_Victor has pointed out, how do you get the anti-evo's to agree to it?

Good Luck

[Dimensio]

I'm afraid that this won't be of much use. Those of us who aren't anti-science Luddites already know these definitions, and many of the creationists here on FR have made it clear that they want to make up their own definitions of words and insist that their made-up definitions are the ones that scientists really mean, no matter what the scientists claim to mean.

[furball4paws]

A scientific speculation is much different than any old speculation. When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhate unrelated things that are known or appear to be unlikely. This becomes a very informed guess. The better the scientist and the greater his experience, the better chance his speculations will prove to be true.

[andysandmikesmom]

Say, PH, why wasnt I pinged to this thread?....found it by chance...and I need it more so than many others...

For instance, I read with interest, about 'believing' in TOE..Thats what I say, I believe in TOE...(so it would seem, I am using 'believe' in the sense of common usage), but it would actually be more correct to state that I accept TOE or that I have confidence in TOE...well, I have learned something today....I am still mulling it over in my mind, but will try to be more accurate in the future...

[ovrtaxt]

Your definitions of belief, faith and knowledge are inapplicable to the experience of many people.

What if I make a decision based on pure 'faith', then evidence or personal experience arises later which confirms my 'belief'? Is it still faith? Not by your definition. Then it becomes knowledge.

For example- what if I am addicted to certain substances, activities and practices. (Which I was.) Then I have a salvation experience where I put my faith in Jesus Christ. (Which I did.) Then, I instantly have no more of these addictions, and remain addiction free for fifteen years. (Which I have.)

Now I have knowledge. Or is it still faith?

[PatrickHenry]

... how do you get the anti-evo's to agree to it?

They will never agree. This isn't for them. It's for us, so we're all on the same page, and so we don't have to come up with the same stuff over and over.

[PatrickHenry]

Say, PH, why wasnt I pinged to this thread?

Nothing personal. I have a small ping list of long-time, hard-core evo types, and I thought they'd be the ones who'd be most interested.

I read with interest, about 'believing' in TOE..Thats what I say, I believe in TOE.

Do You Believe in Evolution?

[andysandmikesmom]

Thanks PH for that article, which went into lots of detail, and explained much about 'believing' in things, and the different distinctions....this article has helped me greatly, to further understand that which I did not fully understand before...my poor little unscientific brain, needs lots of help, and you have provided as much...thanks...