Standard Definitions for Science Threads

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.

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

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.

Rades, when you post, use this updated list.

DRAFT TWO:

These are mostly Coyoteman's definitions, in slightly different order (the whole thing still needs to be put a better sequence, I think), with my contributions and those of others indented and identified by contributor:

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)

By balrog666 (post 8): 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.
By furball4paws in post #15: A scientific speculation is much different than any old speculation. When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat 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.

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

By PH:
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.
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.

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. [By PH: This is similar to what I said, above.]

By <1/1,000,000th% (post #4): 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.

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." [That is Webster's definition #1, as pointed out by Quark2005 in post #9.] Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

By PH
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.
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.

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" [Observation by PH: should be mentioned, perhaps, that this is subjective.]

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

What follows are the rest of PH's offerings, not yet integrated into the above: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

There are 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.

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

The word belief is generally used with some corresponding Bayesian probability of being true. That depends on the priors(cognitive content) of that individual's cognitive system and whether, or not that cognition is rational, or irrational. The distinguishing feature is rationality, or the absence of it, in the belief system.

Rational cognition requires the use of logic, real evidence and consistent principles. An irrational system is arbitrary in every way regarding those features. In general any rational belief system will have a similar and consistent value attached to a belief. That is not true in an arbitrary system. In a rational system, any belief can be added, or altered with new evidence, in a simple, consistent and logical way. In an arbitrary system, that is not true. Each irrational system is a unique one, however similar, in an infinite sea of irrational possibilities.

In general any change in an arbitrary system requires the system itself to change. A change of an arbitrary to a rational belief system requires a change in foundation. That's a major obstacle. Rationality, more or less, is resisted, because it poses a threat to the foundation of the entire system.

At any ratte, "religious faith" is not a general description of belief. Nor does perception generally apply to cognitive content. Belief simply refers to any cognitive content held as true. Whether it is, or not, doesn't matter.

Knowledge in a similar way depends on the belief system. One can have knowledge of bagvita's belief system, of which bagvita's beliefs were his knowledge. Both the words belief and knowledge require qualifiers. In general though, the word knowledge implies that one actually knows.

" 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."

Referring to the historical meaning and usage of the word faith and Webster's entry...(Collegiate is similar)

Faith
Noun

1. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality".

2. Complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust".

3. Institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him".

4. Loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person; "keep the faith"; "they broke faith with their investors".

The word faith always implies strong conviction, trust and loyalty to some person. Loyalty to a person is why it is improper to use this as a scientific term. Science uses the scientific method, it does not refer to any individual, or their judgments, or decisions.

A Marine has faith in other Marines. He has empirical evidence for that belief. One can say they have faith that a roof won't collapse. They are actually referring to the person that engineered it, the one's that laid down the design specs, and the one's that reviewed the specs and final construction. You can't have faith in the roof itself. It's whatever it is and behave accordingly. If someone has faith in a rickety bridge, it's not the bridge they have faith in, the faith is in the person that makes the judgment.

I can't see using the term faith for any element of reality, other than a person. You can't have faith in reality; it just is. Science is knowledge and understanding of reality. Just as it makes no sense to have faith in reality; it makes no sense to have faith in science. You can only have faith in a person, regardless of the presence, or abscence of evidence though.

The US had faith in Hanson the spy. They had sufficient evidence in their own minds, that caused them to believe he was trustworthy. There was also clear evidence to me, that he was not.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.