Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dimensio

For the sake of argument, say we were to accept the commonly used definition of 'theory', namely: "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

Then we would need to come up with a new word to describe evolution, such as: widelyacceptedthoroughlytestedfalsifiablesetofexplanations

As in, "we are debating whether or not the widelyacceptedthoroughlytestedfalsifiablesetofexplanations
of evolution should be taught in biology class."

It doesn't quite roll off the tongue as nicely.


54 posted on 03/01/2006 1:35:42 PM PST by gomaaa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]


To: gomaaa; Dimensio
And we'd also have to replace the word 'theory' in every older scientific paper or book before 'theory' became the vernacular "assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture".
Or at least we should write a disclaimer which states that the text in question is from a time when not every Tom, Dick and Harry "just had a theory".
55 posted on 03/01/2006 2:16:35 PM PST by BMCDA (If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it,we would be so simple that we couldn't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson