Evolution - theory or hypothesis or fact

[Niles]

Those of us in the secular/humanist/agnostic/atheist world rail at those who challenge the evolution THEORY, who scoff that evolution is merely a THEORY, and not a fact.  We contend - using various conversations, and various interpretations - that THEORY is a scientific consensus.  It is short of FACT (such as 1+1=2), but THEORY is a consensus-driven set of information that - while, not as specifically defined as an arithmetic FACT, has an overwhelming set of information that it is as close to FACT - subject to further information, certainly - as can be.

Yet, I also hear, among lots of scientists, and read in lots of articles (see below, from today's Gazette), the word THEORY used in precisely the context that the anti-evolutionists use it - THEORY and HYPOTHESIS are the same, to them.

Read the article, below, and then further comment:
==============
Nature or nurture?
  UI team says neither
Cedar Rapids Gazette, 7/30/2009
 Researchers examine child development
  Iowa News Service
  IOWA CITY — University of Iowa scientists are suggesting it’s time to toss out the nature vs. nurture debate that has preoccupied child development thinkers for centuries.
  Reducing a child’s development to such a level comes partly out of convenience, partly out of intellectual laziness, the researchers suggest in an article published this month in the Child Development Perspectives journal.
  The UI team supports evolution — but not the idea that genes are a oneway path to specific traits and behaviors. They argue that a child’s development involves a complex system in which genes and environmental factors constantly interact.

  “You can’t break it down and say there’s a gene for being jealous, there’s a gene for being depressed, there’s a gene for being gay. Those types of statements are simplistic and misleading,” said UI psychologist Mark Blumberg, a co-author.

  “There is no gene for any of those things. At most, one can say there’s a system of which that gene and many others are a part that will produce those outcomes.” The UI team believes genes are expressed at every point in development and are affected all along the way by environmental factors — everything from proteins and chemicals to the socioeconomic status of a family. These ideas are unified by a perspective called developmental systems theory .

  “The nature-nurture debate has a pervasive influence on our lives, affecting the framework of research in child development, biology, neuroscience, personality and dozens of other fields,” said the lead author, UI psychologist John Spencer.

  “People have tried for centuries to shift the debate one way or the other, and it’s just been a pendulum swinging back and forth. We’re taking the radical position that the smarter thing is to just say ‘neither’ — to throw out the debate as it has been historically framed and embrace the alternative perspective provided by developmental systems theory .”
====================
Hmm - theory, in that context, is hardly the same meaning as the word theory in the context of evolution.  Theory in that context is simply what we would call hypothesis.

So, I decided to turn to the dictionary (below, in italics, are my emphasis)
=========================================
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?jss=0
theory
1.    a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.    a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3.    Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.    the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.    a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6.    contemplation or speculation.
7.    guess or conjecture.
Origin:
1590–1600; < LL the?ria < Gk the?ría a viewing, contemplating, equiv. to the?r(eîn) to view + -ia -y 3

Synonyms:
1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.
======================

Unless/until we, in the scientific community, start to arrive at a coherent, and consistent use of the words theory and hypothesis, in the word of the philosopher Pogo - We have met the enemy, and he is us.

[Sfedler]

I've often been confused when I see people debating the definition of 'theory' in a scientific context.  Evolotion - as an overarching idea - is certainly true, and the evidence bears that out everytime.  However, there are tons of details that remaiin unknown and I've often wondered if that is where people get confused.  Debating the mechanism of one detail is different from discounting the whole idea, and some critics of evoloution will point to two scientists who disagree and conclude "See, evoloution is not proven!", when in reality of course they are debating one small detail withiin the larger idea - like ironing out the 'bugs', so to speak.  The larger idea though, as a whole, remains untarnished.

Gravity is always the best example.  It exists, it works, we know how it effects how objects interact, but we can't explain how it works on quantum scales.  That doesn't mean gravity is false, just that some details aren't filled in. 

I almost wish we could adopt a new word or phrase altogether.  Maybe 'fact under construction', or 'preliminary fact'  .

I would be anxious to hear what Athan could say about this.

[Niles]

Perhaps I should be more clear.  My question is not that we are using the term theory - with regard to evolution - in such a manner as to question the validity of evolution.

My concern (and see the dictionary definitions - re-read the link) is that we are using the term theory, at times other than its use for evolution, in ways that muddle the meaning of the term.

A friend of mine, at my house on Saturday, has a major in linguistics.  I forget where the conversation went, but I used the term theory, and she corrected me.

This started me thinking, and the article in the Gazette, more so.

Are we using theory in ways that allow confusion?  Are we using theory, at times, when we mean hypothesis?  Does the dictionary meaning allow for multiple meanings of the word, even if those meanings are not the prime meanings, and are further down the list.  The dictionary does distinguish between the use of theory in scientific and non-scientific issues.  What comes to mind, for me, is the phrase "conspiracy theorist" - surely we do not intend to mean that people who have the various consipracy views (the Mafia killed Kennedy, the CIA bombed the World Trade Organization, the Holocaust did not exist, Neal Armstrong did not land on the moon) are "theories" as in, essentially settled fact.

So, to the group, is my concern correct?

Should we be more careful how we use the word?  Do we need to start - within our own community - doing what my linguist friend did to me?  I am not in favor of becoming the Politically Correct Word Police.  But I do wonder, if we have caused our own set of problems.

[ScottS]

Gravity is a law, not a "theory."

I take issue with this particular dictionary equating a "theory" with the proven explanation for any phenomenon.  If you've gotten to that point, why bother calling it a theory anymore?

Granted, I'm not involved in scientific academia, but this it the first time I've ever seen the word "theory" equated with "settled fact."  We're just going to have to accept that colloquially, "theory" can mean any explanation, regardless of merit, and "scientific theory" usually means that there is some credible evidence behind it, and not let ourselves get into semantic debates with the IDiots.

- Scott