Am I the only one, or is the phrase "Theory of Evolution" of poor semantic
quality? Semantics goes hand in hand with rhetoric, so this would be
right up Phaedrus' alley.
Scientists should not be surprised that laypersons say things such as
"that's why it's called a theory". Until reading some posts in this
group, I thought evolution was called a mere theory because of some
modicum of honesty within the scientific community about the tenuousness
of proving evolution.
Now I've been informed that I don't know what "theory" means. How
convenient! We've moved from an indefinable "quality", to an indefinable
"theory". As long as everything is indefinable, everybody can be right,
subjectively speaking. And then you have license to pronounce others
wrong because their subjective impressions don't align with yours.
Methinks I smell scientific hypocrisy -- and let there be no mistake about
the negative connotation I am subjectively assigning here.
George
>
>> > Does this mean, then, that in science, "theory" ranks higher than
>> > "law"?
>
> Elliot:
> Not higher in terms of more true or reasonable. but a theory is a
> broader category which is an application of multiple laws, other
> theories and hypotosises (sic). atleast thats what i got from the
> article (which isnt the dictionary definition, but how whatever group
> they named uses it). For instance, the theory of evolution
> incorporates some natural laws (causation and lots of stuff whose
> names i dont know, chaos theory included ill bet).
>
> It isnt more true, but is broader in that it incorporates the more
> fundemental things we "know" about the universe to get something less
> fundemental, more significant.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:28 BST