Jump to content

Opening soon! Nut job theme park!


Quack 12

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

All I'm suggesting is that things would have been easier for all if they had chosen a different word other than "theory" from the beginning. It's needlessly confusing,

 

I took a biology class at the local community college last year, and the teacher was the one who brought this up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just never taken that view.  The word "theory" even in a general sense means more than what people typically use it for today, and that usage has evolved.  People say "theory" when they mean "hypothesis" or, more likely, wild guess.

 

Even homicide detectives use "theory" only after collecting and examining all evidence.  The problem isn't with the science community.  The problem is the dumbing down of the general public.  Goes from personal responsibility, all the way to our total and complete de-emphasis on public education in this country.

 

Matter of fact, we probably had fewer people questioning evolution and/or believing in a young earth immediately after the Scopes trial in the 20s than we do now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that laypeople hear "theory" and think unproven.

 

For me it boils down to education, and the lack of quality pertaining to it in this country.

 

We no longer educate our children, we prepare them to take tests. That isn't education. As a whole this country is going backwards, in part driven by ignorance and religious agendas.

 

Willful ignorance is embraced and celebrated. The inability to draw distinctions, to think critically, to evaluate information rather than sitting like a mindless zombie in front of a tv or a computer.

 

People who don't grasp the concept of theory are either lazy or stupid. It is not a difficult concept. They just don't want to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the way people disrespect Science and research in this country, from the assault on Climate Change and evolution to the cutting of funding for basic research and things like studies on Gun violence it feels like the Dark Ages 2.

 

 

 

Seriously, special interests and the government are as bad as the Church was back then in trying to suppress it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ive spent my whole career working with programmers, who often have the black/white attitude that if you don't understand programming you are a worthless idiot. They believe they are ostracized because of their intelligence, when it's usually more their inability to see the big picture, recognize that other people can have a spectrum of valuable non-technical skills, and that understanding is a two-way street.

 

"Well they should get it" may not always be the right attitude. Yes, we need to do better at science education in this country & part of that needs to be laid at the feet of scientists who DO understand these complex things & have the challenge of explaining them without watering it down so it's meaningless or confusing. I wonder what Neil Degrasse Tyson would have to say about this.

 

It's certainly not easy but does need to be solved. One of the major themes of Trumpers and Brexiters is that they are tired of experts talking down to them. This anti-intellectual populism is super scary, but is only going to be solved by both sides addressing it (IMO).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ive spent my whole career working with programmers, who often have the black/white attitude that if you don't understand programming you are a worthless idiot. They believe they are ostracized because of their intelligence, when it's usually more their inability to see the big picture, recognize that other people can have a spectrum of valuable non-technical skills, and that understanding is a two-way street.

 

There's a difference between people understanding high-level computer programming, and 6th grade biology.  Do you similarly feel this way about people who think simple words should be spelled correctly?  Because that's the level of basic understanding we're talking about here.

 

"Well they should get it" may not always be the right attitude. Yes, we need to do better at science education in this country & part of that needs to be laid at the feet of scientists who DO understand these complex things & have the challenge of explaining them without watering it down so it's meaningless or confusing. I wonder what Neil Degrasse Tyson would have to say about this.

 

Wonder no more.  Neil Degrasse Tyson did an entire reboot of Cosmos, and has essentially dedicated his life to making science more accessible to the average person.  So that really kind of destroys your point that scientists are in any way to blame for the people being too dumb, or scientists being too smart (or whatever you think the problem is...I'm not sure at this point).

 

It's certainly not easy but does need to be solved. One of the major themes of Trumpers and Brexiters is that they are tired of experts talking down to them. This anti-intellectual populism is super scary, but is only going to be solved by both sides addressing it (IMO).

 

The biggest part of the problem is the anti-intellectualism from people who know better.  We have Bill O'Reilly and Fox News hosts who actually DO understand science and politics on a high level, and have Ivy League degrees, but they pander to the idiots to whip up this populism.  That, and we don't adequately and properly fund education in this country and make it a priority.  The answer isn't for field biologists at LSU or Princeton to dumb down their rhetoric.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Were you trying to restate my point?

 

"A word like 'theory' is a technical scientific term," said Michael Fayer, a chemist at Stanford University. "The fact that many people understand its scientific meaning incorrectly does not mean we should stop using it. It means we need better scientific education."

....

 

 

 

 

But though these words may be routinely misunderstood, the real problem, scientists say, is that people don't get rigorous science education in middle school and high school. As a result, the public doesn't understand how scientific explanations are formed, tested and accepted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing terribly wrong with using "theory" as a colloquialism, so to speak, but when it's used in the science realm, it should be understood and used correctly. Precision of language is critical in the science realm. But Charles Barkley can have "theories" on TNT basketball broadcasts all he wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now who is putting words in who's mouth?

 

Well perhaps you need to clarify your position because I have no idea why you would blame scientists for being too smart when it's the general public that's too stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then explain how evolution works? Show actual evidence that animals made a change from one thing to another, until we arived at Humans. I could care less what people believe, but it always makes me laugh when people just start by name calling another's belief, rather than showing hard evidence for their beliefs. Of course there isn't hard evidence for either belief, that's why ones a theory, and the other faith.

 

To me, creationism isn't worthy of being called a "belief system" or a "theory," and presenting this "park" as anything resembling truth is itself insulting. It's offensive. 

 

Like molerat, I'm not capable of presenting you with irrefutable evidence of natural selection, aside from the fact that your body is about 90 percent seawater, which should tell you something.

 

There is plenty of evidence of "forced selection," so we the know that the genetic model works. Perhaps you experimented with fruit flies in high school, too?

 

The Bull Terrier's "evolution" in 100 years:

 

01.jpg

 

 

The problem is that laypeople hear "theory" and think unproven.

 

I see your point. Perhaps "principle" would work in place of "theory," but as Orange wrote, a lot of people are just pretty dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not suggesting anyone dumb anything down -- just that it may have been better at one point (not necessarily now) to pick a different word, shit even make one up, call it a flibbitz. Isn't the whole point of science to be as accurate, specific & not open to interpretation as possible?

 

 

Idk -- maybe it wouldn't have made a difference at all. Maybe the word theory has itself evolved since its first use so initially it wasn't a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not suggesting anyone dumb anything down -- just that it may have been better at one point (not necessarily now) to pick a different word, shit even make one up, call it a flibbitz. Isn't the whole point of science to be as accurate, specific & not open to interpretation as possible?

 

 

Idk -- maybe it wouldn't have made a difference at all. Maybe the word theory has itself evolved since its first use so initially it wasn't a problem.

 

That is almost exactly what I said earlier.

 

I'm honestly beginning to think you don't even bother to read my posts before responding to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't imagine my position being any clearer than "understanding is a two-way street".

 

Case in point, blaming the uneducated for being uneducated.

 

Not all scientists are educators.  It is a job, you know.  I'm a tax lawyer, and I sure as shit can't waste time explaining to anyone in the general public (aside from my clients) the nuances of the IRC.

 

Maybe we should stop hiring Craig the HS football coach to teach 10th grade biology?  Just a thought.  But sure, blame scientists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Donate

    Please donate to support this community. We appreciate all donations!

    Donate Sidebar by DevFuse
×
×
  • Create New...