Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.psychology,sci.physics,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.bio,rec.arts.books,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!purdue!news.bu.edu!olivea!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!waldorf.csc.calpoly.edu!zeus!bcoe
From: bcoe@harp.aix.calpoly.edu (Brian Eirik Coe)
Subject: Re: Why scientists popularize premature speculations?
Message-ID: <1994Dec08.211023.113860@zeus.aix.calpoly.edu>
Sender: news@zeus.calpoly.edu
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
References: <3bd8s0$1q2@pobox.csc.fi> <3bh51v$t7s@agate.berkeley.edu> <3c3q75INN79c@ephor.tusc.com.au> <3c69e4$rnf@agate.berkeley.edu>
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 1994 21:10:23 GMT
Lines: 42
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:97495 sci.psychology:31219 sci.physics:102829 sci.philosophy.meta:15423 sci.bio:23819 comp.ai.philosophy:23412

In article <3c69e4$rnf@agate.berkeley.edu>,
D. Carlson <dcarl1@uclink2.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Anthony Shipman (als@tusc.com.au) wrote:
>: In <3bh51v$t7s@agate.berkeley.edu> dcarl1@uclink2.berkeley.edu (D. Carlson) writes:
>
>: >I don't have a problem with this...premature to one is not to another.  
>: >After all, it's still the *theory* of gravity and there are those 
>: >flat-earthers muttering - that cocky Newton...publishing a premature theory!
>
>
>
>: The first paragraph illustrates one problem with "scientific" discussion in
>: public, the sloppy use of language.  The word "theory" is ambiguous.  It
>: has at least two meanings, what I call a "small T" theory and a "big T" theory.
>: A "small T" theory is an hypothesis.  A "big T" theory is a body of knowledge
>: collected on a subject e.g. the Theory of Relativity or the Theory of Music.
>
>: This matters. The pseudo-scientific exploit sloppy and ambiguous language to
>: deceive their audiences e.g. creationists saying evolution is "just a
>: theory".
>
>This was a *joke* a joke with either a big or little 'j'...
>
>My point stands.  There will almost always be disagreement.  The 
>flat-earthers and creationists represent one extreme of this pole.  This 
>does not mean discussion of science (and 'sloppy' subjects somewhat 
>related thereto...) should be limited to that which is definite.  Even 
>bad science fiction can inspire scientific speculation which can lead in 
>turn to real science.  Why limit the discussion...


My favorite example of the misconception above happened to me during a 
high school debate on Creation and Evolution.  A girl in the class told 
me that "The second law of thermodynamics disproves the theory of 
evolution, and a theory can never disprove a law!" 


-- 
Brian Eirik Coe 	* "The hotel of your mind has many vacancies"
Optometrist-in-Training *             -Yakko Warners Fortune Cookie 
	"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?" -The Brain, Animaniacs
"It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent."  -Q, ST:TNG
