Maybe it would be good for science to make up new words to describe laws, etc

[Rhea]

The religious people seem to get so confused about what is a “theory” and what is a “Law.” As stunningly shown by half-life in the “something new” thread. I felt this would be in interesting and very different discussion, so I started a new thread.


So if religionists get confused by the word “law” and think it implies agency, and if they get confused about “theory” and think it means guess, maybe it would be very very useful to come up with some new words, defined only as scientific definitions, that have no baggage that can confuddle the faithful by making them think they mean something else.

Right now, in science and math the following words have specific meanings (that are not equal to the legal or colloquial meanings)
Law
Proof
Theory
Hypothesis
Cite
More?


What might this new vocabulary do for us? What might it include? Who knew this would be so very confusing for laypeople? (Yeah, they should have seen this coming...)

 

[Politesse]

It's not just "the faithful", nor only laypeople, who get thrown off by the term "law"; deterministic and agency-prescribing thinking is rampant in all quarters of society. I frequently encounter entirely atheistic students saying things like "x cannot happen because y must obey the laws of physics". Anthropocentrism abounds when fundamental descriptors are in play. I also catch my scientist colleagues engaging around lazy definitions and metaphors, if usually in a more informed way. "Theory" has a way of getting thrown around way too freely for instance. So does "citation", since you mention it in your list.

I would support a re-terming except that I suspect the most likely outcome would be that people would start using the new terms exactly as they used the previous set, or replace them with new but equally wrong biases

 

[skepticalbip]

Maybe it would be good for science to make up new words to describe laws, etc

I would think that such an effort would be a waste of time and effort. All those terms have very specific definitions. Those who don't understand them are not interested enough to read and understand those definitions. I see no reason to believe that "new words" would be any different.

 

[Rhea]

Maybe it would be good for science to make up new words to describe laws, etc

I would think that such an effort would be a waste of time and effort. All those terms have very specific definitions. Those who don't understand them are not interested enough to read and understand those definitions. I see no reason to believe that "new words" would be any different.

I dunno. We seem to have done pretty well going from “cubit” to “meter” where the one was pretty ambiguous and bad and the other is precise and has a definition that includes that precision.

 

[skepticalbip]

Maybe it would be good for science to make up new words to describe laws, etc

I would think that such an effort would be a waste of time and effort. All those terms have very specific definitions. Those who don't understand them are not interested enough to read and understand those definitions. I see no reason to believe that "new words" would be any different.

I dunno. We seem to have done pretty well going from “cubit” to “meter” where the one was pretty ambiguous and bad and the other is precise and has a definition that includes that precision.

But the scientific definition of those terms are already very precise. I doubt a "new word" could be made more precise.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Maybe it would be good for science to make up new words to describe laws, etc

I would think that such an effort would be a waste of time and effort. All those terms have very specific definitions. Those who don't understand them are not interested enough to read and understand those definitions. I see no reason to believe that "new words" would be any different.

I dunno. We seem to have done pretty well going from “cubit” to “meter” where the one was pretty ambiguous and bad and the other is precise and has a definition that includes that precision.

Yeah, but that was making the system better thru precision. Changing "law" to "dependably predictable reaction" does not improve the system, just packaging the system for the less-educated.
And, of course, the opponents of science will insist that the change was an admission of defeat. Like when evolution researchers stopped talking in terms of 'the missing link' because the idea doesn't reflect current theory creationists crowed 'they admit the missing link will never be found!'

 

[bilby]

Human beings are inherently animists.

You could change the word we use for 'law' in physics; But it wouldn't help. People would still say things like 'The rock wants to fall towards the centre of the Earth, but the rope won't let that happen'.

The assumption of agency is unbreakable. It's how people think.

Shit, people even think that they themselves have agency. And they really don't want to do that, because they don't.

 

[Half-Life]

It's not just "the faithful", nor only laypeople, who get thrown off by the term "law"; deterministic and agency-prescribing thinking is rampant in all quarters of society. I frequently encounter entirely atheistic students saying things like "x cannot happen because y must obey the laws of physics". Anthropocentrism abounds when fundamental descriptors are in play. I also catch my scientist colleagues engaging around lazy definitions and metaphors, if usually in a more informed way. "Theory" has a way of getting thrown around way too freely for instance. So does "citation", since you mention it in your list.

I would support a re-terming except that I suspect the most likely outcome would be that people would start using the new terms exactly as they used the previous set, or replace them with new but equally wrong biases

What is wrong with saying that? A ball can not roll uphill because it obeys the law of gravity. It has to fall down. The question is, "Who put this law into place?" If you say "no one," then we must ask why the ball obeys gravity? If the universe was godless, why not expect some things to fly up at random intervals?

What is your reason why a ball can not roll uphill?

 

[Keith&Co.]

If the universe was godless, why not expect some things to fly up at random intervals?

What a surprise, you have it ass backwards. We would expect evetything to obey the laws of physics UNLESS there is a divine being who can suspend them for specific instances, called miracles.

 

[Half-Life]

If the universe was godless, why not expect some things to fly up at random intervals?

What a surprise, you have it ass backwards. We would expect evetything to obey the laws of physics UNLESS there is a divine being who can suspend them for specific instances, called miracles.

The divine being doesn't get credit for creating the laws in the first place? That's a miracle to me. That's why a lot of people have it backwards. They think a tree isn't a miracle. But, I say the tree is a miracle.

There is a quote by Einstein: "Either everything is a miracle, or nothing is a miracle."

 

[Politesse]

It's not just "the faithful", nor only laypeople, who get thrown off by the term "law"; deterministic and agency-prescribing thinking is rampant in all quarters of society. I frequently encounter entirely atheistic students saying things like "x cannot happen because y must obey the laws of physics". Anthropocentrism abounds when fundamental descriptors are in play. I also catch my scientist colleagues engaging around lazy definitions and metaphors, if usually in a more informed way. "Theory" has a way of getting thrown around way too freely for instance. So does "citation", since you mention it in your list.

I would support a re-terming except that I suspect the most likely outcome would be that people would start using the new terms exactly as they used the previous set, or replace them with new but equally wrong biases

What is wrong with saying that? A ball can not roll uphill because it obeys the law of gravity. It has to fall down. The question is, "Who put this law into place?" If you say "no one," then we must ask why the ball obeys gravity? If the universe was godless, why not expect some things to fly up at random intervals?

What is your reason why a ball can not roll uphill?

If we're talking strictly science, not philosophy or theology, then there's no fundamental reason it can't, it just doesn't. We can observe that this predictably does not happen. Science can't help you speculate on why, unless the answer to that why question is another, similarly objective phenomenon. The ball is not an agent, choosing to roll up or down. Nor are we able to speculate on what it might prefer to do if it did. We can only take notes on what actually does, in fact, predictably occur. Scientific laws aren't punishments for doing bad things, they are just descriptions of what we have found to be the coherent and consistent pattern of material interactions. Personally, I have no problem if you want to go the Newtonian route and insist that the coherence of natural interactions suggests some divine purpose, but that isn't what scientists are referring to when they talk about laws, not even if they happen to be deists themselves. We are confined to what we can objectively describe, lest science itself become conceptually illegitimate.

 

[bilby]

It's a statistical thing. The ball rolls downhill because that maximises entropy. And entropy is a statistical phenomenon - each atom in the ball can move in any direction and at any speed, but most of the possible motions cancel each other out. The only possibility that has a non-minuscule chance of occuring is the one we see.

There is no 'why'. That's what matter is. Stuff that behaves in that way. If the ball wasn't made of rubber, but was instead a ball of neutrinos, it would behave differently.

Natural laws aren't rules; They are observations. There is no 'why' in an observation.

The berries on that tree are red. It makes no sense to ask 'who decided that they must be red?'; it's an observation. If they had been green, or black, or orange, then that's what we would observe and report.

Balls roll downhill. It's an observation. They don't do that 'because of' the law of gravity; The law of gravity is the set of observations that allows you to predict that it will happen - based on the knowledge that it always happens that way.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If the universe was godless, why not expect some things to fly up at random intervals?

What a surprise, you have it ass backwards. We would expect evetything to obey the laws of physics UNLESS there is a divine being who can suspend them for specific instances, called miracles.

The divine being doesn't get credit for creating the laws in the first place? That's a miracle to me.

bully for you. Now all you have to do is show ANY SUPPORT AT ALL for your claim that a creator was necessarily involved in the physical laws we observe.
Any reason. We're waiting....

That's why a lot of people have it backwards. They think a tree isn't a miracle. But, I say the tree is a miracle.

You can SAY anything. Like you said Jesus said gay marriage is a sin.
Supporting what you say, though, seems to be your downfall...

There is a quote by Einstein: "Either everything is a miracle, or nothing is a miracle."

Um, first off, quoting a really really smart guy isn't exactly suporting your claim, it's just a "respect for authority" logical fallacy.
Second, you misstated the quote. It was about how to live your life, not how to evaluate the universe.
Third, the statement you're pretending to quote was not attributed to Albert Einstein until 1993. So there is a small problem with your claim of 'a quote by Einstein.'

You just can NOT support any claim you make, can you? Is it a fetish? Performance art?

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

The divine being doesn't get credit for creating the laws in the first place? That's a miracle to me.

bully for you. Now all you have to do is show ANY SUPPORT AT ALL for your claim that a creator was necessarily involved in the physical laws we observe.
Any reason. We're waiting....

That's why a lot of people have it backwards. They think a tree isn't a miracle. But, I say the tree is a miracle.

You can SAY anything. Like you said Jesus said gay marriage is a sin.
Supporting what you say, though, seems to be your downfall...

There is a quote by Einstein: "Either everything is a miracle, or nothing is a miracle."

Um, first off, quoting a really really smart guy isn't exactly suporting your claim, it's just a "respect for authority" logical fallacy.
Second, you misstated the quote. It was about how to live your life, not how to evaluate the universe.
Third, the statement you're pretending to quote was not attributed to Albert Einstein until 1993. So there is a small problem with your claim of 'a quote by Einstein.'

You just can NOT support any claim you make, can you? Is it a fetish? Performance art?

If repeatedly stepping on your dick is performance art ...

 

[skepticalbip]

If the universe was godless, why not expect some things to fly up at random intervals?

What a surprise, you have it ass backwards. We would expect evetything to obey the laws of physics UNLESS there is a divine being who can suspend them for specific instances, called miracles.

The divine being doesn't get credit for creating the laws in the first place? That's a miracle to me. That's why a lot of people have it backwards. They think a tree isn't a miracle. But, I say the tree is a miracle.

You are assuming your conclusion... piss poor reasoning.

There is a quote by Einstein: "Either everything is a miracle, or nothing is a miracle."

You apparently haven't read any of Einstein's thoughts on such subjects. His meaning of "miracle" is completely different than yours as is what he means when he uses the word, 'god'. He explains his thoughts quite clearly. If you accepted what he means by the word god then you certainly wouldn't be a Christian.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

It's not just "the faithful", nor only laypeople, who get thrown off by the term "law"; deterministic and agency-prescribing thinking is rampant in all quarters of society. I frequently encounter entirely atheistic students saying things like "x cannot happen because y must obey the laws of physics". Anthropocentrism abounds when fundamental descriptors are in play. I also catch my scientist colleagues engaging around lazy definitions and metaphors, if usually in a more informed way. "Theory" has a way of getting thrown around way too freely for instance. So does "citation", since you mention it in your list.

I would support a re-terming except that I suspect the most likely outcome would be that people would start using the new terms exactly as they used the previous set, or replace them with new but equally wrong biases

What is wrong with saying that? A ball can not roll uphill because it obeys the law of gravity. It has to fall down. The question is, "Who put this law into place?" If you say "no one," then we must ask why the ball obeys gravity? If the universe was godless, why not expect some things to fly up at random intervals?

What is your reason why a ball can not roll uphill?

So, since an entity didn’t create gravitational force, you think the ball should be able to behave in a way that negates that force? If we’re not all living in a “planned community”, everything should be random?

 

[abaddon]

They think a tree isn't a miracle. But, I say the tree is a miracle.

Is the tree just a stupid piece of shit if a god didn't make it? Or is it still pretty fucking cool even if a god didn't make it?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What exactly is a "divine being," except the ultimate expression of scientific illiteracy? But that's just me.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What exactly is a "divine being," except the ultimate expression of scientific illiteracy? But that's just me.

Could be the ultimate expression of fear.

Tigers are big and scary and out there.
IFF God created tigers, God decides who tigers attack.
IFF God finds me pleasing as a suck-up, He might tell the tigers not to attack me.
So if I eat all my vegetables and pay all my tithes and say my prayers, I need not live in fear of Tigers, because God will protect me. Or, if He doesn't, my family will say that my horrible bloody death was part of a loving god's plan, so still no reason to fear the love.

Therefore, God created tigers and I am safe.
Unless I'm not...

 

[ideologyhunter]

How 'bout renaming scripture as ancient guesswork?