• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

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

While reading about moon landing deniers, I realized that the word "theory", while often used improperly to describe what is actually a hypothesis or even just a guess, has been irretrievably corrupted by the term "conspiracy theory". You can make up anything, going against piles of irrefutable evidence, and it will be labeled a "theory", even by people who completely disagree with it.

"Model" is an interesting possibility as a replacement. It would take the abusers years to catch up with that change. And it would be fun to shoot down some scientific illiterate with, "That's just a theory."
 
I think the vernacular meaning of “theory,” meaning something akin to “speculation,” is not a corruption but in fact predates the modern scientific construction by a good bit, millennia even. That would be the point of coining a new word. However, I’m skeptical of a new word catching on. It’s hard to create a new word by fiat. “Meme” and “Ms.” are two examples that come to mind, and there aren’t many more I can think of.

Of course there’s “gay,” but that’s a redefinition rather than a new word. I wonder if most people today even remember the original meaning, which I guess is still preserved in “gaiety.” [/DERAIL]
 
I think the vernacular meaning of “theory,” meaning something akin to “speculation,” is not a corruption but in fact predates the modern scientific construction by a good bit,
Well the 'Doctor,' as in 'I know a lot about an academic subject,' predates the "Doctor" as in "my job is to fix your medical boo-boos, in one or another specialty," meaning by quite a bit.

But people today mostly consider the latter as 'real' doctors. Possibly because when someone clutches their chest and falls over, no one's immediate response is a desperate shout for an expert in logical positivism...

Equally, it's inwieldy to gather all the suspects in the drawing room and state that "I have a hypothesis about the Butler's trip to Coney Island which may prove to be a theory after a full investigation...."
 
Tharmas said:
I think the vernacular meaning of “theory,” meaning something akin to “speculation,” is not a corruption but in fact predates the modern scientific construction by a good bit, millennia even. That would be the point of coining a new word. However, I’m skeptical of a new word catching on. It’s hard to create a new word by fiat. “Meme” and “Ms.” are two examples that come to mind, and there aren’t many more I can think of.

That's a thambly gesnuggins.

The only ones I can think of are 'grok and 'quark.'
 
While reading about moon landing deniers, I realized that the word "theory", while often used improperly to describe what is actually a hypothesis or even just a guess, has been irretrievably corrupted by the term "conspiracy theory". You can make up anything, going against piles of irrefutable evidence, and it will be labeled a "theory", even by people who completely disagree with it.

"Model" is an interesting possibility as a replacement. It would take the abusers years to catch up with that change. And it would be fun to shoot down some scientific illiterate with, "That's just a theory."

I am skeptical - perhaps your suggestion is an attempt to undermine science. But then, maybe that's just my conspiracy model. ;)
 
I think the vernacular meaning of “theory,” meaning something akin to “speculation,” is not a corruption but in fact predates the modern scientific construction by a good bit, millennia even. That would be the point of coining a new word. However, I’m skeptical of a new word catching on. It’s hard to create a new word by fiat. “Meme” and “Ms.” are two examples that come to mind, and there aren’t many more I can think of.

Of course there’s “gay,” but that’s a redefinition rather than a new word. I wonder if most people today even remember the original meaning, which I guess is still preserved in “gaiety.” [/DERAIL]

Everyone who knows The Flintstones knows the original meaning. Or is likely to be very confused indeed.
 
I think the vernacular meaning of “theory,” meaning something akin to “speculation,” is not a corruption but in fact predates the modern scientific construction by a good bit,
Well the 'Doctor,' as in 'I know a lot about an academic subject,' predates the "Doctor" as in "my job is to fix your medical boo-boos, in one or another specialty," meaning by quite a bit.

But people today mostly consider the latter as 'real' doctors. Possibly because when someone clutches their chest and falls over, no one's immediate response is a desperate shout for an expert in logical positivism...

Equally, it's inwieldy to gather all the suspects in the drawing room and state that "I have a hypothesis about the Butler's trip to Coney Island which may prove to be a theory after a full investigation...."

IMG_4363.JPG
 
I'd like to propose the word NAT in place of theory which is : Not -Absolutely -True.

Or

BAWG = 'Best-Available-We-Got', pronounced borg as in star trek adding to being a trendy word for cool people.

Like; Hey dude, I have a BAWG about time-travel but you gota where these special shades man for it to work!
 
Last edited:
I'd like to propose the word NAT in place of theory which is : Not -Absolutely-True.

Or

BAWG , 'Best-Available-We-Got' pronounced as borg as in the star trek adding to being a trendy word for cool people.

Like; Hey dude, I have a BAWG about time-travel but you gota where these special shades man for it to work!

Um, if it's the best idea WE got, then it can't be one guy's suggestion...
And nothing in science is necessarily absolutely true. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science, si your term expresses fuck-all.
 
It clarifies a little clearly to the ignorant theists what atheits profess science can do.

Edit: can do in theory.
 
Last edited:
It clarifies a little clearly to the erm ... the ignorant theists what atheits profess science can do.
So, still thinking of science as an atheist thing. It's not atheist vs. Theist, it's 'knows what they're talking about' vs. 'Listens to people feeding them bullshit.'


I swear, we simply need better education on what science actually is and does, what it isn't and can't.
 
It clarifies a little clearly to the ignorant theists what atheits profess science can do.

Sorta true.

Theists appear to believe that scientists view scientific theories the same way theists believe the Bible. While theists tend to believe every word of the Bible is the absolutely infallible true word of god, "not a jot or tittle" in error, science views theories as reliable descriptions of observations that can reliably be used for predictions of future observations - until an error is found or a better description is formulated.

ETA:
This results in such silly exchanges as:

Science: The geological record going back billions of years shows no worldwide flood and DNA evidence does not show such a bottleneck so there is no reason to believe the Biblical story reflects reality.

Christian: The Bible says that there was a great worldwide flood and Noah saved the animals to repopulate the Earth so science is wrong to deny it.
 
Last edited:
It clarifies a little clearly to the ignorant theists what atheits profess science can do.

Edit: can do in theory.

Three centuries of science has brought life expectancy up from the mid 40s to the mid 80s; Reduced child mortality so much that most people no longer know what it's like to attend the funeral of an infant (a routine occurrence before science came along); Eliminated smallpox, and made other diseases (measles, mumps, rubella, typhoid, cholera, polio, malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, and many others) so rare that people question the value of vaccinations against them; Enabled communication of words and pictures across the entire planet in real-time; Enabled travel to the far side of the world in less than a day; Provided luxuries to ordinary people that even kings and emperors couldn't dream of (Henry VIII was so wealthy and powerful that he took on the Pope; But neither man ever saw a flushing toilet, and anyone who has spent any significant time camping can tell you how luxurious that is. Neither ever saw soft toilet paper either); Put men on the moon, and into orbit; Ended famine; Invented computers and the internet (thereby enabling us to have this discussion at all); Given us electricity, providing safe and reliable light, the ability to cook without fire, the abilty to heat our homes, microwave a burrito, watch a movie (at home, or in a cinema); and millions of other things, some mundane, some spectacular, all of which would have left any medieval person in awe.

Before that, we had over a thousand years of religion, which achieved three eighths of fuck-all.

It turns out that trying to understand the world through prayer and study of scripture is completely ineffective; While trying to understand it through science achieves things that I would call 'miraculous', if it wasn't abundantly clear that miracles never achieved even one billionth of what science has done.

To suggest that religion is a competitor against science, as a means to understanding our existence, is rather more crazy than to suggest that the Talbot Road Primary School under-8s third eleven are a competitor against Manchester City, for the 2020 FA Cup.

Science doesn't need atheists to 'profess' that it can do stuff. Science did stuff, and still is doing stuff, that speaks for itself.

Nature wants you, and five of your eight children, to be dead by the time you reach forty years old. Religion didn't change that one iota in several thousand years. Everything better than that was brought to you by science.
 
I imagine theist science bashers when on a takeoff roll on a jet must be praying awful hard when the pilot pulls back the yoke to lift off. Aerodynamics might just not work this time.

Arguing science is fundamentally flawed yet relying on what science provides 24/7 is one of those cognitive disconnects. To debunk science is to ignore what science has provided. Cut off electricity and most will die in short order.
 
I think they'll take whatever science makes possible, and still emphasize "but it's not ETERNAL knowledge". It's contingent... like all reality outside their fantasies of "other realms".

You guys are impressed by what's "effective". The theist mind is impressed with what "goes beyond everything I know about anything so that I can feel completely sure and not have to think (beyond making up stuff about what you atheists don't know)".
 
I think they'll take whatever science makes possible, and still emphasize "but it's not ETERNAL knowledge". It's contingent... like all reality outside their fantasies of "other realms".

You guys are impressed by what's "effective". The theist mind is impressed with what "goes beyond everything I know about anything so that I can feel completely sure and not have to think (beyond making up stuff about what you atheists don't know)".

Or as a bumper sticker I once saw said:

"The Bible says it
I believe it
That settles it"

Thus displaying absolute certainty, zero thought.
 
There is a social role for religion and philosophy.

The beauty of science is it works regardless of philosophy and religion.
 
Sorta true.

Theists appear to believe that scientists view scientific theories the same way theists believe the Bible. While theists tend to believe every word of the Bible is the absolutely infallible true word of god, "not a jot or tittle" in error, science views theories as reliable descriptions of observations that can reliably be used for predictions of future observations - until an error is found or a better description is formulated.

A lot is being discovered by studying the texts and with new contexts and interpretations, the studies don't stop.

ETA:
This results in such silly exchanges as:

Science: The geological record going back billions of years shows no worldwide flood and DNA evidence does not show such a bottleneck so there is no reason to believe the Biblical story reflects reality.
Christian: The Bible says that there was a great worldwide flood and Noah saved the animals to repopulate the Earth so science is wrong to deny it.

Yes, the billions of years theory. Science is neutral, people use science and "theories" get updated.
 
Back
Top Bottom