Job Discussion Forums

[gregory999]

A Lancashire headmistress attracted fury with a tweet in which she said "evolution is not a fact; that's why it's called a theory".
In ancient Greece theoroi meant something like "observers". They were envoys sent by city-states to consult oracles, to give offerings at famous shrines or attend festivals.
Theoria was a word for their duties. It came to mean any act of observing, and was used by Greek philosophers, generally, in the sense of "contemplation".

Contemplating something does not challenge it - it strives to understand it, whether it is Pythagoras's theorem (theorema in Greek was an object of theoria) or some perceived divine truth.
Still today, when we take a driving theory test we are not studying a school of thought about driving which may be discredited, but general considerations on which good practice is based.
But sometimes theory means an opinion, a suggestion which may be disproved in practice - "only a theory".
This week a former director of public prosecutions criticised police who "believed a theory at the start of the case… We don't want the police deciding what the truth is before the investigation starts".

This definition of theory as something subject to disproof or challenge is deeply and honourably rooted in scientific tradition - in the practice of testing explanations by discovery or experiment.
"Theory and experiment", the 18th Century chemist Joseph Priestley wrote, "go hand in hand".
And Darwin in his Origin of Species wrote that new discoveries could "annihilate my theory".
Scientists are proud of the principle that their beliefs can be tested and challenged, not accepted as a matter of faith - that in the words of Darwin's champion TH Huxley, a beautiful hypothesis can be slain by an "ugly fact".

But when opponents interpret this to mean evolution - or at least Darwin's doctrine of natural selection - is just one competing opinion, his supporters deny this.
Some theories, scientific bodies say, are "the foundations of human understanding of nature" and "based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-35499049

[dragonpiwo]

Well that was a waste of 45 seconds of my life.

[LongShiKong]

[gregory999]

[LongShiKong]

[Lack]

If someone claims such a thing, it's best to ask them what evolution is. If they say something like, "evolution is a theory saying we came from monkeys" then you can safely disregard them since they have no clue what they're talking about. "Can you name one biologist who claims that the human race is directly descended from monkeys?" No? Then shut up about things you don't understand.

Or ask a simple yes or no question: "Did the study of evolution end with Darwin's Origin of Species?" Though that one might throw them off.

[johnslat]

Or you could mention the Theory of Gravity, and then invite them to jump off a tall building.

Regards,
John

[LongShiKong]

[quote="Lack"]If someone claims such a thing, it's best to ask them what evolution is. /quote]

How do you know you wouldn't get as many anti-religionists believing in evolution with a similarly limited understanding, unless of course you think the intellectually challenged, without exception, subscribe to a religion. Regardless of educational attainment, basic science literacy in the US is abysmal including that of congressional reps.

[adventious]

[dragonpiwo]

I'd rather concentrate on doing the job. These self-proclaimed pseuds are usually buggers to work with and rarely walk the walk they talk.

[gregory999]

One theory known as "Theory of Mind" suggests that individuals with mind-blindness would have a difficult time seeing things from any other perspective than their own, and lack social reciprocity.

May God help them understand the Law of Social Gravity.

[johnslat]

Dear dragonpiwo,

"These self-proclaimed pseuds . . ."

Do they actually introduce themselves that way?

"Hi, I'm Justin, and I'm a pseud . . .".

Regards,
John

[dragonpiwo]

"Hi. I'm Justin. I'm a pseud, so don't disagree with me. There's no point anyway because I can bamboozle you with very long, complicated words. These long, complicated words are evidence that I'm in a teaching league of my own. I also have no social skills, so apologies in advance."

[johnslat]

Dear dragonpiwo,

Well, at least he's an upfront, honest pseudo.

Regards,
John

[gregory999]

Well that was a waste of 99.999 seconds of dragonpiwo's life.

Now, back to the topic of when is a theory 'just a theory'?