Envy is the emotion behind coveting.

But isn't model used differently in different disciplines?

~~Some~~ Most models turn out to be shit

Ftfy

I remember seeing somewhere that the "colloquial" usage is actually the original and that the scientific community is the one that changed it. I do agree that the evolution argument is stupid but it's hard to blame the non scientific populace for not knowing the distinction. The evolution denier just don't have a lot else to stand on.

Evolution is just a theory

And so is gravity, and the concept of colors.

Could you explain the difference to me? 🙏

I appreciate your passion for scientific literacy - it's crucial for combating misinformation. However, I'd like to share some perspectives that might broaden our understanding of scientific knowledge and how it develops.

First, it's worth noting that the distinction between "theory" and "hypothesis" isn't as clear-cut as we might think. In "The Scientific Attitude," Stephen McIntyre argues that what truly defines science isn't a rigid set of rules, but rather an ethos of critical inquiry and evidence-based reasoning. This ties into the "demarcation problem" in philosophy of science - the challenge of clearly defining what is and isn't science. Despite this ongoing debate, science continues to be a powerful tool for understanding our world.

Your stance seems to align with positivism, which views scientific knowledge as objective and verifiable. However, other epistemological approaches exist. Joseph A. Maxwell's work on critical realism offers a nuanced view that acknowledges both the existence of an objective reality and the role of human interpretation in understanding it.

Maxwell defines validity in research not just as statistical significance, but as the absence of plausible alternative explanations. This approach encourages us to constantly question and refine our understanding, rather than treating any explanation as final.

Gerard Delanty's "Philosophies of Social Science" provides a historical perspective on how our conception of science has evolved. Modern views often see science as a reflexive process, acknowledging the role of the researcher and societal context in shaping scientific knowledge.

Larry McEnery's work further emphasizes this point, describing how knowledge emerges from ongoing conversations within communities of researchers. What we consider "knowledge" at any given time is the result of these dynamic processes, not a static, unchanging truth.

Understanding these perspectives doesn't diminish the power or importance of science. Instead, it can make us more aware of the complexities involved in scientific inquiry and more resistant to overly simplistic arguments from science deniers.

By embracing some psychological flexibility around terms like "theory" and "hypothesis," we're not opening the door to pseudoscience. Rather, we're acknowledging the nuanced nature of scientific knowledge and the ongoing process of inquiry that characterizes good science.

What do you think about these ideas? I'd be interested to hear your perspective and continue this conversation.

Various fields have to adapt their terms all the time. For example, "idiot", "moron", and "mental retardation" were all official medical terms. Then they got used as an insult by the population at large, and got so bad that the medical field had to abandon them.

Tell that to conventional current vs electron flow. Science is ever updating with new information and the words we use to describe it will change over time as well, but I get what you mean. Prescriptive linguistics especially in formal settings like scientific writing is helpful for clear communication.

Yes, they are the Deez family, and yes they have nuts. Enough doxing.