• Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    The word theory has become (or at best is becoming) a clusterfuck of whatever, much like the word literally.

    And we don’t even have (normal/easy/exact) replacements for those words.
    Those words were already the scientific terms for nerds. But normies normied them into normedom, literally theorised into a fuck.

    (Also unfortunately Im a normie, but that doesn’t mean I can’t bitch about it)

  • 2pt_perversion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Descriptive linguists unite! Words evolve and that’s okay. Really science should pivot away and start calling more proven theories a different word if they’re upset about the confusion.

    The etymology of the word theory comes from a word with a meaning closer to “to look at or speculate” so even in that sense science kind of hijacked a word that was further from the modern scientific understanding of the word “theory” and descriptively transformed it themselves for use in their community. And that’s okay too.

    • tehmics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’ve ranted about this so much to people close to me. Scientific community just needs to adopt a new word like you say, theory is a lost battle

    • dogsoahC@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      I accept it in colloquial discourse. I’m not happy about it, and I will smartass at everyone who isn’t asking, but I accept that I’m probably fighting a losing battle. But in science, it’s absolutely non-negotiable for words to mean what they mean, and not their own opposite.

      • 2pt_perversion@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

  • Matriks404@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    While theory and hypothesis are not the same if you are talking about science, in general everyday use theory is used as a synonym.

    In wiktionary: 5. A hypothesis or conjecture. [from 18th c.]

    • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      And then say “it’s just a theory” to completely dismiss something they don’t like.

  • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I suggest we use new words.

    Hypothesis - the great pondering
    Theory - mystical workings of the orb

  • XOXOX@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Nobody in the history of humanity has been asked how pedantic they are.

    • Victor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Just a joke. It’s just a way to set up the joke. It doesn’t make sense, practically, but it isn’t supposed to be part of the funny bit. Or it is… It could be, in an ironic way.

      🤷‍♂️ Take it with a pinch of salt.

  • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Read the other day that there actually isn’t any official distinction. It’s just colloquially used that way in some scientific circles but definitely not all. Probably not by etymologists.

    • dogsoahC@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Normally, I’m all for language changing over time. If some word is used a certain way, so beit. But not here. Not in a case where people can end up saying dumb shit like “Evolution is just a theory.” I will physically fight people on that, If need be.

        • JoeyJoeJoeJr@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          A law describes what happens, a theory explains why. The law of gravity says that if you drop an item, it will fall to the ground. The theory of relativity explains that the “fall” occurs due to the curvature of space time.

          • tate@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Science can never answer “why.” In your example, the question why is just moved, from “why does it fall?” to “why does mass distort space-time?” In both cases physics just describes what happens.

          • Victor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            I was referring to the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

            Theorem would also be interesting to add to the mix.

            • JoeyJoeJoeJr@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              In a scientific context, a hypothesis is a guess, based on current knowledge, including existing laws and theories. It explicitly leaves room to be wrong, and is intended to be tested to determine correctness (to be a valid hypothesis, it must be testable). The results of testing the hypothesis (i.e. running an experiment) may support or disprove existing laws/theories.

              A theorem is something that is/can be proven from axioms (accepted/known truths). These are pretty well relegated to math and similar disciplines (e.g. computer science), that aren’t dealing with “reality,” so much as “ideas.” In the real world, a perfect right triangle can’t exist, so there’s no way to look at the representation of a triangle and prove anything about the lengths of its sides and their relations to each other, and certainly no way to extract truth that applies to all other right triangles. But in the conceptual world of math, it’s trivial to describe a perfect right triangle, and prove from simple axioms that the length of the hypotenuse is equal to the square root of the sum of the squares of the remaining two sides (the Pythagorean Theorem).

              Note that while theorems are generally accepted as truth, they are still sometimes disproved - errors in proofs are possible, and even axioms can be found to be false, shaking up any theorems that were built from them.

              • Victor@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                4 months later, sorry for the late reply. Thank you for this explanation! 😁🙏