Common Misconceptions of Scientific Terms

I don't have any formal education in science either.

But I think it's fair that for the needs of a particular subject are met with exacting descriptions of what applicable terms mean in order to clarify.

Note that it is the colloquial use of the word theory that is vague - not the scientific one.

Today's theory is tomorrows myth

Should i take the doctors advice today because tomorrow he might tell me it(s) killing me(?)

These might not be the monopoles of physics lore-but they could provide the first clues as to how those legendary beasts behave

Xris:

You seem to have a problem with science in that it changes, right?





So you're more comfortable with dogmatism?

You also talk about monopoles as some sort of example against scientific theory, even though they were predicted by and discovered by scientific theory! See the double edge sword you're playing with? You cant pick and choose what science does and only look at the negative. Not to mention, I'm guessing you're referring to the New Scientist issue, the monopole example is only a stepping stone to the actual monopoles physicists are looking for:



Also, theories are altered all the time but not necessarily false (i.e. evolution)

The "theory" of aether wasnt really a theory. There werent any supporting evidence for it and thats why it was dropped. People called it a "theory" but in reality it was only speculation with no evidence.

Again, it seems to be the implication, and by all means correct me if I'm wrong, that the fact that science changes and is self-correcting bothers you? That self-correcting makes science unreliable? Well, you can definately spin that in a negative way but I'm sure we can agree that the positive and progress of science has outweighed the negative tremendously. It seems to me that self-correction is more of a positive attribute than a negative one.

Edit: also like Dave Allen already pointed out, the flat-earth "theory" also wasnt a theory.

I sometimes study a bit of music. If you talk to a musician about keys, or flat and sharp, it may not mean the same thing to them as things you unlock doors with, or the opposite of blunt.

This does not make musicians eliteists in my eyes, but they require their terms in order to describe things which make sense in respect to their craft and the philosophy behind it.

I don't think it makes scientists eliteist to point out that when they use the term "theory" it means something more important than "fact" or "observation" - just in the same way a musician uses the term "key" to mean a collection of tones rather than something that opens locks.

It is actually the facts and observations that are under greater suspicion - if you will - because they can be subject to exception, or generated via subjective processes, or whatever.

For example: the fact that carbon dating the shells of sea creatures gives wildly innaccurate results does not impinge on the general body of knowledge gathered by carbon dating - because the method by which certain animnals ingest carbon throughout their lives is understood.

In actuality, when facts are shown to be at odds with the theory it is usually a pointer to scientists to look at the facts and see why they are causing the abberations - it's usually something to do with them rather than the theory itself.

I'm with Kielicious in thinking that "theories" such as flat earth or aether are "theories" in the colloquial sense - not theories as understood by science like the theory of evolution or the theory of gravity. However, it may be that there have been scientific theories that have been overturned since Galileo's time - but I honestly can't think of one. Even if a few have most have gone on to become significant bodies of nderstanding, and to say they have become myths is a wildly misleading claim.

In fact, scientific processes feed the majority of people on this planet, and provide ever better healthcare. I myself have been saved by science on the operating table twice. Despite it's occassional misuse, I think it's pretty ungrateful of people to treat it as some blundering innaccurate process - let alone a "myth".

What was the operation for getting your nickers out of twist?